Sitting of 8 November 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [Lords]
    KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

      MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
      Ordered,
      That so much of the Lords Message [4th November] as relates to the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [Lords], the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] and the Medway Council Bill [Lords] be now considered.
      Resolved,
      That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
      Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  DEFENCE

    Territorial Army
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What is the current strength of the Territorial Army. [96122]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): On the basis of the most recently available data, the strength of the Territorial Army was some 45,000 on 1 September this year.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate A company of the third battalion of The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment? In my constituency, it really took to heart what was said a year ago—that it should contribute to a "heavyweight role" rather than being simply "weekend warriors". It has 11 officers serving overseas, which includes Bosnia and Kosovo. It is, however, deeply disturbed by the lack of resources to train them. The resources and commitment that featured in the rhetoric simply have not been delivered in practice.
    What response does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make, especially in the light of the Defence Committee
    672
    report published today? According to that report, the Ministry of Defence will have to work very hard
    "to demonstrate that the smaller TA truly is better trained than in the past, and better suited for its role in supporting the regular Army."
    Mr. Hoon: I certainly congratulate the Territorial Army in the right hon. Lady's constituency, and I am confident that the proposals in the strategic defence review will contribute to its attempts to become part of an effective contribution to the regular armed forces. I have not had an opportunity to read the Select Committee report in any great detail, but I will do so and will give the right hon. Lady and the House a more detailed response in due course.
    I note that the report is thoroughly well-balanced. The Committee recognises the need to monitor the level of overstretch in our armed forces. It concludes that it is too early to judge the overall health of the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces, but makes specific reference to the new reserves training and mobilisation centre at Chilwell—a place that I know very well, because it is close to my constituency. The report says that it should be regarded as having been a success so far, and that it is a valuable asset.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is dismay in Wales not only at the cut in numbers, but at the potential lowering of the quality of the TA's activities? Is he aware that earlier undertakings to maintain ancillary staff such as caretakers and others involved in the locations where they train have been reneged on, and that redundancies are now being made which make it difficult to keep the weaponry and stocks in those centres? Will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to look at the figures, and to ensure that there is no reduction in quality, over and above the reduction in quantity?
    Mr. Hoon: I shall examine the figures and the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but let me make it clear that the whole point of restructuring the TA is to make it more relevant and more usable, and thus to enhance the quality of its contribution to our regular forces.
    Mr. Robert Key: May I be the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, from the Opposition Dispatch Box, on his recent appointment? We know that he must have one of the very best jobs in the Government.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman reverse the damage to the TA that has occurred since the strategic defence review? It has been cut by 18,000. We were told that there would be no compulsory call-up, but the Government have changed their mind. We were told that TA members would no longer be trained as formed units, but we now hear that they are to be deployed as formed units. Given that the number of TA members volunteering to serve with the regulars has apparently halved in the past six months, and given that employers are becoming reluctant to take on TA members, will the right hon. Gentleman accept the unanimous advice of the Defence Committee

    673
    report, which was published this morning, suspend further reductions in the TA, and reconsider its post-SDR establishment size?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes, although I am not so sure about the rest of his comments. I shall not repeat the points that I have already made about the basis of the SDR in relation to the TA, but I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about compulsory mobilisation.
    A Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a strong supporter and, no doubt, proud to be a member, encouraged the passing of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. That Act allowed for the compulsory mobilisation of members of the Territorial Army—something that members of the TA have broadly welcomed, recognising that it gives them the opportunity to participate effectively in active service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not make the same criticism again. It is clear to me that compulsory mobilisation adds to the quality of our reserve forces, and allows them to make a much more effective contribution in the real world than they may have been able to make in the past.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his kind remarks about the Chilwell mobilisation base in my constituency, whose opening I attended. Is he aware that enthusiasm for the new task is extremely high in the base, and that those to whom I have spoken are somewhat baffled by the Conservatives' idea that it is possible to have a reserve force that turns up or does not turn up when called on, according to individual whim?
    Mr. Hoon: I live close to the Chilwell base, and I know a number of people who work from there. It is my strong impression that those people welcome the changes that the Government promoted in the SDR, and want the TA to play an effective role alongside the regular forces.

    Manning and Recruitment
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on the manning and recruitment targets for the armed forces. [96123]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Achievement of full manning is a key objective of the strategic defence review. The Navy expects to achieve full manning balance by April 2002, the Army by April 2005, and the RAF by April 2001. Recruiting across the three services is buoyant. The Royal Marines are having their best year since 1994, and all services report that they are on course to hit targets.
    Mr. Syms: Following the SDR, we have had reductions in manpower and money for regular and reserve forces. The armed services are clearly suffering from overstretch, and the resulting pressures are causing many people to leave early. We now hear that the Government's magic solution is the recruitment of young offenders. Is it not a
    674
    sad commentary on the Government and an indictment of their policy that they have to scour prisons for recruits for the next century?
    Mr. Spellar: I find it surprising that the Member of Parliament representing Poole did not welcome the good figures for the Royal Marines, which are positive news for his area. Current recruitment figures are the best for a decade. That is partly due to the excellent advertising campaign, the very good recruiting being undertaken on the ground, and the clear messages being given to a range of possible audiences about the attraction of a career in the armed forces. That should be welcomed.
    The hon. Gentleman made some facile comments about stories in the press today. He should welcome the fact that, when appropriate, properly selected individuals will be given a second chance in life. Allowing them to serve their country will be good for them, good for the country and good for the armed forces. I think that it is good news, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so churlish about it.
    Ms Dari Taylor: My hon. Friend has talked about the general recruitment targets. He has also set some demanding targets for the recruitment of ethnic minorities. How are those targets being met? There are also demanding targets for the recruitment of women. What progress is being made on those targets?
    Mr. Spellar: We have set a target of a 1 per cent. increase per year in recruitment from the ethnic communities. That means 3 per cent. of total recruitment this year, 4 per cent. next year and 5 per cent. the year after. The Army looks to be on course to hit those targets. The other two services may not, but the Commission for Racial Equality is enormously enthusiastic about the success that we are having and encouraged by it. All the services have run ethnic recruitment operations around the country, including some run on a tri-service basis. The ethnic recruitment teams have shown enormous enthusiasm and have achieved a good deal of success with their target audience. We do not have a target figure for the recruitment of women, but it is pleasing that 13.2 per cent. of new recruits this year are women. That is an increase in the percentage, which means that we are drawing from a larger pool to get the best of our young people for our armed forces.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is the Minister aware that figures supplied by the House of Commons Library show that in only two of the past eight years have the targets for Army recruitment been met? Is it not clear from those figures, for which the previous Government must take some responsibility, that the failure to recruit adequately is a factor in current overstretch? In those circumstances, is it not unimaginative to reject out of hand the proposal to recruit young offenders, as long as there is no compulsion; those selected demonstrate a genuine desire to lead a more constructive life; and there is careful screening and selection?
    Mr. Spellar: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is unfortunate that some people have so cavalierly rejected an initiative that could give some youngsters who have taken a wrong turn in life an

    675
    opportunity to make the right turn and become useful citizens who contribute to this country. The armed forces will implement all the safeguards that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined. The scheme could give people a second chance and would be good for the country, good for the services and good for the individuals.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend send my congratulations, and those of many hon. Members, to the various recruiting departments for the innovation to which he has referred? He knows my involvement with young people, particularly in our cadet forces. What appalled me for many years was the reluctance to take on youngsters who had committed a misdemeanour in the past. Youngsters sometimes go astray because of their environment. Does my hon. Friend agree that the very structure to which those youngsters can now look forward will give them a second chance and will help them to take the path that we as a society would most welcome, rather than the alternative to which some appear willing to condemn them?
    Mr. Spellar: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, and I want to stress the restrictions and careful safeguards in the exercise. Certain offences will not be ignored. The rules were changed a few years ago to enable people who had served a limited prison sentence to join the armed forces. These proposals, which have been worked out carefully with the Prison Service, would enable those concerned to take courses to show them what life in the services would be like after they have served their sentence. That is encouraging, and shows that the armed forces are taking an imaginative approach. At the same time, it offers a real opportunity to youngsters who may have had an unstructured life to get into the structured life of the armed services, to make something of themselves and to contribute to this country. The forces are warmly to be congratulated on their initiative in this respect.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Despite the Minister's bluster, the reality is that, since the Government came to power, the commitment of Her Majesty's forces is at a level unprecedented at any time since the second world war. Even on best estimates, the level of commitment will be significantly higher than that which the Government inherited. It is not just a matter of recruitment, but of retention of service personnel—between 900 and 1,100 men are leaving the Army alone every month. The situation has got so bad that the Government have had to produce a document for service families which says:
    "We want to make it easier for them to keep in touch with their families, and give them more time together when they return."
    Their time spent together gets less and less because of Government policies. What are the Government going to do about it?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman should tell the House and the nation which of those commitments he would not have undertaken. Would he pull our troops from the streets of Northern Ireland? Does he think that we should not have participated in the NATO operation in Kosovo? The Opposition's foreign affairs spokesman thinks that we should not have participated in East Timor, and that we should have left our friends and allies from Australia
    676
    in the lurch. Those are our commitments. When we came into office, the level of commitment was 29 per cent., which increased to 47 per cent. at its peak. It is now back down to 35 per cent. We are taking measures in Kosovo and Bosnia to reduce that level, and we are implementing a welfare package. We get no answer from the Conservatives as to which commitments they would cut and which operations they think we should not have undertaken. Theirs is a facile view, and there is no joined-up thinking between the Opposition's foreign affairs and defence spokesmen.

    Procurement
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What discussions he has had with his EU colleagues about improved co—operation in defence procurement. [96124]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement are in the process of meeting their European colleagues to take this important issue forward, both on a bilateral and on a multilateral basis.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Is the Minister aware that Europe spends about two thirds of what America spends on defence, but that European taxpayers gets less than 20 per cent. of American capability for their money? Does he agree with the Deputy Secretary of State of the United States, Strobe Talbott, who said recently in London that America wanted to see
    "a strong, integrated, self-confident and militarily capable Europe"?
    Will he ignore the anti-Europeanism of the Conservative party and push forward vigorously with further European defence procurement co-operation, which is good for our defence industry, good for our security and good for the British taxpayer?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Euro-sceptic rubbish exemplified by the letter from the Opposition defence spokesman is true to form for those who put their narrow sectarian interest ahead of the national interest. Along with five of our European partners, we have signed a letter of intent which will lead to the efficiencies in procurement across Europe which we all seek. That will contribute to our collective security in the continent as a whole.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: The House will welcome the action that has already been taken by major British companies in restructuring Europe's defence industries. The restructuring has led to the emergence of more multinational companies to compete more effectively with the United States, although I hope that the Minister will confirm that that development in no way envisages a Fortress Europe, as the north Atlantic links are still very strong. However, what will the Government do about security of supply, which, with multinational companies, becomes much more important?
    Under the letter of intent in the OCCAR arrangements, security of supply is meant to be safe. However, when will the Government deal with the problem of giving those arrangements treaty powers, so that we really know that

    677
    we shall be able to get from multinational suppliers the equipment that we need for our armed forces when they are in action?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Those are clearly matters between the companies concerned. We look for mutual guarantees on security matters. However, I welcome the more constructive view expressed by the hon. Gentleman on the need for that type of restructuring, which was welcomed by Strobe Talbott in his speech of 7 October. I do not think that there is any danger of a division between the United States and Europe on those matters.

    Atomic Weapons Establishment
    Mr. Martin Salter: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of representations concerning the holding of a public inquiry into the health, safety and environmental aspects of the work of the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston. [96125]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Aldermaston is a nuclear licensed site and is subject to independent and strict regulation by the nuclear installations inspectorate and by the Environment Agency. The regulators cover every aspect of the site's operations and procedures as they affect health, safety and the environment. They have power to enforce compliance and to close down operations if they believe such action is justified. They are publicly accountable and publish all information they believe to be significant.
    Mr. Salter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that public fears and concerns have been exacerbated by the recent spate of incidents at AWE Aldermaston, including the unauthorised discharge of radioactive substances into watercourses; the impending prosecution by the Environment Agency; the descaling of the Pangbourne pipeline, resulting in the uncontrolled release of uranium and plutonium particles; and the recent well-publicised breaches of safety procedure? Does he accept that those understandable concerns and fears will be allayed only by a full, open and independent public inquiry, which is the policy of both West Berkshire council and Reading borough council, and was once, in 1994, the policy of the then Opposition?
    Mr. Hoon: I recognise that there is public concern. However, safe operation is of prime importance to the atomic weapons establishment. It is also at the forefront of the minds of the operating company, the Ministry of Defence and the nuclear installations inspectorate. Claims that, in the past year, the AWE has been at risk of major nuclear accident are simply untrue. It is also false to say that the AWE has been seeking to hide anything. The incidents in the articles to which my hon. Friend refers were taken from the AWE's own safety-related incident reports, which are released into the public domain as a matter of routine—in contrast to the somewhat hysterical attitude that has been displayed by certain newspapers.
    I know that my hon. Friend has taken the trouble to visit the site, and that he was impressed with how it was managed and with AWE's policy of openness. In those circumstances, I hope he will accept that, without further
    678
    specific evidence of real risk to the public, employees or the environment, there is currently simply no basis on which to hold a public inquiry.
    Mr. David Rendel: My constituents are split between those who are worried about what is or may be going on at Aldermaston and those who are exasperated, as the Secretary of State said, by the way in which various scare stories are being hyped up by newspapers and others who should know better. Does the Secretary of State agree that both those groups of people would be helped by a full public and open inquiry so we know exactly what is going on and that, if the scare stories are untrue, they shall be seen as such at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Hoon: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is based on real public concern about the way in which those particular stories have been, as he says, hyped up in the newspapers. Nevertheless, I make it clear that the illustrations relied on, particularly by one Sunday newspaper, were ones that were routinely reported and allowed into the public domain. There is therefore nothing to hide, or to discover, which a public inquiry could reveal. It should be emphasised to local people, whether they work at the plant or not, that no present danger to the environment, the work force or the local population was found.
    Mr. John Bercow: In the light of that, what assessment has the right hon. Gentleman personally made of the allegations about environmental contamination? On the strength of his inquiries, does he agree with the organisation that the claims thus far levelled against it are nothing more than irresponsible scaremongering?
    Mr. Hoon: I have examined each of the incidents that the newspaper alleged amounted to a real threat to the environment and local people. The accounts were based on reports that were to be released to the local liaison committee for discussion by people in the immediate area. Having read them carefully, I have not found any credible evidence of damage to the environment, to people who work in the plant or to the local community.

    Kosovo
    Barbara Follett: If he will make a statement on future commitments in Kosovo. [96126]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United Kingdom remains committed to long-term peace and stability in Kosovo, and the Balkans as a whole. KFOR has now reached its intended strength of 50,000. British troops currently contribute a framework brigade headquarters and two battle groups, plus supporting elements—about 5,000 personnel in total, down from a peak of 10,500. We keep our force levels under constant review and do not keep troops in operational theatres longer than is absolutely necessary.
    Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that although we were right to send troops to Kosovo and East Timor, our current level of

    679
    commitment is taking its toll on our forces and their families, and that we should do all that we can to reduce the burden on them?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree that we should aim to reduce our commitments where it is prudent to do so. I am aware of the demands placed on our armed forces and their families by the problems of overstretch. The recent withdrawals from Kosovo underline our commitment to minimise those problems, and I am pleased to tell the House that, following the recent restructuring of SFOR in Bosnia, about 900 of our service personnel will be home for Christmas. That also means that 900 personnel who were expecting to go to Bosnia will not now be deployed there.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are about 14,000 unexploded cluster bombs lying on the ground in Kosovo, which are in effect aerially sown anti-personnel mines that maim and kill the innocent almost daily? As NATO dropped those bomblets, can NATO also play some part in clearing them?
    Mr. Hoon: NATO is playing a considerable part in clearing them. Indeed, United Kingdom troops have cleared more than 1,500 unexploded cluster bomb munitions from our sector—more than 80 per cent. of such unexploded ordnance in that area. KFOR as a whole has cleared more than 3,800 unexploded cluster bomb munitions, in addition to about 4,400 Serbian anti-personnel mines and 2,300 Serbian anti-tank mines.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it true that the Irish Guards is the only unit that does night patrols in Kosovo?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not know, but I shall find out and write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: It is true.
    May I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his job and tell him, as he already knows, how lucky he is to have it, what fun it will be, and how fascinating he will find it? In the order of battle for Kosovo, as the winter approaches and life becomes tougher, will he consider whether he can find additional engineer reserves, whose prime purpose would be to assist in the necessary work of reconstruction?
    Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. When I am stuck for further information I shall know where to come.
    We are considering a variety of ways in which we can assist throughout the winter. Subject to votes in the House, I hope to visit both Bosnia and Kosovo in the next few days. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's specific suggestion and see whether what he asks for is necessary and whether we can carry it through.
    Mr. David Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that deny the atrocities that occurred in Kosovo? Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that there is enough evidence to show how justified the international community was in taking military action? Is he altogether satisfied that enough is being done to protect the lives of civilian Serbs, who can
    680
    in no way be held responsible for the crimes and atrocities that occurred, from the thuggish element among the ethnic Albanians, which—however small it may be—is to a large extent the mirror image of its Serbian counterpart?
    Mr. Hoon: During one of my previous ministerial responsibilities, I happened to be the Foreign Office Minister on duty when details of atrocities discovered by British forces were first made known. There is no doubt from the evidence that it was necessary for NATO to launch Operation Allied Force to prevent what was undoubtedly an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, perpetrated by the forces of Slobodan Milosevic. As for the present security situation, I have had the opportunity of visiting Kosovo and I can tell the House that it is improving. While incidents of intimidation and murder continue to occur, they are declining, and the crime rate in Pristina is lower than in some western cities.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Is not the main lesson of the high continuing commitment in Kosovo and elsewhere that this is an unsuitable time for the Foreign Secretary to offer a blank cheque of further British troops to the United Nations?
    Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not offer the UN a blank cheque. The information to which the hon. Gentleman refers concerns forces that may be available to the UN in the event of their being requested. That is a standard procedure which has been in operation for many years.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the crime rate in Kosovo is falling, but it is still high and includes ethnic killings. Will he give a commitment that western forces will act against such killings wherever they come across them? Many of the Kosovan Serbs who fled into Serbia have been treated badly there, and some will in due course wish to return to Kosovo. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that they will be welcomed back into Kosovo, which will become a better, more multi-ethnic place in the future?
    Mr. Hoon: I wish to make it clear that KFOR troops are providing robust and even-handed protection for everyone in Kosovo, regardless of their ethnic, religious or cultural background. On one of my visits to Kosovo I had the opportunity to meet representatives of the Serbian community. They made it clear that their people across the border in areas controlled by Milosevic were treated badly and were anxious to return. It is obviously the responsibility of the international community to provide a secure situation in Kosovo so that they can be encouraged to go back to their homes.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post? I wish him the best of luck in what is arguably the best job in the Government. The UN document which was mentioned earlier contains a wish list of units and equipment on which it could call. It states that three aircraft capable of heavy lift would be available to the UN, but we have no such aircraft. The action in Kosovo proved the need for them. Will we rent them, or will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make the decision that

    681
    was postponed in the summer and order equipment that the armed forces want? I know that the Marines are due to go to Kosovo soon, but we also understand that as a result of the pressure on money—the Government are to cut a further…600 million in the coming Budget—the Marines will not take part in exercises in Norway, as is their usual custom.
    Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with all the various points made by the hon. Gentleman but first I thank him for his kind words. He and I debated European matters when we both first arrived in the House of Commons. I am sure that his views on Europe have remained the same, and that we shall debate them again in due course.
    There are two separate competitions to supply our forces' requirement for heavy-lift aircraft, in the short term and the long term. Both those competitions are under way, and I anticipate that they will both reach successful conclusions.
    The decision about the marines was taken not because of lack of resources. We have heard already today about the pressure that our forces face as a result of their constant involvement in operations. Training in Norway and in Arctic conditions clearly puts a great strain on them. We have sought to relieve that strain by cancelling the operation for this particular year.
    Mr. Frank Roy: I welcome the news that many service personnel will return from Bosnia in time for Christmas with their families. However, will my right hon. Friend assure me that everything will be done to ensure that those accused of war crimes in Bosnia will still be brought to justice?
    Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There will be no let-up in the effort to track down those suspected of war crimes. In fact, British forces have been more successful than the forces of any other nation represented in Bosnia in bringing war criminals to justice. They have worked hard to ensure that none of those accused of war crimes escapes justice.

    Procurement
    Mr. Simon Burns: What changes against planned expenditure on defence procurement there have been this year. [96127]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I expect expenditure on defence systems procurement this financial year to be within the level reported in the Government's expenditure plans.
    Mr. Burns: Given that an important part of the manufacturing base in Chelmsford relies on defence contracts, may I say how pleased I am that Alenia Marconi will benefit from the signing of the contract for the principal anti-aircraft missile contract. However, is the Minister confident that the smart procurement savings will be made? If not, is he prepared to make a commitment that the Government will make up from other sources the shortfall in funding for defence procurement?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I am absolutely confident that all the objectives associated with smart procurement will be
    682
    reached. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to that matter, as the initiative has proved extremely attractive, in our defence budget and across Europe. I am also pleased to tell him that it is likely that Chelmsford will benefit from the principal anti-air missile for future warships project to the extent of some…100 million of investment. I do not foresee any change in that, under present circumstances.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What progress is being made on the procurement decision for the beyond visible range anti-aircraft missile? Many companies and jobs depend on that decision. It is to be hoped that the British Aerospace Meteor programme—which is a pan-European missile—will be successful. If we do not get that, we will lose the relevant technology in this country.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: It is true to say that all such projects depend on the effectiveness of the product, and on value for money. The competition is fair and open. We must assess each bid as it comes in for the projects under consideration.
    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I remind the Minister that the paragraph 96 of the strategic defence review identified an "urgent" need to improve our strategic transport. It suggested that the short-term solution was to acquire four McDonnell Douglas C-17 aircraft, or their equivalent. Is not that a grave deficiency that must be rectified at the earliest possible date? Was not the Secretary of State being disingenuous when he said that the short-term strategic transport aircraft requirement continued? I received a letter from Baroness Symons, the Minister for Defence Procurement, saying that the requirement had been terminated. No decision has been reached, but confusion continues.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is confusing two different competitions. We fully intend to procure four aircraft in the short term, by one means or another, but we recognise that there are two separate issues. It may be argued that the long-term contract is even more important than the short-term. Responses have been received from Airbus Industrie, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Each will be considered in due course.

    Air Training Corps
    Mr. James Plaskitt: If he will make a statement about his Department's measures to support recruitment through Air Training Corps. [96128]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The principal role of the Air Training Corps is as a national youth organisation. Its aims are to foster a spirit of adventure and develop qualities of leadership and good citizenship. It is, however, a valuable source of recruits and, with that in mind, RAF recruiting teams aim to visit every ATC squadron twice a year.
    Mr. Plaskitt: The Warwick and Leamington Spa squadron of the ATC, which I had the pleasure of visiting recently, does an excellent education and training job with young people as well as producing many enthusiastic

    683
    recruits for our armed forces. However, for more than three years, the squadron has had to operate in temporary and shared accommodation. Will my hon. Friend look into the squadron's accommodation to see whether any assistance might be offered?
    Mr. Spellar: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the interest that he has shown in the Warwick and Leamington Spa ATC. I agree that the accommodation is not ideal, although it is adequate. The lease on the building is due for renewal, which may allow a change in location, depending on the availability of suitable and affordable alternatives. I understand that there are hopes that the squadron may collocate with an Army Cadet Force unit in a new building. I shall ask my officials to liaise with my hon. Friend on developments.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: As we are discussing service recruitment, may I put it to the Minister that when I did my basic training as a national service private soldier, some of the best chaps in my platoon were former borstal boys? One of them taught me how to get out of handcuffs, one of the few technological skills that I have ever acquired. Many young men get into trouble because they have never been connected with any organisation in which they could take pride. Nor have they ever had proper leadership. Many such chaps—though not, of course, all of them—would make first-class soldiers if they were carefully picked.
    Mr. Spellar: Given the hon. Gentleman's illustrious career in the City, I wonder whether those were golden handcuffs.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that positive contribution and for offering a breadth of experience that has been less apparent in some of the other remarks that we have heard on this matter. I thank him, too, for reinforcing the importance of the cadet forces. In many parts of the country they provide scope for leadership and a structured life through involvement in structured organisations. Many youngsters go on to serve in our armed forces, although that is not the sole, or even primary, purpose of the cadet forces. Those youngsters rise well through the forces, and there is an extremely good retention rate among them. The money that we are investing in the cadet forces is good for the services and for the community and the country. The hon. Gentleman's points were well made.

    Learning Forces Initiative
    Mr. Syd Rapson: If he will make a statement on the progress of the Learning Forces Initiative. [96129]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The learning forces range of measures is giving armed forces personnel enhanced opportunities for self-development, linked to achievement of academic, vocational and professional qualifications. By fostering service people's lifelong learning, the initiative is
    684
    preparing them for their eventual return to civilian life. Our learning forces programme forms an important aspect of our policy for people in the armed forces.
    Mr. Rapson: Although the initiative is very welcome, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that a substantial number of naval personnel are away at sea for extended periods? There is a need for more information technology and distance-learning facilities. My constituency has a substantial population of Navy personnel. Can the Minister assure me that the learning forces initiative will facilitate their needs?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question because he highlights the different circumstances that apply to different services. We recognise the special difficulties for lifelong learning imposed on the Navy by the necessity of service at sea. That is why enhanced information technology-based learning facilities are being trialled on HMS Invincible. Depending on that trial's success, we will look for further opportunities for IT-based learning on ships.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister knows that I represent many serving and retired officers. Despite the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell), several of them told me this weekend of their concern that the Government are concentrating in the strategic defence review on what they say are their policies for people, such as the learning forces initiative, to prevent the service people who have been leaving in droves in response to the Government's overstretch policies from leaving the services. It would be better to concentrate on looking after the men and officers already serving than to take desperate measures such as trying to recruit from the criminal classes.
    Mr. Spellar: Oh dear! Things have degenerated slightly. The hon. Gentleman is not only wrong about recruitment policy but underestimates the considerable advances that are being made on retention measures, whether through the service task force initiative, the work that we are doing with other Departments to improve the position of service families, the learning forces initiative or the work that we are undertaking so that our service men and women can have qualifications that are recognised externally so as to be portable to their future careers in the civilian world. If he talked not to the retired service men who may be putting that view but to active service men and women about the greater educational opportunities that already exist and the further developments that are taking place, he would have a different perspective.

    Armed Forces (Homosexuals)
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: What assessment he has made of the effects on armed forces discipline of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on homosexuals in Britain's armed forces. [96130]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): My predecessor made it clear on 27 September this year that we accepted the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases brought by

    685
    homosexual former members of the armed forces. We have set in hand an urgent review of policy in this area in the light of the judgment. I shall announce the outcome of that review as soon as possible.
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. However, given the deep and profound hostility among service men throughout the country to this ruling, and given that the Government argued vigorously at the European Court of Human Rights that to allow openly homosexual people to join the forces would be deeply damaging to their operational effectiveness, is it now his position that operational effectiveness will not be damaged, or is he prepared to accept that an Albanian, an Austrian and a Lithuanian judge are entitled to usurp the right of this House and our elected Government to determine the composition of the Her Majesty's armed forces?
    Mr. Hoon: I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that this Government intend to uphold the law. In the light of the decision by the European Court of Human Rights, it is clear that we need a revised policy that sustains operational effectiveness and is within the law. Discipline is a key element in ensuring that we continue to have operationally effective forces. That is why we will underpin any new policy with a code of conduct that will operate across the three services and cover personal relationships and sexual behaviour generally.
    Mr. David Borrow: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the progress that the Government are now making. Does he agree that, as we near the end of the 20th century, homophobic bigotry has no place in Her Majesty's armed forces and that it should not determine the recruitment policies of the military?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I have made it clear that the Government—unlike, apparently, some Opposition Members—are determined to uphold the law, but that we will do so in a way consistent with the operational effectiveness of our armed forces.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: The question relates to the impact of the judgment on the effectiveness of the armed forces. The European Court gave a split decision by seven judges, one of whom was so biased that he would have failed the Hoffman test and none of whom have served in the armed forces, but the Government tell us that they have no opinion as to the impact on the armed forces of the decision. When he was shadow spokesman on defence, the present Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) said:
    "Let me repeat that we in the Labour party have never given the green light to homosexual activity, conduct or relationships in the armed forces…We fully accept the particular conditions of the armed forces and that homosexual…relationships…can undermine and be prejudicial to good order and morale."—[Official Report, 4 May 1995; Vol. 259, c. 527.]
    At that time, the Conservatives supported that view and we support it now. Does the Secretary of State think that
    686
    the judgment will have an effect on the efficiency, good morale and good order of the armed forces?
    Mr. Hoon: I am still unclear as to the position of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. I have made the Government's position absolutely clear: we will uphold the rule of law, and promote a policy that is consistent both with the rule of law and with operational effectiveness. It is important that Members on the Opposition Front Bench make it clear whether they are equally willing to uphold the law. I have discussed this matter with the Chief of the Defence Staff on several occasions; I am sure that I shall do so again before any final decisions are reached. However, as soon as those decisions are reached, I shall make a statement to the House.

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

    Church Buildings (VAT)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What progress has been made towards reducing VAT on labour—intensive repairs to church buildings; and if he will make a statement. [96158]
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What recent representations he has received concerning VAT on church repairs; and if he will make a statement. [96161]
    Mr. Stuart Bell(Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I have received a number of representations on the matter, and the commissioners have joined the other central bodies of the Church of England in sending a detailed response to the Government's consultation document, issued by the Treasury in March this year. The Church is concerned that the consultation document repeats the view that European Commission regulations mean that the United Kingdom Government cannot consider introducing new VAT reliefs. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the Church feels that there may be some scope for extending reduced VAT rates through an extension of items listed by the European Union Commission in annexe H to the sixth directive.
    Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he inform the House what progress has been made—especially in regard to my representations in the House and to representations from the other place? I understand that the hon. Gentleman might be minded to support the exemptions to which he referred. What support might we receive from the Paymaster General towards that end?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for the campaign. The General Synod, meeting in York during the summer, debated a motion on the scope and rate of VAT as it affects the ministry of the Church. On a vote, the motion was carried without dissent. A similar

    687
    view is held by those representing other faiths and secular charities. I hope to make a statement shortly as to how we might proceed with the campaign.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I fully support the hon. Gentleman if he feels able personally to mount a campaign to persuade the Government on this vexed question of VAT on repairs to Church buildings. Does he accept that, in essence, the problem is that, although the Government, with one hand, give certain grants on certain occasions to certain Churches, they take, with both hands, an axe called 17½ per cent. VAT on repairs? In support of his campaign, will he recognise that, in all equity, any relief on VAT for repairs to church buildings should cover all Churches—not only his own—and indeed the buildings of other established religious organisations?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those questions. I shall be seeking a place in the ballot to obtain an Adjournment Debate on the subject. The many different faith traditions in the UK, which are represented by the Church's main committee, and many other charities should be grouped together in the campaign. I hope that the Church, through the Second Church Estates Commissioner, will be able to give leadership in the campaign and that it will be fruitful.
    Mr. David Taylor: May I, uncharacteristically, echo the comments of the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman)? My hon. Friend's answer will be disappointing to churchwardens in the Akeley South deanery in North-West Leicestershire, who attended a recent meeting led by the Bishop of Leicester at which the topic most often raised was the immense difficulty experienced by thousands of communities in rural areas in raising money to repair their beautiful buildings, most of which are listed, in addition to which…1 of every…7 they raise goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will my hon. Friend continue his campaign?
    Mr. Bell: The campaign is in rather early days for my answer to have been disappointing. Since the beginning of time, Caesar—that is, the state—has received whatever he wants, and we are about to end the millennium rendering unto Caesar VAT that is too heavy and too unreformed.
    Jane Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that the diocese of Oxford is a landowner in an area in my constituency where the economy is booming and land prices are high; and that the diocese has proposed that St. Barnabas church and its associated hall, which lie at the heart of their community in south Reading, should be torn down and bulldozed for profit? Will he give an assurance that such activities on the part of the diocese can be limited?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me prior notice of her question. I have read the Reading Chronicle so as to be able to answer it. The position of the Church Commissioners is that we have received no proposals from the diocese about that church; at this stage, it is entirely a matter for the Oxford diocese. The
    688
    commissioners have a quasi-judicial role, which they might have to exercise in this case, so I am not able to take the matter further on the Floor of the House.

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

    Departmental Market Testing
    Mr. John Bercow: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the resources available to determine the effectiveness of market testing by Government Departments. [96159]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The commission has to ensure that the National Audit Office has sufficient resources to carry out its work on a range of issues across all Government Departments and agencies. I am satisfied that that is the case at present, including, where appropriate, examinations of market testing by Government Departments. The NAO has conducted numerous detailed studies of market tests carried out by Government Departments and agencies, including services tested by means of public-private partnerships and the private finance initiative.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Has there been any recent comparative study of the individual performance of different Government Departments in respect of market testing? What criteria have informed that study or evaluation? Is he now satisfied that examples of expensive disservice and slovenliness have been rooted out in favour of good practice and maximum value for money for the British taxpayer?
    Mr. Sheldon: The NAO carries out many studies and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is important that they cover the whole range of Government Departments. An essential element of the work is that comparisons are made and presented to the commission, which meets next month to consider those and other matters.

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

    Genetically Modified Organisms
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: When the commissioners expect to make a statement on the proposal to allow experimental growing of genetically modified organisms on the agricultural land for which they are responsible. [96160]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The issue of whether commissioners' land should be leased to allow trials of genetically modified crops to take place is being considered

    689
    initially by the Church's ethical investment working group, which develops a co-ordinated ethical investment policy for the Church.
    Mr. Pike: Are any GM crops currently being grown on Church-owned land?
    Mr. Bell: Currently, no GM crops are being grown on Church land. However, the commissioners have previously stated that, in respect of currently let tenanted farm land, it would be difficult in practice to stop our farmers from growing GM crops, should they want to do so. Like many farmers, ours have freedom of cropping and an attempt by the commissioners to prevent a tenant from growing GM crops might be challenged in the courts.

    Wildlife
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What is his policy relating to the conservation of wildlife on Church Commissioners' land. [96162]
    Mr. Stuart Bell(Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners have an overall wildlife and conservation plan, which was drawn up by the farming and wildlife advisory group for each of their agricultural estates. The plans are adopted and implemented as appropriate.
    Mr. Robathan: I am glad to have that response. However, as the Church Commissioners examine investments ethically, will they move towards ensuring that all farming on Church land is environmentally friendly—that ties in with the previous question—and wildlife friendly? The Church Commissioners could thus—dare I say it—put their money where their mouth is and take a truly ethical stance by preserving the countryside.
    Mr. Bell: The Church Commissioners take those matters seriously and consult their managers regularly. In view of their support for wildlife, we take environmentally friendly farming into account, but game shooting and foxhunting are matters for the agricultural and sporting tenants to determine.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I informed you earlier today, last Thursday the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), told the House that, on 30 September, he had relinquished his responsibilities as Minister for London and that, on that date, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), became Minister for London and took responsibility for all decisions on London policy, including the Greater London Authority Bill.
The Minister for Housing and Planning also told the House that all responsibility for policy matters relating to the Bill, including amendments tabled since 30 September, rested with that Under-Secretary and that the Minister was present simply in an advisory role. Yet the amendment on impeachment, which we tackled first on Thursday 4 November, was tabled after 30 September and considered in another place on 12 October. The Minister—not the Under-Secretary—dealt with the amendment in the House, 12 days after his resignation as Minister for London. Was it in order for the Minister to do that?
As the Minister continues to speak for the Government, and given the guidelines in the code for Ministers, there is a conflict of interest between his public duties and his private duties as campaign manager for the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The Minister is in his place and, despite what he told the House last week, he clearly takes the lead role and the
692
responsibility for guiding the Bill's passage. In the light of the ministerial code on conflicts of interest, has the Minister sought guidance from your office, Madam Speaker, on that conflict of interest? If so, can you give the House your ruling on the matter?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that point of order, which he helpfully did at some length. I can deal with it all the more speedily because I have had sight of it for some time and have been able to examine it.
The hon. Gentleman speaks of the application of the ministerial code. It is not for the Speaker to interpret or enforce that code. The hon. Gentleman must find other methods of pursuing the matter.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Even as the House debated the Greater London Authority Bill on Thursday, the Government tabled yet more amendments—including an important amendment, which the Secretary of State tabled, to disagree with the House of Lords. The amendments can only have appeared on the Order Paper on Friday. That hardly gave the House proper time to consider them at all—and certainly not in the context of the timetable motion.
Are you satisfied, Madam Speaker, that the timetable motion can possibly allow the House to consider properly amendments that were only tabled on Thursday and that appeared on the Order Paper on Friday? Can that be right?
Madam Speaker: The timetable motion is perfectly in order. As far as I and many hon. Members are concerned, Friday is a proper, full working day.

Greater London Authority Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)
3.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move, Madam Deputy Speaker—sorry, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Get it right.
Mr. Hill: That is an unforgivable error, which no one could make in normal circumstances. At least I remember one thing: I am Minister for London.
I beg to move,
That the Order of the House of 13th January 1999 relating to the Greater London Authority Bill be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1.—(1) Proceedings on further Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock.
(2) The remaining Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely:
Nos. 41 to 126, 499, 127 to 212, 703, 213 to 422, 541, 793, 423 to 425, 426 to 498, 500 to 540, 542 to 702, 704 to 792 and 794 to 820.
(3) Each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

Lords amendments

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Nos. 41 to 126, 499, 127 to 212, 703, 213 to 422, 541, 793 and 423 to 425

8.00 p.m.

Nos. 426 to 498, 500 to 450, 542 to 702, 704 to 792 and 794 to 820

10.00 p.m.

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment followed by the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(c) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(d) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(3) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
5. For the purpose of bringing these proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message; and

(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee
6. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
7.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided; and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in one of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
8. This paragraph applies to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments;

(b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords; and

(c) proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 6.

9. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.
10. Proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
11. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Urgent matters), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.
12. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings are taken; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
13. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
14. If a Minister of the Crown makes a Motion for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Motion.
15. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
The Greater London Authority Bill implements our manifesto and White Paper commitment to create a mayor and Assembly for London. It implements policies endorsed overwhelmingly in last year's referendum. It is not, and should not be, a controversial piece of legislation. Indeed, during the Bill's passage through another place, on only one issue was an Opposition amendment carried in a Division.
Like any long and complex Bill, this Bill has been amended. However, that is not without precedent. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explained last week, the Railways Act 1993, which was a much more contentious measure and a third of the size of the Bill, came back to the House with 470 amendments. That is proportionately twice the number of amendments that the House is now being asked to consider. Moreover, the vast majority of the amendments made to the Bill in another place were technical, many reflecting helpful points raised by Members during consideration in both Houses. Their number reflects the length and complexity of the Bill rather than any last-minute changes in policy.
Two days have been allocated for this stage of consideration of the Bill. The House will recall that the Bill went through its earlier Commons stage on an agreed programme motion. Agreement on timetabling was offered, formally and informally, on this occasion, but the Opposition rejected it. Given the generally non-contentious nature of the amendments before us, it should have been perfectly possible to complete the discussion amicably in two days. It is unfortunate, therefore, that Conservative Members sought to curtail proper debate on Thursday by indulging in time wasting of the crudest kind, thereby making the motion necessary.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: No, the right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to contribute to the debate.
The Bill is an important part of the Government's programme. We are committed to ensuring that its passage is secured. I commend the revised motion to the House.
3.37 pm
Mr. John Redwood: What a pathetic performance from the Minister. He does not even know, Madam Speaker, that you are Madam Speaker, although I am pleased to say that you have been in that post for a long time. He does not know whether he is the Minister for London, or whether the Minister for Housing and Planning still has that job. We know that there is a back-seat driver, and there may even be a front-seat driver sitting next to this junior Minister.
The Government need more guillotines than the French revolution, and for rather less consequence, but this Bill should not be guillotined tonight, because the Government are rewriting it as they go along. I have never seen such a mighty list of amendments tabled so late to a Bill. More
696
than 800 Government amendments have been tabled, reflecting the acceptance by the Minister in the other place that the Bill is a mess and a farce, and the acceptance by the draftsmen that the job that these Ministers have done is so bad that great chunks of the Bill had to be rewritten after it had been through its Committee stages in both Houses of Parliament. Any decent, self-respecting Government would start again. They would come here to apologise and say that they have made a mighty mess. They would start again with a new Committee stage and a new Bill that had been properly amended and properly thought through, so that we could scrutinise it and do our job.
The Minister may say that we do not need to debate this motion, but he does not like democracy. I have got news for him: people outside the House value their democracy and they think that such major constitutional measures should be properly drafted and properly discussed. They will share my sense of outrage and insult that the Bill is being treated in this way and that the House of Commons has been sidelined and scoffed at by the Minister, who should know much better.
Mr. Nigel Beard: Was it a symptom of the right hon. Gentleman's attachment to democracy that he supported the abolition of the Greater London council, which left London with no democratic authority whatever?
Mr. Redwood: My credentials in favour of democracy are extremely strong. I am a great believer in elected boroughs throughout London that can carry the voice of the people into the council chamber and make the right decisions. What I dislike about this Government is their attitude towards this great Parliament and their refusal to let us have proper debate. They stifle debate and then return with an apology of a Bill which has so many amendments that the House does not have a chance to consider them.
Do not just take my word for how unsatisfactory the legislation is. We have on the record from another place the view of the Minister, Lord Whitty, who has been handling it there. Stating how bad the Bill was, he said:
"I am not going to put my hand on my heart and say that everything is absolutely right with this Bill and that we shall not have to legislate within the foreseeable future."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 673.]
Even after 800-odd Government amendments, the Minister accepts that the Bill is still a mess, that the Government may have to come back to the House in the future, and that there may well need to be amendments to the amendments, some of which are no doubt already amendments to amendments, so many stages has this miserable legislation undergone.
There are many things wrong with the Bill that require time for proper debate on the Floor of the House, in the light of the Government's revised views. It is time to bring the public up to date with the shenanigans over transport in London. We know that the Government are about to sign up to a public-private partnership, or at least, we think they are, because we have read it in the press. Some of what the Government tell the press is accurate. In this case, I believe what the Government are telling the press. They probably are close to signing up to a public-private partnership.

697
What is the point of electing a mayor to high office in London to sort out London's transport system, if the main decisions have already been taken by the Secretary of State behind closed doors, without proper scrutiny, without a proper statement to the House of Commons and without even a proper debate on the issues tonight if time is used up on other momentous points before we reach those crucial clauses?
We are worried about the Government's attitude to parking and congestion. We know that their policy in general is tax and tax again—if it moves, tax it; if does not move, tax it; if it both moves and stays still, tax it on both occasions. We know that that is their policy, and deep in the clauses and amendments there are powers and statements relevant to it. That surely is worthy of a major debate in the Chamber this afternoon and this evening, but we will not have enough time for it because of the Government's mean-minded guillotine motion.
Mr. Phil Hope: The right hon. Gentleman is taking up time.
Mr. Redwood: I am told that I have no right to complain about the allocation of time. I intend to keep my remarks short. The Government cannot be bothered to give us a decent amount of time for the Bill, but I have every right in this place to tell the public of London and the nation how we are being treated, how they are being treated, how measures on big issues such as parking, congestion, traffic and transport are being rushed through, with huge powers in the Bill and huge changes in the amendments, and no opportunity to discuss them properly.
We heard on Thursday, in a debate that was full of substance and was not part of any filibuster—there was no filibuster—that there is no serious power in the Bill to allow the Assembly to control or discipline the mayor. What is the point of the Assembly unless it can engage with what the mayor is doing and, in extreme circumstances, remove the mayor from office? We had no satisfactory answers from Ministers.
We are now told that our wish to discuss that fundamental constitutional principle, with many good contributions from both sides of the Chamber, was part of a filibuster and justifies the Government's action in imposing the guillotine today. They should look at the facts of that debate. If they saw what took place on Thursday, they would know that in a debate of five and three quarter hours, Ministers and Labour Back-Benchers took up two hours, and half an hour was spent in Divisions.
I have seen hon. Members trying to filibuster in the House, particularly when Labour was in opposition. I remember Ministers speaking for three or four minutes, and Opposition Back Benchers speaking for three or four hours. That is the sort of balance that occurs when there is an attempt to talk a Bill out. The debate on Thursday was serious. It was constrained because we were all conscious of the lack of time, and the fact that the time was so evenly balanced across the Chamber shows that Labour Back Benchers and Ministers also recognised that there were serious points at issue, which needed proper discussion.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he identify a single issue raised in that debate that had not previously been debated in Committee and in the other place?
Mr. Redwood: All the issues were new, because they concerned new wording for the Bill proposed by the Government. The Minister cannot say that we were not entitled to scrutinise the detailed recommendations or lack of them because some of the general points had been discussed previously. We had before us a most important amendment that needed to be discussed on the Floor of the House, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman dares to suggest that the House should not have been able to discuss a matter of such fundamental importance. I stress that we were not trying to talk the Bill out; we were trying to talk some sense into it.
Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because, as is usual these days, he has singularly understated his case in dissecting that of the Government. Does he not agree that it is highly significant that, there are only five Labour Back Benchers present to witness this denial of democracy that the Government intend to perpetrate today? Will it not be interesting to observe whether they are members of the pre-programmed robotic tendency or whether they feel able to deliver themselves of a word of criticism of the Government's outrageous conduct?
Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend's thrust. I hope that some Labour Back Benchers will realise that the Bill's drafting contains serious defects and bring that to the attention of the House.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that we did not range even wider last Thursday because a number of us sat on our hands and kept our mouths shut in order to make progress?
Mr. Redwood: That is quite right. I had to sit on my hands and keep quiet when I felt like intervening because I knew that time was so limited.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I spoke for only six minutes during that debate, but the Whip sat on me because even that was judged too long. Was my speech a filibuster? Is not there something wrong with our procedures when we spent the whole of last Monday discussing whether we should print Acts of Parliament on vellum, and finished early, but are spending just two days discussing 800 amendments?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. We finished early last Monday and the House has had the longest holidays in living memory, but the Government dare to introduce such momentous legislation on a rushed timetable.
The Labour mayoral candidates are so embarrassed by the Bill that they have not attended this crucial debate. On Thursday, only one candidate was present for part of the time—the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras

699
(Mr. Dobson) turned up—but we wonder why the others do not attend, do not vote and do not take an interest. We also wonder why the Minister for Housing and Planning does all the talking, and his right hon. Friend does none, when he is only the campaign manager—an odd role to combine with that of the Minister making such important decisions. [Interruption.]
Mr. Shaun Woodward: The Minister says that this is boring.
Mr. Redwood: Now the Minister dares to tell us that this is all boring when we are dealing with the substance of the argument about democracy in London—his Bill, who should be mayor and under what conditions the mayor should be appointed. One can only conclude that Greenwich fiddles while Holborn and St. Pancras burns. We see him looking all too shaken, because we know that he is guilty: as a Minister making decisions on matters so close to his political interests, he ought properly to resign from his role in respect of the Bill and disappear. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should appear, declare his legitimate interest and make a contribution to the proceedings.
I am conscious that there is not sufficient time to discuss the motion and that we want to debate many weighty issues properly this evening. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends want to contribute, and I suspect that some Labour and Liberal Members want to do so as well, so I urge the House to reject the guillotine motion. As I fear that it will not, I shall conclude my remarks.
3.49 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I reiterate the point made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the complexity of the Bill. We have received 820 amendments from the other place and although a large number of them are technical, they have important consequences for how the Bill will be implemented. I should point out that the other place took one decision by amending the Bill—the Minister was good enough to refer to it—that relates to the capacity of the Assembly to recall the mayor. I take exception to the suggestion that Thursday's debate in the House on the one change imposed by the other place was a filibuster. We had to give that matter serious consideration. The debate was not a mistake; it was our constitutional duty to have it. Serious issues are at stake and it is entirely proper for the House to give time and thought to them.
When I asked the Leader of the House about the guillotine at business questions last week, part of the excuse given for it was that others had tabled guillotine motions in the past and that previous Bills had been subject to large numbers of amendments. Again today, the Minister has said that we should reconsider the Railways Act 1993, to which 470 amendments were tabled—four times as many pro rata as to this Bill. Those observations are a criticism of the size and complexity of the Bill in its original form; it does not excuse the fact that we have more than 800 amendments to consider in two days, which is simply unachievable.
700
May I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to the table in the motion, where reference is made to clauses that will be considered at 10 pm? The motion refers to amendments Nos. 426 to 498 and then to Nos. 500 to 450. We shall no doubt—
Madam Speaker: Order. May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? It is a misprint. The motion should refer to amendments Nos. 500 to 540. It was wise of the hon. Gentleman to bring the mistake to my attention and that of the House.
Mr. Stunell: That, Madam Speaker, proves that the Bill is so complicated and complex that, even when the Government list the clauses to be timetabled, it is difficult to get the information correct. That mistake encapsulates the difficulties that the motion poses for the House, and reveals the Government's arrogance in pushing it forward.
Some key issues in the Bill will now probably not be considered properly. Those include the public-private partnership arrangements, which amount to the privatisation of a major nationalised industry—the London tube. The Bill proposes a major change in the financing of one of the capital's most important institutions, and the relevant amendment appears on the Order Paper for decision this evening. However, the relevant debates will almost certainly be too truncated to allow serious discussion of the proposals' merits. That service has a tremendous impact on the capital and it is a vital issue in the forthcoming mayoral campaign. It will, however, be completely side-stepped as a result of the motion.
Other issues are also at stake. Road user charging, a new principle for the country, is to be piloted under this legislation, but it will not be subject to proper scrutiny in the House. Consultation with disabled groups will also be skated around.
The only decision with which the House of Lords disagreed, mayoral recall—and it did so by a majority of two to one, which was not a marginal disagreement or even one to which those who have subsequently lost their places there contributed—is now being held up as the reason why we have to have a guillotine motion preventing us from discussing such vital matters.
The Liberal Democrats oppose the timetable motion. We believe that it is a recipe for making complex legislation worse and that it undermines attempts made in this House and elsewhere to improve the legislative process so that, in future, we can produce legislation of which we are proud, rather than that which we have to excuse. We also believe that the motion makes the prospect of a Greater London Authority that is able to exercise its powers in a straightforward way more difficult to achieve.
3.54 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: Normally, we would have welcomed the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport arid the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). He is new to the job, and we would have thought that he would be keen to impress, and to make a bit of a name for himself in London. His performance was perfunctory in the extreme, however. Long may he remain in his present role: on the basis of today's performance, he will lose a lot of votes for Labour.

701
The Labour party's action in guillotining the debate demonstrates a supreme contempt for democracy which would have done justice to the Socialist Unity party in the German Democratic Republic that came to an end 10 years ago. Londoners and others will not ignore the fact—we certainly have not ignored it—that Thursday's debate was rightly taken up mostly by what people regard as the very essence of democracy, namely accountability: the ability to bring to account those who exercise executive responsibility by virtue of their democratic election to the mayoralty. None of us, I am sure, felt that we had spoken for too long in any sense, although we may have felt that the Minister for Housing and Planning—who was being his usual charming, affable self—did speak for a little too long. In fact, we thought that he spoke for much too long.
The truth is that the Minister should not have spoken at all. He continues to take the Queen's shilling, but spends most of his time as campaign manager for the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Most people in London would not regard that as an appropriate use of taxpayers' money; they believe that Ministers of the Crown are paid to do their job full time. We have learned that the Minister's job, from September, is not to be Minister for London, and we therefore wonder why he is here—except, of course, to help out the Under-Secretary, who is so new to these matters that he cannot advance an argument in favour of the guillotine for more than two minutes.
Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the interests of value for money for the taxpayer and the propriety of the Minister fulfilling the responsibilities for which he is paid rather than those for which he is not, it would be very much in the interests of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) if the Minister spent less time on his campaign and more time in the House?
Mr. Wilkinson: I leave that to the judgment of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who before too long will himself be judged by that egregious college which is the Labour party's selectorate. If he pleases that egregious college, he will go on to be judged by the much more discriminating electoral college composed of the people of London. It will be a matter for those twin judgments.
The Government had plenty of time. We could have continued much later than 7 pm on Thursday. The Government like a cosy life: they do not wish the myriad amendments that they have incorporated in the Bill to be properly discussed. Discussing and considering amendments, however, is an important function. We cannot simply incorporate provisions in legislation. One point was agreed by Members on both sides of the House at the outset: the devil is in the detail. We have had no time to discuss that devilish detail, and much do we bewail the fact. Similarly, we could have continued until much later than 10 o'clock tonight if the business managers had organised the debate properly.
As was made clear by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), exceedingly important issues are involved. Let me refer to another aspect of the
702
public-private partnership. The electors of London, and the people of this country, will wonder why so little time has been allotted for us to discuss provisions relating to the PPP for the tube, when more than half a billion pounds of taxpayers' money must be spent on remedying the deficiencies of this policy which is still not in place.
Then there is the question of amendment No. 555, and the power to appoint staff. The Government love appointing people. Labour is, par excellence, the patronage party. In the intermediate period between the election and the mayor's assumption of responsibilities in July next year, the Secretary of State will be able to pack the Greater London Authority with his cronies. That is not democratic and it deserves considerable discussion tonight.
Last but not least, there is the issue of road user charges. I gather that they are to be based on distance travelled as well as the use of a vehicle to get to work. My constituents, who have to travel long distances to get to work because the public transport system is still inadequate, will not be delighted by that. Nor will they be enthused by Labour's attempts to diminish the reasonable opportunities afforded to Back Benchers and others to debate the issue.
All in all, the Government's performance is shameful, disreputable and shoddy. No wonder the Under-Secretary spoke for such a short time. Had he spoken any longer he would have brought the measure into even more disrepute.
4.1 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: Proceedings on the Bill before it went to the Lords were a model for the lack of rancour with which they were conducted. There were occasional moments, but there are in any Committee. The Minister for Housing and Planning earned the praise of the Committee at the end of the proceedings for the manner in which he had conducted them. I am very sorry that the Government have tabled a guillotine motion, because it has introduced some rancour to the House's deliberations on a Bill which everyone agrees is important.
I admire the Leader of the House. I am glad that she survived the July and October reshuffles, because she is a good Leader of the House. I am not criticising her, but there was a time when the holder of her post attended and moved the motion in debates on guillotines. The right hon. Lady's one failing is that she has some of the characteristics of the speaking clock when she reads out that there is going to be a guillotine motion. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) drew attention to the fact that her two references to the first debate taking four hours were inaccurate by 53 minutes, because it took three hours and seven minutes, although I acknowledge that it was followed by a Division. Not having Divisions is very new Labour. It may be a reflection of the evils of Conservatism that we retain an old-fashioned democratic affection for an occasional vote, so I do not feel bad about the fact that we divided at the end of the first debate. Even so, the right hon. Lady greatly exaggerated the length of time that it took.
When the Bill came to us in Committee it had 270 clauses and 30 schedules. We added a further 30 clauses in Committee. It then went off to the House of Lords. My understanding is that after the to-ing and fro-ing with the

703
House of Lords is concluded, the Bill will have 413 clauses. That means that the Bill will have more than a third as many clauses as it had when it left this House and will have increased in size by more than 50 per cent. since it first went to the Standing Committee all those days ago in January. That is a massive increase, reinforcing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said.
I shall not follow others—started by the Minister for Housing and Planning—in referring to candidates. Several Labour Members are, in one of Mr. Neil Kinnock's famous phrases, fighting like ferrets in a sack. In these days of political correctness, I should not want to say anything that was in any way disobliging to ferrets.
The Bill is too important to be hurried. I started by paying my respects to the Minister for Housing and Planning for the manner in which he initially conducted proceedings on the Bill. I can only express my regret that his thumbprint is on the guillotine that we are debating now.
4.5 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I wish to join my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) in what he said, which bears upon the way in which we conduct debates.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have made cogent and powerful points, as did the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—not the least of which is that there is a misprint in the motion. I do not know whether the Government will address that before we commence. If not, the misprint will stand as the order of this House if we go to a vote and the motion is approved. Will the Government move an amendment in advance of the decision on the motion? As it stands, the motion refers to amendments Nos. "500 to 450", which could cause confusion in terms of the intervening amendments.
I have had a long struggle against the use of guillotines, which have become routine for Governments. The present Government in particular are not weighing sufficiently carefully what they are doing. For many years—back to the 1930s—the House has been concerned about Henry VIII clauses in Bills. Now we have a Government who, like Henry VIII, believe that any proclamation of the King should be law.
Effectively, this motion is a proclamation. Within the first set of amendments to be considered, Nos. 213 to 422 deal with measures relating to London Transport. Effectively, these make up an additional Bill. Under any other Government, these measures would have made a separate, free-standing Bill. We know that that is the Government's own view; they would not have constructed a Bill which omitted such a fundamental principle if they held that the measures should be part of the original Bill.
Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that, taking what he has just said together with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) about the proportion of the Bill considered in relative detail in Committee and the enormous number of amendments to be added with no consideration at all, this could set a dangerous precedent that could be used by a Government who might be tempted to put an entirely new Bill into one that had
704
received detailed consideration and to push it through under a guillotine with no consideration at all? [Interruption.] Does that worry my hon. Friend?
Mr. Shepherd: And how! Clearly, this matter concerned the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who said that it was the constitutional duty of this House to debate. I do not demur from that. Any understanding of the role of Executive Government and the function of the House of Commons comes down to the fundamental basic job of the House of Commons, which is to debate the public measures and policies put forward by the Executive. In this case, the Executive have decided to create what could be a free-standing Bill in its own right, insert it into the original Bill in the House of Lords and present it to this Chamber. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary may or may not agree, and I am happy that he is participating—like Back-Bench Members—in this debate. Could he give us a greater insight into the use of the guillotine?
I am becoming alarmed by the way in which the Government believe that their proclamations are law, and by their disregard for the purposes and processes of this House. I have seen Governments of a different colour nodding their head at that idea. The guillotine is constructed so closely—apart from the misprint, which I accept—that the motion states that the House
"doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments."
We know full well that we shall not be able to debate all the amendments, simply because of the scarcity of time allocated to do so by a majority of Labour Members. However, the guillotine is being used as a device to prevent us even from voting against provisions that we may judge to be inappropriate or wrong or as giving a wrong balance to the legislation. Is that a development in the employment of guillotine motions?
The Government will eventually stand in front of the public at a general election, but it takes a long time for it to become widely known that important issues of substance are no longer at the core of Members' role in addressing—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster does—vital London constituency issues. Because of the nature of some of the amendments, I, too, now have vital constituency issues to address in the Bill. The issue of road user charges is an important one in principle for people living in Aldridge—Brownhills or anywhere else in the west midlands. Nevertheless, the provision has simply been driven into the Bill, with no opportunity properly to discuss it.
Mr. Bercow: I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the Minister for Housing and Planning sedentarily comment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was paranoid. In the light of that sedentary interjection, does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister now has a duty to tell us whether hon. Members' treatment today is intended to be an isolated case and will not be repeated, or whether it is now to become common practice, and, if so, whether he has the audacity to think that none of us should be remotely concerned about it?
Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. He used the word paranoid. We often in our debates make allegations, become excited and make claims about other

705
hon. Members that do not always bear scrutiny—and without scrutiny, we shall not able to appreciate the folly of expressions that we sometimes use.
Much more important than characterising each of us as trying to represent our narrow constituency interests, however, is whether we are truly able to discuss the substance of matters that will have a bearing on our constituents.
I know—because of the good grace of my colleagues, the "Today" programme and other sources—that the Minister for Housing and Planning is running the campaign of a candidate in the London mayoral election. We know that the hon. Gentleman's sympathies are not so disdainful of the House—surely he must know that, in normal times, the Government's proposed use of this guillotine, and the huge transformations effected in the Bill, would be thought most inappropriate.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman—who is always assiduous in dealing with respect for the rights of the House—has considered one supplementary point. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) commented that the House is expected to consider, in two days, about 90 new clauses and about 10 schedules—some of which are pages long, and some of which, in both their general and detailed provision, have huge financial implications. I have never known the House to be expected to consider 90 new clauses and 10 schedules at this stage in a Bill's passage, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has, either.
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. The issue is also profoundly important to him and his constituents. We know how assiduously he—like many hon. Members—works on behalf of his constituents, and that every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate has a regard for that duty. That was why I started my remarks by mentioning—I know that Ministers will think it was intemperate—Henry VIII provisions and the concept of governing the United Kingdom by statutory instruments which generally are not seriously scrutinised by the House, as there is no opportunity to debate them. Long years ago, the practice was said to be inappropriate, and it was said that it would be excluded from the practices of the House.
In truth, we understand that, in great Bills and in great Departments of State, there is a need to tailor measures to the needs of the day. However, in the current case, we are creating entirely new legislation without allowing the House even to consider it.
Mr. Redwood: I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with other Opposition Members that it is particularly worrying that the Bill should be guillotined and the debate curtailed when the Government are so unable to get things right—when there are so many changes; when the Order Paper is incorrect; when Ministers gave the wrong figure for the length of previous debate; and when their only argument against me is that I voted to abolish the Greater London council—although I never voted to do so, if for no other reason than I was not even an hon. Member at the time?
Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend well justifies the Front-Bench position that he holds.
706
In summary, there is no point. We know that in truth, this is part of a bigger play. The Government are coming to the end of a parliamentary Session—but that is not the Opposition's fault; that aspect of the timetable was not unknown. The Government have been aware for most of the year that at some time in November the Queen will open a new Session of Parliament. The rejigging of business, with the leitmotif that a Weatherill amendment may or may not be included in another piece of legislation, condenses an enormously important Bill.
As it happens, I never believed in the Greater London Authority Bill. The referendum demonstrated that there was not what one could call consent or agreement to it. For the Government to present us with such a guillotine, and with the extraordinary contention that we may not even vote, other than once, on the whole of what comes under the proposition
"That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments"
is truly an execution.
Mr. Forth: My I bring some solace to my hon. Friend? My understanding is that we have the possibility of a reassuringly large number of Divisions, of which my hon. Friend and others may wish to avail themselves, within the first grouping of amendments, which we must finish by 8 o'clock. Notwithstanding the fact that the time for debate is inadequate, my hon. Friend can be reassured that he may be able to express his view in the Division Lobby on a surprisingly large number of occasions.
Mr. Shepherd: But those may not be the occasions of my choice.
I will scrutinise what my right hon. Friend says and support him in his endeavour, but if he is correct, that means that we may be unable to discuss any of the amendments scheduled for debate after 8 o'clock, if we are voting on the other amendments—[Interruption.] The Minister for Housing and Planning pointing in the general direction of another part of the House does not constitute an argument. That is not what debate in the Chamber is about.
I am outraged, as many other people will be if they understand what is happening. Amendments Nos. 426 to 498, 500 to—as is still written on the Order Paper—450, 542 to 702, 704 to 792, and 794 to 820, may be excluded from debate because hon. Members are doing the appropriate business of the House, which is voting on matters that the Government suggest should be public policy, in some instances with the force of law.
That is wrong, and the Government should know it. They should know that, slowly, their intolerance concerning parliamentary procedures and processes—that means debate by elected representatives—will bring them into disrepute.
4.18 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: There is something rather predictable about such debates, and I suppose that that explains the smile on the Minister's face. Governments govern and Oppositions talk, and if Oppositions were allowed to go on talking they would talk for ever. That is why, for the past 100 years, Governments have always preserved the right to guillotine in the end.

707
However, we are deluding ourselves if we believe that we are living in the same sort of Parliament as existed in earlier times. The political set-up then was largely amateur, there was little legislation, and most Members of Parliament were experts in their field. When it was necessary to guillotine legislation, it was usually on matters that—
It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the supplemental allocation of time motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [13 January.]
The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 150.

Division No. 295]

[4.19 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Cohen, Harry

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Coleman, Iain

Alexander, Douglas

Connarty, Michael

Allen, Graham

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cooper, Yvette

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Corbett, Robin

Ashton, Joe

Corbyn, Jeremy

Atherton, Ms Candy

Corston, Jean

Atkins, Charlotte

Cousins, Jim

Austin, John

Cox, Tom

Barnes, Harry

Cranston, Ross

Barron, Kevin

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bayley, Hugh

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Beard, Nigel

Cummings, John

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Dalyell, Tam

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Bennett, Andrew F

Darvill, Keith

Berry, Roger

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Betts, Clive

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Blizzard, Bob

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Dean, Mrs Janet

Borrow, David

Denham, John

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Dobbin, Jim

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Donohoe, Brian H

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Doran, Frank

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Dowd, Jim

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Drew, David

Browne, Desmond

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Burden, Richard

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Burgon, Colin

Edwards, Huw

Butler, Mrs Christine

Efford, Clive

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Etherington, Bill

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Caplin, Ivor

Flint, Caroline

Casale, Roger

Flynn, Paul

Caton, Martin

Follett, Barbara

Chaytor, David

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Foulkes, George

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Fyfe, Maria

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Gapes, Mike

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gardiner, Barry

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Gerrard, Neil

Clelland, David

Gibson, Dr Ian

Clwyd, Ann

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Coaker, Vernon

Godman, Dr Norman A

Coffey, Ms Ann

Godsiff, Roger

708

Goggins, Paul

McIsaac, Shona

Golding, Mrs Llin

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Mackinlay, Andrew

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McNamara, Kevin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McNulty, Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Grocott, Bruce

McWilliam, John

Grogan, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gunnell, John

Mallaber, Judy

Hain, Peter

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hanson, David

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Martlew, Eric

Healey, John

Maxton, John

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Meale, Alan

Hepburn, Stephen

Merron, Gillian

Heppell, John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hesford, Stephen

Miller, Andrew

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Moffatt, Laura

Hill, Keith

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hinchliffe, David

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hood, Jimmy

Mountford, Kali

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Mudie, George

Hope, Phil

Mullin, Chris

Hopkins, Kelvin

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hoyle, Lindsay

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Olner, Bill

Humble, Mrs Joan

Organ, Mrs Diana

Hurst, Alan

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Hutton, John

Palmer, Dr Nick

Iddon, Dr Brian

Pearson, Ian

Illsley, Eric

Perham, Ms Linda

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pickthall, Colin

Jamieson, David

Pike, Peter L

Jenkins, Brian

Plaskitt, James

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pond, Chris

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Prosser, Gwyn

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Quinn, Lawrie

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rammell, Bill

Keeble, Ms Sally

Rapson, Syd

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Raynsford, Nick

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Kemp, Fraser

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Khabra, Piara S

Rogers, Allan

Kidney, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rowlands, Ted

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Roy, Frank

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Ruane, Chris

Kingham, Ms Tess

Ruddock, Joan

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ryan, Ms Joan

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Salter, Martin

Laxton, Bob

Sarwar, Mohammad

Leslie, Christopher

Sawford, Phil

Levitt, Tom

Sedgemore, Brian

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Shaw, Jonathan

Linton, Martin

Sheerman, Barry

Livingstone, Ken

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Love, Andrew

Singh, Marsha

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McCabe, Steve

Smith, Angela (Basilclon)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McDonnell, John

Southworth, Ms Helen

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Spellar, John

709

Squire, Ms Rachel

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Steinberg, Gerry

Tynan, Bill

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Ward, Ms Claire

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wareing, Robert N

Stinchcombe, Paul

Watts, David

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

White, Brian

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Stringer, Graham

Wicks, Malcolm

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Winnick, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Wise, Audrey

Timms, Stephen

Wood, Mike

Todd, Mark

Worthington, Tony

Touhig, Don

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Truswell, Paul

Wyatt, Derek

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Mr. Mike Hall and

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Mr. Greg Pope.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Gale, Roger

Allan, Richard

Garnier, Edward

Amess, David

Gibb, Nick

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Gill, Christopher

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Gray, James

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Green, Damian

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Greenway, John

Baldry, Tony

Grieve, Dominic

Ballard, Jackie

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Bercow, John

Hammond, Philip

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hancock, Mike

Blunt, Crispin

Hawkins, Nick

Boswell, Tim

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Brady, Graham

Horam, John

Brake, Tom

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Brazier, Julian

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Breed, Colin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Jenkin, Bernard

Burns, Simon

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Butterfill, John

Keetch, Paul

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Key, Robert

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Chope, Christopher

Kirkwood, Archy

Clappison, James

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Lansley, Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Leigh, Edward

Collins, Tim

Letwin, Oliver

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Cotter, Brian

Lidington, David

Curry, Rt Hon David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Loughton, Tim

Luff, Peter

Duncan, Alan

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Duncan Smith, Iain

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Evans, Nigel

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Fabricant, Michael

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Fallon, Michael

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Flight Howard

McLoughlin, Patrick

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Madel, Sir David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Malins, Humfrey

Fox, Dr Liam

Maples, John

Fraser, Christopher

Mates, Michael

710

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Streeter, Gary

May, Mrs Theresa

Swayne, Desmond

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Syms, Robert

Moss, Malcolm

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Page, Richard

Trend, Michael

Paterson, Owen

Tyrie, Andrew

Pickles, Eric

Waterson, Nigel

Prior, David

Webb, Steve

Randall, John

Wells, Bowen

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Rendel, David

Whittingdale, John

Robathan, Andrew

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Robertson, Laurence

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Wilkinson, John

Ruffley, David

Willetts, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wilshire, David

Sanders, Adrian

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Woodward, Shaun

Shepherd, Richard

Yeo.Tim

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Soames, Nicholas

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Tellers for the Noes:

Spicer, Sir Michael

Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

Spring, Richard

Mr. James Cran.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order of the House of 13th January 1999 relating to the Greater London Authority Bill be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1.—(1) Proceedings on further Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock.
(2) The remaining Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely:
Nos. 41 to 126, 499, 127 to 212, 703, 213 to 422, 541, 793, 423 to 425, 426 to 498, 500 to 540, 542 to 702, 704 to 792 and 794 to 820.
(3) Each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

Lords amendments

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Nos. 41 to 126, 499, 127 to 212, 703, 213 to 422, 541, 793 and 423 to 425

8.00 p.m.

Nos. 426 to 498, 500 to 450, 542 to 702, 704 to 792 and 794 to 820

10.00 p.m.

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment followed by the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

711

(c) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(d) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(3) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
5. For the purpose of bringing these proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message; and

(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee
6. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
7.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), the Chairman shall—
712

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided; and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in one of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
8. This paragraph applies to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments;

(b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords; and

(c) proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 6.

9. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.
10. Proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
11. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Urgent matters), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.
12. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings are taken; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
13. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
14. If a Minister of the Crown makes a Motion for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Motion.
15. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day
  Greater London Authority Bill
  Lords amendments further considered.
  Greater London Authority Bill
    Clause 37

      THE MAYOR'S MONTHLY REPORT TO THE ASSEMBLY
      Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 22, line 2, after ("three") insert ("clear working")
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44, 46, 49 to 53, 58 to 80, 83, 86, 92 to 94, 97 to 102, 116, 117, 576, 581, 636 to 639, 642, 643 and 645.
      Mr. Hill: This group of amendments makes provision for various matters connected with meetings and the procedures for them. On the first four issues that they cover, the amendments are direct responses to concerns raised during the passage of the Bill, and in particular to views expressed in the other place.
      Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 46 extend from three days to three clear working days the interval between the mayor submitting a report to the Assembly and the meeting at which the report is considered.
      Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 61, 83, 116 and 117 make provision for written questions so that the mayor and Greater London Authority staff who may be questioned at Assembly meetings can provide answers in writing when oral answers are not practicable. The amendments also ensure that the text of questions and answers will be open to public inspection in the same way as the minutes of the meeting.
      Amendments Nos. 49 to 53 remove the requirements to use the names "state of London debate" and "People's Question Time" while leaving both as defined terms in the Bill. They also place duties on the mayor to decide the form and procedure for both events, following consultation with the Assembly.
      Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 64 replace the requirement for the Assembly to hold monthly meetings with one to hold 10 meetings a year. Those meetings must be no less than 28 days apart and may cover matters in addition to the mayor's report. They also clarify that the Assembly may hold any additional meetings that it chooses.
      Lords amendments Nos. 69 and 78 make express provision for minutes of Assembly meetings. Lords amendments Nos. 65, 67 and 68, 86, 93, 636 to 639, 642, 643 and 645 provide for the Assembly to take decisions by a simple majority of those present and voting at a meeting, except where there is express provision to the contrary.
      Lords amendments Nos. 70 to 76 make detailed provision for the Assembly to delegate the discharge of its functions to sub-committees and, in certain circumstances, to members of the Authority's staff.
      714
      Finally, Lords amendments Nos. 77, 79, 80, 92, 94, 97, 98 to 102, 576 and 581 expressly provide for the establishment of committees and sub-committees of the Assembly to which the Assembly may delegate its functions under clause 46(1)(a), and for the establishment of advisory committees.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: We may have views on many groups of amendments, but for the reasons that Opposition Members made clear in the previous debate, we will not comment on many because we would not then be able to contribute to debates on, for example, London transport. The absence of such comments is not to be taken as a lack of interest or a lack of suggestions as to how things might have been done better.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: My point is generic, but it is right to raise it now. The Minister talked about the "state of London debate" and the "mayor of London". I think that it should be called the "state of Greater London debate" because that means a lot to my constituents in what used to be called outer London.
      Mr. Hill: As a result of provisions now in the Bill, the Assembly will be able to do exactly that and widen the title of the debate to "Greater London" if it so desires.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I think that the Minister misunderstood my point, which concerned not what the Assembly can discuss, but the title "state of London" or "mayor of London".
      Mr. Hill: I am sorry if I did not make the position clear. The Assembly can change the description of the debate to "state of Greater London" if it wishes.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 22, line 23, 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 (4A) below.
      (4A) Where—

      (a) the Mayor receives advice from a person falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (4) 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 (4) above from any requirement to disclose the advice, if or to the extent that the advice falls within subsection (4B) below.
      (4B) 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.

      (4C) 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 Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 81, 82, 84, 85, 87 to 91 and 96.
      Mr. Raynsford: This group of amendments covers the openness arrangements for the Authority and clarifies the Assembly's power to summons. It completes the provisions for privacy of advice to the mayor, extending them to advice from functional bodies and ensuring that such advice is not disclosed as a background paper for an Assembly meeting. It makes it clear that the openness arrangements in clause 48 apply to Assembly committees and sub-committees. It places a duty on the Assembly not to disclose certain types of commercial information relating to Transport for London and the London development agency. It makes express provision for the Assembly to summon former chairmen and members of functional bodies, and makes it clear that the clause 48 openness arrangements, with appropriate modifications, apply to the power to summons hearings.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a simple question for the Minister. Can he say whether, when this Bill becomes law, the facts contained in advice to Ministers will be available to the public? It is a straightforward freedom of information question. I understand the point about advice on what the mayor and Assembly should do, but will the facts compiled in preparing such advice be available to the public?
      Mr. Brooke: The subject of advice is contained in amendment No. 45. As the Minister will recall, the issue of confidential advice to the mayor was included in neither the Green Paper nor the White Paper, although I acknowledge that it was included in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, on 4 February, in a paving suggestion on what was then clause 37, I raised the subject in anticipation of clauses 51, 56 and 59 of the Bill as it was then.
      On 9 February, I raised the question, substantively, of confidential advice from the 10 members of the cabinet and the two special advisers. In the Minister's reply, he widely extended the range of those whose advice would remain confidential. I said:
      "I am extremely grateful to the Minister. However, I am simply asking—I am quite certain that he will satisfy me with a single sentence—what legislative cover there is for those other than the 12, to whom he has just referred?"
      Although Hansard does not relate that he did so after receiving a paper from his officials, the Minister replied:
      "The answer is that we shall be tabling amendments to clarify that issue."
      He was then kind enough to note:
      "The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, which we shall ensure is covered by amendments tabled later in our proceedings."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 February 1999; c. 340.]
      716
      Subsequently and privately, the Minister revealed to me how the matter had occurred; I shall not embarrass anyone by divulging what it was. However, I did look forward to seeing the amendments. They did not arrive on Report in this place, nor in Committee in the Lords. Eventually, they arrived, on 14 October, on Report in the Lords—more than eight months after the Minister's commitment that the Government would table them. They were then withdrawn by Lord Whitty on Report, and were finally introduced into the Bill at the very last possible moment, on Third Reading in the Lords on 1 November, after almost nine months' gestation.
      Given the unhappiness of many people in local government about the provisions, the Government's handling of the matter does not inspire confidence. It will serve as the most vivid of indices that the Government made the Bill up as they went along.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised two issues. First, the objective that we tried to achieve through the amendments—and which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is satisfied has been achieved in them—is to distinguish between advice to the mayor and background information that should be properly and readily available. That is also one explanation in regard to the question put by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who, in the nicest possible way, complains about the length of time taken to give effect to the commitments that I gave in Committee.
      It is a difficult task to ensure that there is a proper distinction between advice and background information. We did not want unduly to fetter access to information through giving too broad a definition of advice. In response to points made by noble Friends of the right hon. Gentleman in another place, it is precisely for that reason that we have introduced the latest set of amendments. We want to try to ensure that the privacy of advice to the mayor is respected, while there is the greatest possible access to information and background papers.
      Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the Minister for his answer. He may plead that the drafting powers of the Department were so entirely occupied that it took eight months for the matter to come up on Report in the Lords. However, if matters come up earlier. Members of this and the other place have the opportunity to improve legislation in the way that the Minister has just described. If the amendments are not tabled, such an opportunity does not exist.
      Mr. Raynsford: I accept the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's comments; I hope that he will accept that that was achieved in practice. We have reached our objective of ensuring that the provisions of secrecy apply—contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, those provisions were covered in the White Paper. We pointed out that the advice to the mayor would be covered by the provisions of the Whitehall code, rather than the local government code. We are concerned to give effect to those provisions while ensuring that there is the maximum openness on all background information.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Brooke: If the Minister reads the exchanges in Committee, he will see that he explained why these matters were not discussed in the Green Paper and the White Paper, but emerged only when the Bill was published.
      Mr. Raynsford: I do not want to get into a lengthy debate with the right hon. Gentleman about matters covered in Committee. I accept that the matters we are discussing were not covered in the Green Paper and, no doubt, that is the issue we debated several months ago. However, the Government are committed to the Whitehall model, in which the privacy of advice to the mayor is guaranteed, but which is also an openness model in which there is maximum access to background information. That is what the amendments would achieve. It has been difficult to arrive at the right definition, but we are satisfied that we have done so, having listened to the views expressed in Standing Committee and in another place.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 46 to 94 agreed to.

    Clause 52

      PROCEDURE FOR REQUIRING ATTENDANCE
      Lords amendment: No. 95, in page 29, line 14, leave out ("Chief Administrative Officer of the Authority") and insert
      ("head of the Authority's paid service")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 103 to 114, 118 to 123 and 158.
      Mr. Raynsford: The amendments appear complex, but I am pleased to be able to reassure the House that their appearance is deceptive. Amendment No. 95 simply anticipates an amendment to clause 61, which removes the requirement to call the head of paid service the chief administrative officer.
      Amendments Nos. 121 and 123 would clarify the respective roles of the mayor and the Assembly in the provision of resources for the head of paid service and the monitoring officer. The amendments would provide for the mayor to provide accommodation and other resources for the two officers, and for the Assembly to provide their staff.
      Amendments Nos. 118, 122 and 158 provide for the head of paid service, the monitoring officer and the chief finance officer to be appointed as members of staff under the provisions of clause 56(2) of the Bill. That prevents those offices being held by staff appointed by the mayor. The procedures for handling reports submitted to the Authority by either the head of paid service or the monitoring officer are also provided for in the amendments.
      The provision in the Bill requiring the head of paid service should be known as the chief administrative officer has been criticised as being unduly prescriptive. We agree, so the requirement would be deleted by amendment No. 120.
      718
      Amendments Nos. 103 to 105 are drafting amendments that would reinforce the need for the Assembly to consult the mayor about the appointments of GLA staff which he or she has made, prior to making its own appointments.
      Amendment No. 106 disapplies the provisions of section 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which would impose restrictions on the remuneration that could be paid to the mayor's political advisers. Amendment No. 107 is a consequential amendment.
      Amendment No. 108 adds the London development agency to the list of bodies which are to be treated as a local authority for the purposes of the politically restricted posts provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Amendment No. 109 deletes references to the Metropolitan police authority and the London fire and emergency planning authority, because they are already covered by the 1989 Act.
      Amendments Nos. 110 to 112 are drafting amendments, designed to make it clear that, when the mayor appoints one of his or her staff to the board of either the London development agency or Transport for London, it will be on an unpaid basis.
      Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 apply the provisions of Section 2 of the 1989 Act to the chief finance officer of Transport for London and the chief executive of the London development agency.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 96 to 123 agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 124, after clause 65, to insert the following new clause—Power of Authority to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament—
    .—(1) The Authority may—

    (a) promote a local Bill in Parliament for any purpose which is for the public benefit of the inhabitants of, or of any part of, Greater London; or

    (b) oppose any local Bill in Parliament which affects any such inhabitants.

    (2) Section 70 of the Local Government Act 1972 (prohibition on promoting Bills for changing local government areas etc) shall have effect in relation to the Authority as it has effect in relation to a local authority.
    (3) The functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (1) above shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
    (4) The functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (1)(a) above are exercisable subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Schedule (Promotion of Bills in Parliament by the Authority) to this Act.
    (5) Before exercising the functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (1)(b) above, the Mayor shall consult the Assembly.
    (6) No payment shall be made by the Authority (whether acting by the Mayor, the Assembly or the Mayor and Assembly acting jointly) to the Mayor or an Assembly member for acting as counsel or agent in promoting or opposing a Bill under this section.
    (7) A London borough council or the Common Council may contribute towards the expenses of the Authority in promoting a local Bill in Parliament.")
    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 125, 126, 226, 227, 634, 704, 741 and 744.
    Mr. Raynsford: The amendments provide the Greater London Authority, Transport for London and the London

    719
    development agency with the power to promote local Bills, and Transport for London with the power to promote and oppose orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
    The amendments ensure that any local legislation promoted by the GLA is subject to consultation and that, where it affects the exercise of statutory functions of one or more London local authorities, a consent regime is followed.
    The amendments were the subject of careful consultation with representatives of local government in London and with the authorities in both Houses before they were tabled, and were warmly welcomed when they were introduced in another place. We subsequently amended them slightly to ensure consistency of terminology across the provisions.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrats support the amendments. Have the Government legislated to give other development agencies or authorities in England the same Bill-promoting power?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am not aware of such legislation, but I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. This power relates specifically to the provisions for London.
    Lords amendment agreed to
    Lords amendments Nos. 125 and 126 agreed to
    Lords amendment No. 499 disagreed to
    Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment agreed to

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 127, before clause 67, to insert the following new clause—Amounts for different categories of dwellings—
    . In section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (amounts for different categories of dwellings) there shall be added at the end—

    "(10) Where the major precepting authority in question is the Greater London Authority, subsections (2)(b) and (4) above shall have effect as if the references to sections 43 to 47 below were references to the appropriate Greater London provisions.

    (11) In this section, "the appropriate Greater London provisions" means—

    (a) sections 70 to 75 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and section 47 below; or

    (b) in the case of calculations by way of substitute, sections 70, 71 and 73 to 75 of, and Schedule 6 to, that Act and section 47 below."")

    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 141, 146, 149, 167 to 169, 559, 644, 656 and 795.
    Mr. Raynsford: The amendments make minor drafting changes and additions to the finance provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 127 simply corrects an oversight by amending section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The amendment ensures that section 30 includes a reference to the GLA's budget requirement and
    720
    tax-setting provisions, which are set out in the legislation. This will require billing authorities to add to council tax bills the amounts calculated by the GLA under the budget requirement and tax-setting provisions of the Bill.
    Amendments Nos. 141 and 146 remove unnecessary regulation-making powers from the Bill and make clear under which powers the regulations referred to in clauses 79 and 80 are to be made.
    Amendment No. 168 amends section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to ensure that properties occupied by the functional bodies cannot be granted discretionary rate relief by billing authorities. As a major precepting authority, the GLA cannot be granted such relief.
    The GLA and the functional bodies will be able to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board, as authorities whose capital finances are regulated under part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Amendments Nos. 169 and 795 are necessary to give the commissioners a complementary power to lend money to the functional bodies.
    Amendment Nos. 167 and 656 amend the Local Government Act 1999, which in turn amends the Local Government Finance Act 1992, so that references to the budget requirement and tax-setting provisions of the Greater London Authority Bill are accurate. The amendments are needed because of the insertion of new clauses into the Bill since the Local Government Act 1999 received Royal Assent.
    Amendment No. 559 requires any subordinate legislation made by the Secretary of State under clause 317(1) to be approved by an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. Amendments No. 149 and 644 make minor changes in drafting to the Bill.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The amendments can loosely be described as drafting and miscellaneous amendments. At this point—and only at this point—I shall mention a matter that I raised in Committee.
    For the first time in legislation—it is an historic development—we are to refer to a presiding officer, in this case of the GLA, as the "chair", rather than as the "chairman". To me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are not an inanimate object, but a chairman. Until now, in modern English usage, the word "chairman" has embraced the female, although we could refer to a woman chairman as "Madam Chairman".
    Because I was outvoted, I have to accept that we shall refer to the presiding officer of the Greater London Assembly or the presiding officer of any of its committees as the "chair". The Bill draws upon many other Acts of Parliament, and every one of them refers to such a person as the "chairman". My simple question might now be obvious: do these 820 amendments cover the change of wording from "chairman" to "chair" in all the other legislation mentioned in the Bill—and if not, why not?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point which was debated at some length in Committee. We have adopted a pragmatic approach and

    721
    do not seek to change all references to the "chairman" in previous legislation. However, we think that it is right that the term "chair" should be used, and we do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that this is an arcane issue. We are creating a new authority that is designed to appeal to the people of London as we move into the next millennium. We want to ensure that it is seen to be an open authority that is not hidebound by old conventions.
    The terminology is not a point of substance. We have simply sought, in a pragmatic way, to create references that will be acceptable to the majority of the population in the years ahead.
    Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 68

      ISSUE OF PRECEPTS
      Lords amendment: No. 128, in page 36, line 23, leave out from ("for") to end of line 25 and insert
      ("the reference to sections 43 to 47 below there shall be substituted a reference to the appropriate Greater London provisions;")
      5 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in amendment No. 131.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I correct the Minister? We all sometimes get the order of amendments slightly wrong. On this occasion, the lead amendment is amendment No. 128.
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in amendment No. 127—I beg your pardon, Sir Alan—amendment No. 128.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 129, 130, 139, 142 to 145, 147, 148, 150 and 151.
      Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 128 is a technical amendment, as are the associated amendments. They ensure that when the Authority makes substitute calculations, it does so by reference to the correct provisions, including schedule 6.
      If the amendments were not made, the Bill would appear to require substitute calculations to be made in accordance with schedule 5. That, in practice, would prove impossible, as schedule 5 requires calculations to be made by the end of February each year, whereas the need for substitute calculations is unlikely to arise until after the end of February.
      Schedule 6 instead provides the appropriate procedure and sets out the roles of mayor and Assembly in making substitute calculations The amendments make it clear that schedule 6 governs the procedure for making substitute calculations.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 129 and 130 agreed to.

    Clause 73

      CALCULATION OF BASIC AMOUNT OF TAX
      Lords amendment: No. 131, in page 39, line 43, after ("report") insert ("or determination")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 132 to 138, 635 and 640.
      Mr. Raynsford: The amendments, like the previous group—which may explain my confusion—are all minor technical amendments that clarify the duties of the mayor and Assembly in setting the GLA consolidated budget, and amend the Secretary of State's powers in the budget-setting process.
      Amendment No. 635 is consequential to an amendment made to clause 29 at Commons Report stage. Clause 29 provides that any function of the authority is exercised by the mayor unless specified otherwise. The amendment clarifies that the duty of preparing the budget is shared between the mayor and Assembly, as set out in schedule 5.
      Amendment No. 640 removes the Secretary of State's power to change the date of the last day of February by which the GLA's budget must be finalised. It responds to concerns expressed during the Bill's Committee stage in the other place. The Secretary of State will be able to move the 1 February date by which the mayor must present his or her draft consolidated budget to the Assembly. That will allow the Secretary of State to use his discretion in deciding whether to change the date by which the mayor must present the draft budget to take account of any delay in announcing the local government finance settlement.
      Amendments Nos. 131 to 138 ensure that the Secretary of State will be able to set out the amounts of general GLA grant that he considers relate to police and non-police services in the determination in which the total amount of general GLA grant paid is set out. That is necessary because the general GLA grant will be the subject of a determination, not a report, and will therefore not be subject to an affirmative or negative resolution procedure. The other items of income used in the calculations of the basic amount of tax and of the special item are all the subject of a report.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 132 to 139 agreed to.

    Clause 79

      SUBSTITUTE CALCULATIONS UNDER SECTION 49 OF THE 1992 ACT
      Lords amendment: No. 140, in page 44, line 20, leave out from ("Authority,") to ("any") in line 22 and insert—
      ("(i) the amount of any component budget requirement calculated under subsections (4) to (7) of section 70 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999,
      (ii) the amount calculated under subsection (8) of that section, or
      (iii)")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 152.
      Mr. Raynsford: The amendment, and the associated amendment, No. 152, make minor clarifications to the mayor's powers and duties in relation to the GLA's single finance system.
      Amendment No. 140 eliminates an unintended effect of the GLA's power to make substitute calculations. It ensures that the mayor and Assembly cannot re-allocate money from one GLA body to another during the financial year, except to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Authority budget is adequate, following a direction from the Secretary of State, or in the event of an emergency or disaster. The mayor and Assembly will thus, as had always been our intention, be able to use the power to make substitute calculations only to cut both the consolidated and component budgets. For example, a newly elected mayor may want to do that.
      Amendment No. 152 amends a possible misunderstanding in respect of clause 105 as it left the House—namely, that the mayor is required to state for each functional body a minimum amount of capital grant he will pay to that body. That was not the intended effect. It was intended to leave the mayor free to decide what capital grant he makes to the functional bodies and to require him to specify an amount only when he decides to pay a body no less than a certain amount. The mayor will, of course, be able to specify in section B of the capital spending plan an amount of nil as the minimum amount of capital grant he will pay to a functional body. He is more likely simply to specify no amount if he has not reached a decision on a minimum amount. The clause as amended will raise no doubts about his ability to do that.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 141 to 153 agreed to.

    Clause 112

      PROPER FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER
      Lords amendment: No. 154, in page 62, line 37, at end insert—
      ("( ) No person may be the chief finance officer of two or more relevant authorities at the same time.")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 155 to 157.
      Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 154 and the associated amendments clarify the arrangements for appointing chief finance officers for the GLA and functional bodies.
      Amendment No. 154 provides that no individual can be simultaneously the chief finance officer of the GLA and a functional body, or of two or more functional bodies. That is necessary to make it absolutely certain that the GLA and the functional bodies do not share chief finance
      724
      officers. A key principle of the GLA's finance system is that each body is responsible for managing its own affairs once the GLA's consolidated budget has been set. Allowing bodies to share chief finance officers would have undermined that principle and could have caused conflicts of interest.
      Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 provide that the Assembly appoints the GLA's chief finance officer and that the officer is designated from staff appointed by the Assembly rather than from staff appointed by the mayor. Without the amendments, the function of making the appointment would, by default, have fallen to the mayor.
      Amendment No. 157 prohibits the mayor from being designated the chief finance officer of Transport for London. The Bill allows it to appoint one of its members, rather than a member of staff, as chief finance officer. As the mayor has the power to decide to chair Transport for London, he or she could be appointed as the body's chief finance officer. That would cause an unacceptable conflict of interest given the mayor's policy responsibilities for transport and powers of direction over Transport for London, and the chief finance officer's duty to ensure proper financial administration.
      These amendments tidy the provisions to appoint chief finance officers of the GLA and functional bodies to ensure that they give full effect to our intentions.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 155 to 158 agreed to.

    Clause 113

      APPLICATION OF PART VIII OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1988
      Lords amendment: No. 159, in page 63, line 5, at end insert—
      ("(board) the London Pensions Fund Authority;"")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 160 to 166, 513, 514, 647 to 650, 652, 653 and 655.
      Mr. Raynsford: You will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is the last group of amendments that we shall consider before we discuss transport, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will cover. The group includes two new clauses—amendments Nos. 513 and 514—and consequential amendments, which implement our White Paper commitment to bring the London Pensions Fund Authority under the democratic control of the GLA.
      The LPFA, which is currently a quango accountable to the Secretary of State, administers former GLC pensions and employer liabilities and the pensions of certain other bodies admitted to the fund under the local government pension scheme regulations. It cannot be right that a body focused on London and affecting the lives of many people across London is not answerable in some way to a democratically elected authority.
      Amendment No. 513 inserts a new clause providing for the mayor to comment each year on the LPFA's budget and on strategic plans drawn up by the body. Amendment

      725
      No. 514 inserts a clause transferring from the Secretary of State to the mayor responsibilities for the appointments and tenure of office of members of the LPFA, for determining their remuneration and for receiving reports and information. Amendments Nos. 159 to 166, 647 to 650, 652, 653 and 655 are consequential and deal with the auditing and accounts of the LPFA when it is brought under the authority of the GLA.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 160 to 169 agreed to.

    Clause 124

      THE MAYOR'S TRANSPORT STRATEGY
      Lords amendment: No. 170, in page 67, line 35, after ("problems,") insert—
      ("(aa) shall specify a timetable for the implementation of the proposals contained in the transport strategy by virtue of paragraph (a) above,")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 171.
      Mr. Hill: The amendments followed discussion in this House and another place about the provisions in the Bill in respect of transport for those with mobility problems.
      My ministerial colleagues and I have received correspondence from people outside the House expressing concern that the Bill is not inclusive enough of the needs and views of users of accessible transport services. We considered the arguments carefully, both before and during the passage of the Bill. We recognised at an early stage that the special needs of those with mobility problems deserved particular attention. That is why, on introducing the Bill to Parliament, we included a specific provision requiring the mayor to include in his or her transport strategy proposals for the provision of transport accessible to those with mobility problems.
      Although we believe that the existing Bill's provisions fully meet concerns over consultation with organisations representing elderly and disabled people, I recognise that there is still concern. We accept that there are advantages in giving a clear signal about the importance that we attach to those issues. Indeed, when we come to discuss the exemptions from congestion charging later in the debate we shall discuss other improvements that we have been able to make.
      Amendment No. 171 requires the mayor, when preparing the transport strategy to consult groups representing persons with mobility problems. Amendment No. 170 requires that the mayor set out in the transport strategy a timetable for the implementation of his or her proposals for the provision of transport accessible to persons with mobility problems.
      I should stress that the amendments are targeted specifically at the transport strategy, in recognition of the particular impact that the strategy will have on those with mobility problems. The amendments do not affect the provisions covering the mayor's other strategies. Taken
      726
      together, they will ensure that transport for those with mobility problems will be a key element of the mayor's transport strategy.
      We are committed to comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. Accessible public transport within the framework of an integrated transport policy must be fundamental in delivering that commitment. The long-term goal must be to ensure that accessible transport is regarded as part of the mainstream transport infrastructure, not as an add-on. There are wider benefits in delivering accessible transport; for example, low-floor buses are easier for the whole travelling public, not just elderly and disabled people.
      When I speak of accessible transport, I am not just referring to public transport. We must not forget that many Londoners with mobility problems rely on dedicated door-to-door transport services. The London White Paper set out our commitments in that area. Responsibility for the dedicated door-to-door services currently provided by the dial-a-ride and taxicard schemes will transfer to the new authority. The mayor's duty to include in the transport strategy proposals for accessible transport encompasses proposals for door-to-door services as well as public transport. The amendments further strengthen the provisions in the Bill for accessible transport for those with mobility problems.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: We agree that amendment No. 170 adds something of value to the Bill. If one is to have a strategy that requires one to make transport accessible to disabled people, it is sensible to ensure that there is a timetable for doing so; otherwise, it will be based just on hope and aspiration. Those of us who regularly confront the issue of disabled people's frustration with public transport—which, as the Minister said, is linked to the private system—know that a strategy with no timetable would be of little worth.
      5.15 pm
      Is it the Minister's understanding that the provisions of Lords amendment No. 171 include river transport? If we are serious about integrating river transport, and if this is to be a transport strategy for London, we ought to consider how disabled people can also have access to river transport. It is no good our trying to promote it if, for many of our citizens, it remains as inaccessible as before.
      I hope that I can have a positive answer to my question about Lords amendment No. 171, in return for my positive approbation for Lords amendment No. 170.
      Mr. Hill: In response to the typically constructive and positive approach adopted by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I am delighted to affirm that river services form part of the transport strategy for people with mobility problems, and that that is an entirely proper subject for the mayor and the Assembly to consider in devising a transport strategy for London.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 171 agreed to.

    Clause 126

      DUTIES OF LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 172, in page 68, line 21, at end insert—
      ("(4) In exercising any functions in relation to the management of roads or traffic in a Royal Park in Greater London the Secretary of State shall have regard to the transport strategy.
      (5) In this section "Royal Park" means any park to which the Parks Regulation Act 1872 applies (see sections 1 and 3 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926).")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 372 and 414.
      Mr. Hill: The amendments follow discussion in this House and in another place about the relationship between the Royal Parks Agency and local highway and traffic authorities in the context of road closures and other changes regarding highways and traffic. In the light of those discussions, we have amended the Bill to require the Royal Parks Agency to have regard to the mayor's transport strategy, and to introduce for the first time a statutory consultation arrangement between the royal parks and the local highways and traffic authorities.
      Lords amendment No. 172 provides that the Secretary of State—which in practice means the Royal Parks Agency—must have regard to the mayor's transport strategy when carrying out any functions relating to the management of roads and traffic in a royal park.
      Lords amendment No. 372 provides that, if the agency proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a road for which another authority is the highway authority, it must consult that authority. Similarly, if a highway authority proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a royal park, the authority must consult the agency. The one exception is that, when it would not be reasonably practicable for the agency to consult the highway authority—or vice versa—before the functions are carried out, each may go ahead and tell the other body afterwards.
      Lords amendment No. 414 provides that, if the agency proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a road for which another authority is the traffic authority, the agency must consult the authority and Transport for London. Similarly, if a traffic authority proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a royal park, it must consult the agency. Again, the one exception is that, when it would not be reasonably practicable for the agency to consult the borough or Transport for London—or vice versa—before the functions are carried out, the agency or the traffic authority may go ahead and tell the other body afterwards.
      Mr. Tom Brake: I support the amendments. It is entirely right not only for local authorities and other bodies but for the Secretary of State, who is responsible for royal parks, to have regard to the mayor's transport strategy.
      728
      There are a number of main arteries in London that pass through the royal parks, the opening and closing of which can have a major impact on roads in their vicinity. I hope that, for that reason alone, the House will support the amendments.
      Mr. Brooke: I, too, appreciate the moves that the Government have made. In Committee on 16 February, at column 599, in response to a mischievous and provocative speech by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—I say that in friendly terms—I made paving reference to a point that I came back to on clause 179. In columns 963 and 964, I raised the problem of the lack of connection in traffic control between the royal parks and the rest of Greater London, including the adjacent local authorities. The then Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) explained that there were no powers to enable the bridging of that gap.
      The matter was debated twice in Committee in the Lords. On 19 October, Lord Whitty moved these amendments, which are an excellent development. It is a vindication of the parliamentary process that we have come to such a good solution—one that people surrounding the royal parks have been crying out for for ages. I salute the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for being such a pleasure to do business with, in marked contrast with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has cut funding to the royal parks, insisted that they must have a series of concerts, interrupting their quietude, and allowed a series of Albanian hot dog vendors to run not in a manner that is liable to turn the royal parks into a version of Coney island. I unreservedly commend the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
      Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for his kind words. I also pay tribute to the outstanding contribution made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on the issue. The Bill and the whole of London have benefited from it and we are very grateful to him.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 129

      POWER OF THE MAYOR TO PREPARE A PLAN
      Lords amendment: No. 173, in page 69, line 36, leave out from ("refuses") to ("unless") in line 39, and insert
      ("to approve under subsection (2) of section 128 above a local implementation plan, the London borough council which submitted the plan shall prepare a new local implementation plan and submit it to the Mayor under subsection (1) of that section")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 174 to 193.
      Mr. Hill: When the clauses relating to local implementation plans were discussed in this House, we were pressed on why we had not included any provisions for review of the plans. We were also asked why the mayor could claim for the boroughs only reasonable

      729
      administrative expenses rather than all reasonable expenses, if he or she had to intervene to implement a plan. We agreed to reflect on those issues.
      The amendments were added to the Bill in another place. I am sorry that so many amendments were required, but it is necessary to ensure that the same process is followed for a revised plan as for the original.
      Lords amendment agreed to
      Lords amendments Nos. 174 to 193 agreed to.

    Clause 135

      STRUCTURE OF FARES AND SERVICES.
      Lords amendment: No. 194, in page 72, line 36, at end insert
      ("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 195 to 212, 703 and amendments (a) to (e) thereto, 214, 215, 223 and amendment (a) thereto and motion to disagree, 224, 225, 228, 232 to 234, 235 and amendment (a) thereto, 236 to 238, 334, 336, 338, 346, 423, 565, 566, 572, 577, 582, 657, 659 to 696, 698 to 702, 712, 714, 715, 717 and 799 to 801.
      Mr. Hill: The House is enormously grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may say so, that was beautifully enunciated.
      The amendments in this group are largely technical improvements to the detailed transport functions of the mayor and Transport for London. Some are reproductions of current statutory functions of London Transport—functions conferred on London Transport under legislation introduced by a Conservative Government. Some of them represent a positive reaction to points which have been raised in the other place.
      Some concern new powers and duties to reflect the wider responsibilities of Transport for London and the integrated approach which it will be able to take to transport in the capital. The amendments are intended to be helpful, and do not alter the basic structure of the Bill.
      I hope that it will assist the House—as I describe the general effect of these amendments—if I distinguish between those which give Transport for London its powers, those which impose duties and those which are editorial or technical in nature. It may also help if I give some illustrative examples of each type of amendment. I should mention that this group also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable the current tax status of Transport for London's predecessor bodies to be maintained once those bodies have transferred to Transport for London.
      Let me deal first with the powers which this group of amendments gives to Transport for London. TfL will, of course, be a new organisation, but it will need to have many of the same powers as its predecessors. These amendments ensure that the relevant powers of London
      730
      Transport are passed to Transport for London. For example, the amendments give it the power to make railway byelaws.
      The amendments also allow Transport for London to run a transport museum and to pay grants to bodies such as the dial-a-ride companies. Those activities are of course already undertaken by London Transport, and will be continued by Transport for London. However, Transport for London will need not only to inherit the relevant powers of its predecessor bodies, but to have powers to discharge its wider statutory duties and to reflect the changing nature of transport provision. The amendments allow for that.
      For example, the amendments give Transport for London the power to form joint venture companies and to provide transport facilities without itself having to run services to and from those facilities. The amendments recognise that Transport for London's responsibilities will not be limited to passenger transport. It will thus have the power to provide intermodal freight facilities—a point suggested by my noble Friend Lord Berkeley in the other place.
      The duties imposed on Transport for London by the amendments relate primarily to the provision of information. Amendment No. 236 requires Transport for London annually to inform local authorities and the London Transport Users Committee of its plans for fares and services, and to publish details of its fares. Again, this is a reproduction of a current duty of London Transport. However, we have also given Transport for London a new duty—I ought to mention that we were prompted to do so by Conservative peers—to provide information to the public about the Transport for London public transport services. This duty builds upon the present travel information service provided by London Transport to its customers, and will assist in the delivery of the passenger transport information 2000 initiative to provide a national public transport information service during the course of next year.
      We have made a number of editorial and technical changes. For example, we have included provisions allowing Transport for London to fulfil the contractual obligations of predecessor bodies so that there is no disruption to services. We have provided for Transport for London to make transfer schemes for the distribution of property among its subsidiaries, so that the mayor can structure Transport for London and its transport functions as he or she wishes.
      Government amendments (a) to (e) to Lords amendment No. 703 make technical and consequential changes relating to the operation and the interpretation of the new schedule on Transport for London transfer schemes.
      In conclusion, Madam Speaker, these amendments complete the toolkit which Transport for London will need to deliver the mayor's vision for transport in the capital. I am conscious that, in the time available to us today, it might be inappropriate for me to describe the amendments in exhaustive detail, but I will try to answer any queries that hon. Members may have, either now or in writing.
      Mr. Brake: I should like to speak specifically to Lords amendment No. 223, which Liberal Democrat Members oppose and on which we shall seek to divide the House.

      731
      First, however, I should point out that the Table Office has made a drafting error in our amendment (a). We have proposed omitting from "Secretary of State", in line 41, to "the", in line 42, as we accept that the mayor should be able to authorise the issue of shares, stock and—as we propose—bonds.
      5.30 pm
      London's transport system is undoubtedly in a shambles—we are able to see with our own eyes the evidence of that fact. Some months ago, I tabled a private notice question on delays on the underground between 1994–95 and 1998–99. The fact is that, in that period, delays increased by 25 per cent. or more. My own experience of travelling by bus, tube or train from Wallington to Westminster has also confirmed that delays have increased.
      We have had very significant transport fare increases. Moreover, on 9 January, fares on the underground will increase by 2.5 per cent., whereas inflation is running well below that. The real fare increase, therefore, will be about 50 per cent. above inflation. Against that background, the mayor should be given all possible financial options so that he or she is able to invest the sums necessary to take our underground system from the 19th to the 21st century.
      Liberal Democrat Members certainly welcome the Government's agreement that the mayor should be able to raise money in share issues—in Committee, we were pushing for such a provision—but we should also like the mayor to be given the option of issuing not only shares, but bonds. Our amendment (a) would provide the mayor with that option.
      Around the world, there are many examples—New York is one—of transport systems that have been funded by bond issues. Many of the original tube lines were financed by bond issues. The mayor may need to use that financial option if the public-private partnership does not proceed—although hon. Members may not think that that is a possibility.
      In a parliamentary question, I asked when the PPP contracts would be signed, and was told that they would be signed "when they are ready". That was a very helpful response, and I was pleased to hear that the contracts will not be signed before they are ready. The response continued:
      "We have learned the lessons of rail privatisation and will not impose a politically driven timetable at the expense of ensuring that the resulting deal is right."—[Official Report, 2 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 78.]
      It is, therefore, entirely possible that the PPP will not proceed.
      What if the PPP does not prove to offer best value and fails the public sector comparative test? Hon. Members may be thinking, "Surely that couldn't happen. Surely the Government have already confirmed that the PPP will pass the public sector comparative test before contracts are signed." However, I do not believe that that is the case. In a debate earlier this year, the then Minister for Transport said:
      "I have made it clear that, in the private-public partnership, the value-for-money proposal will be the criterion against which all our proposals are tested. The Government will not implement a public-private partnership unless we are entirely satisfied that it will secure best value for the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 27 January 1999: Vol. 324, c. 413.]
      732
      At what point will the Government be able to confirm whether the PPP secures best value? Such questions have prompted our desire to provide the mayor with the additional financial option of issuing bonds, so that he or she will have fall-back funding if the PPP proposals should fall apart.
      What exactly are the Government's objections to issuing bonds? Last week, in another place, we were given an explanation for their objection. The Government said that they believed that the PPP that they are putting together would prove to be better value than bond financing. I hardly consider that a ringing endorsement of the PPP—but it is not a damning criticism of bonds, either.
      Having outlined the reasons why the Government should take on board our modest amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 223, I shall also speak in favour of another amendment in the group—amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) to Lords amendment No. 235. That amendment seems sensible to us.
      In my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington there is strong demand for transport infrastructure improvements. For instance, many residents would welcome the extension of the Croydon tramlink into Carshalton and Wallington, and on to Sutton. The amendment would allow the borough of Sutton to enter into discussions with Transport for London to provide such an extension.
      I urge the Government at this late hour to accept our motion to disagree with Lords amendment No. 223. They have nothing to lose, and Londoners have much to gain.
      Mr. John McDonnell: I shall speak to amendment (a), tabled in my name to Lords amendment No. 235. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall—or they may not—that I tabled an amendment then that would have allowed the mayor to enter into a voluntary arrangement with the City of London corporation for a voluntary contribution towards infrastructure projects in London. That was not a duplicitous plot to undermine the financial standing of the corporation—I wish that it had been—but simply an attempt to release resources for the benefit of London, especially for transport infrastructure projects.
      The amendment built upon the attempts that we have made over the past 10 years to encourage voluntary agreements between the City of London corporation and Londonwide local government and service structures overall, to provide the necessary resources for the development of infrastructure projects, especially for transport but also for environmental purposes.
      My amendment would build on Lords amendment No. 235, which would enable Transport for London to enter into agreements with the common council of the City of London corporation and London boroughs for the provision of transport services, but it would also clarify the fact that the definition should include transport infrastructure projects as well.
      Hon. Members representing constituencies throughout London have made clear the need for long-term investment in transport infrastructure projects. The amendment would enable the same clarity to exist in relation to the question of where the resources will come from. I note that all three contenders for selection as Labour candidate for mayor have expressed support for

      733
      the concept of "going to the City" to finance infrastructure projects in London, and within the definition of the City, I would include the City of London corporation itself.
      I will have to be convinced during the debate of the reasons why the Government do not wish to accept the amendment to facilitate the issuing of bonds. I agree with those who say that we should maximise the flexibility for the new Greater London Authority, the mayor and Transport for London to draw upon a range of resources to fund transport developments in London.
      I do not support the public-private partnership. I understand the arguments in favour of it that have been mobilised in the House and elsewhere, but there are elements of risk involved. Putting that to one side, however, even if the PPP were the best option for now, we would not wish to prevent a future administration from being able to draw upon other financial sources.
      The amendment would provide the opportunity not only for shares to be issued but for bonds to be drawn upon. I shall need convincing of the reasons why we should rule that out in the long term. The Government may not want to support the idea now, but at some future stage it might give the mayor and the new strategic authority the necessary flexibility. We should not use the Bill to prohibit that, and if I am not convinced by the Government's reasons, I shall support the amendment in the Lobby.
      Mr. Hill: I shall deal first with amendment (a) tabled by my hon. Friend he Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) to Lords amendment No. 235. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his amendment, but I hope that I can persuade him that it is unnecessary.
      Amendment No. 235 provides for the retention of the existing powers of London local authorities other than the GLA to procure additional rail services and facilities from the franchising director and train operating companies, and of local authority powers to enter into agreements with Transport for London for additional services and facilities. Those powers are currently available to London local authorities under sections 28 and 59 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984.
      Amendment (a) would mean that the powers of London local authorities would include the ability to enter into agreements for transport infrastructure projects, as well as for facilities and services. Local authorities' powers under amendment No. 235 are really designed to allow them to secure services and facilities that would not otherwise be provided by Transport for London or rail operators. For example, a London borough might use those powers to arrange for additional bus services to cater for a special event. However, transport infrastructure projects are neither facilities nor services, although it is possible that a project might result in facilities or services being provided. I fear that amendment (a) confuses the idea of a project, which could require new facilities and services, with the provision of those facilities and services. Local authorities do not necessarily need powers to embark on a project, but they do need powers to do things in connection with those projects. Amendment No. 235 will give them the necessary powers.
      I should also mention that any proposal for a large transport infrastructure project could require statutory authority, either by means of a Bill or by the making of
      734
      an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 by the Secretary of State. London boroughs and Transport for London have the power to promote applications for such orders. Accepting amendment (a) could create some uncertainty in that area, and I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to withdraw it.
      Mr. McDonnell: I am happy to withdraw my amendment on the basis of a simple statement from my hon. Friend. Under the existing proposed legislation, will the mayor, the authority or Transport for London have the ability to enter into a voluntary arrangement with the City of London corporation, or a London borough, to fund a transport infrastructure project? I give the example of the City of London corporation because it proposed the idea some seven or eight years ago, and intimated that it would be willing to enter into a voluntary agreement on such projects with any new organisation or with the Government.
      Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend asks whether the mayor can enter into agreements with City institutions or London local authorities for the financing of a major infrastructure project—for example, crossrail. The answer is yes, in principle. The Bill will give the mayor and Transport for London extensive powers—broadly similar to those that London Transport has now—to enter into agreements for transport purposes. Of course, much would depend on the precise form of the proposed agreements, and that would no doubt need to be looked at carefully if and when a proposal emerged.
      Transport for London will of course be free to negotiate private finance initiative deals, to finance transport projects, for example, as long as they are considered off balance sheet. In other words, if sufficient risk is transferred to the private sector, the borrowing will not score against public expenditure or need credit approvals.
      Under Lords amendment No. 235 local authorities will be able to enter into agreements with Transport for London regarding the provision of transport services and facilities. That will provide considerable scope for undertaking joint projects. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington will be satisfied by those wide-ranging reassurances.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. McDonnell: It will take just one more sentence to satisfy me. My understanding of what my hon. Friend has said is that it will be perfectly appropriate for the new mayor and Authority, after next May's election, to approach the City of London corporation and request a voluntary agreement to fund crossrail, for example, although a more important example might involve the Central line extension to Uxbridge. Will my hon. Friend confirm that my understanding is correct?
      Mr. Hill: I think that I have answered that question already by saying yes, in principle.
      The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asserted several times that, under some new arrangement, the mayor will be permitted to float shares. I wish to emphasise that the mayor will not have that power. Although Transport for London can form

      735
      companies, it cannot sell the shares in those companies if to do so would result in the contracting out of the operations of underground trains or stations.
      On amendment No. 223(a)—
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman asks to intervene a little early in my explanation, and I have to note that he was not in the Chamber for the beginning of this debate.
      Mr. Hughes: I was in the Chamber, but I was somewhere else. [Interruption.] I was on another Bench. Will the Minister clarify what he said about the mayor? My understanding of the Government amendment agreed to in the Lords, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred, is that the Government were happy to accept the argument advanced by Opposition Members in Committee. That amendment appears to propose that the mayor rather than the Secretary of State would have the power to raise shares. Will the Minister confirm that that is indeed what is proposed?
      Mr. Hill: I am pleased to clarify that point. The purpose of the amendment is to transfer to the mayor the power of the Secretary of State to authorise the issue of shares by Transport for London to a person other than Transport for London or its subsidiaries. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that I did not spot him when he was hiding elsewhere in the Chamber.
      The Bill already confers powers on the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies to borrow money within the existing local authority finance framework. That includes borrowing by issuing bonds, as well as borrowing through credit approvals, entering into a private finance initiative arrangement or making a case for additional funding to the Greater London Authority transport grant.
      Under the current local government finance regime, a bond issued by one of those bodies would count as public borrowing. It would need to be secured against all the revenues of the authority and could not be secured against a particular revenue stream. A bond issued by a Greater London Authority body would be a more expensive way of raising money than if the Government borrowed the money themselves. In practice, local authorities rarely borrow by issuing bonds, because it is cheaper and easier to borrow from the Public Works Loans Board.
      The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington both asked why neither the Greater London Authority nor Transport for London might issue bonds secured normally against a revenue stream from a congestion-charging regime. The answer is that borrowing through a bond secured against the revenues from a congestion-charging regime still counts as public expenditure under the current local government finance regime.
      As I have already explained, bonds must currently be secured against all the revenues of the authority and not just against one revenue stream. There would be no advantage in allowing borrowing secured against the revenue from a single project, such as a congestion-charging scheme, as it would offer lenders less security and would cost more. However, we are reviewing the
      736
      local government finance regime. In particular, we are examining the possibility of allowing local authorities to borrow, subject only to limits relating the level of debt to their future income, and the use of prudential indicators to regulate borrowing.
      We plan to publish a consultation paper in the spring, following completion of the review. The Greater London Authority, along with local authorities in general, will, of course, benefit from any changes that may follow the review, although it is too early to say what those may be or when they might be put into effect.
      Mr. Hughes: I understand the Minister's argument but—and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) is more expert than I am—it may not be sufficient. The Minister that the Government plan to issue a consultation document in the spring after the review. But any decision may be made too late for the new GLA, which will be elected in May and in power from July, if it is to address what is an immediate issue. That is a defect in the Minister's argument, because the power may come too late for the GLA to act.
      Mr. Hill: Let me seek to interpret the hon. Gentleman's point. I take it that the immediate issue to which he refers is new investment in the London underground system. Let me reassure the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Carshalton and Wallington that good progress has been made in implementing the London Underground public-private partnership proposals since my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced them in March last year.
      On 7 October, London Transport announced that five consortiums had pre-qualified for the infrastructure contracts, and would be invited to tender for the deep tube infrastructure contracts. Invitation to tender documents were issued on 19 October, and bids are due back by March 2000. We are confident that the scheme is going ahead and that it will be successful.
      Mr. Hughes: I understand the Government's plan, but some of us, including Conservative Members, are not happy with it. If the mayor and Assembly elected in May have different ideas about the project, does the Minister accept that the rejection the amendment would preclude the mayor and Authority from raising money in the short term by a bond issue, unless the Government had decided to change their whole policy on local government financing?
      Mr. Hill: The blunt truth is that they would be precluded in the short term. However, the Government are confident about the timetable, and that achievement of the London Underground PPP project is well on course, so that it will be delivering to London, as scheduled, in the course of 2001.
      In conclusion, I hope that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will be content with my reply and will not seek to press the amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Brake rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time. I was hoping that the amendment would be moved formally at a later stage. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking the leave of the House?
      Mr. Brake: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to the Minister's

      737
      response. He gave no clear reason why the mayor should not have the flexibility to issue bonds secured against a number of revenue streams, not necessarily a single revenue stream. I believe that many of his objections to the amendment are Government-imposed restrictions relating to the public sector borrowing requirement and the Government's timetable for future business. I am afraid, therefore, that we ought to press the amendment to the vote.
      I am disappointed that Conservative Members have not supported us on the issue, as I do not believe that there are any reasons to restrict the mayor's flexibility unnecessarily. The mayor needs to have as many options as possible for raising funds for transport.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 195 to 212 agreed to [some with Special Entry].
      Lords amendment No. 703 and Government amendments (a) to (d) thereto, and consequential Government amendment (e) agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 213 to 215 agreed to.

    Clause 141

      RESTRICTIONS ON THE DISPOSAL OF LAND
      Lords amendment: No. 216, in page 76, line 14, leave out ("Transport for London shall not") and insert
      ("Neither Transport for London nor the Authority shall")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 217 to 222 and 567.
      Mr. Hill: When the Bill left this House, clause 141 and parts of clause 140 placed restrictions on Transport for London's ability to dispose of operational railway and tramway land. The clause is designed to prevent the permanent sale of key operational assets, primarily underground and docklands light railway lines and stations. Transport for London is required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to such disposals. However, the Bill as drafted required Transport for London to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to any disposal of operational railway or tramway land. The Government acknowledge that this formulation was unduly restrictive. It might have meant that Transport for London had to seek consent to all land disposals, instead of just those involving underground and DLR lines and stations.
      The amendments, therefore, gave effect to a previous ministerial undertaking that the restrictions on disposal of land would be refined to give Transport for London some operational flexibility over its property portfolio.
      The amendments change the definition of operational land, so that the Secretary of State's consent to disposal will not be required when the land in question is comparable to land in general, rather than land used for railway purposes. Amendment No. 220 provides that where underground or DLR lines or stations cease to be used for railway purposes, disposal will not be permitted
      738
      without the Secretary of State's consent for a period of five years thereafter, or such other period as the Secretary of State may determine by order.
      We think that the amendments strike the right balance between the need for Transport for London to have some operational flexibility and the protection of key operational assets.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 217 to 222 agreed to.

    Clause 142

      CONTROL OF SUBSIDIARIES
      Lords amendment: No. 223, in page 76, line 41, leave out ("Secretary of State,") and insert ("Mayor,")
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Hill.]
      The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 25.

      Division No. 296]

      [6 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ashton, Joe

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cohen, Harry

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coleman, Iain

      Austin, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Barnes, Harry

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bayley, Hugh

      Corbett, Robin

      Beard, Nigel

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Corston, Jean

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Cousins, Jim

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cox, Tom

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cranston, Ross

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cummings, John

      Berry, Roger

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dalyell, Tam

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Borrow, David

      Darvill, Keith

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Browne, Desmond

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Denham, John

      Burden, Richard

      Dobbin, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Doran, Frank

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Drew, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Edwards, Huw

      Caplin, Ivor

      Efford, Clive

      Casale, Roger

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Caton, Martin

      Etherington, Bill

      Chaytor, David

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Clapham, Michael

      Fisher, Mark

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Flint, Caroline

      739

      Flynn, Paul

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Follett, Barbara

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Levitt, Tom

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Linton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Livingstone, Ken

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lock, David

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Love, Andrew

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McCabe, Steve

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Goggins, Paul

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Grocott, Bruce

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Grogan, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hain, Peter

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McWilliam, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hanson, David

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Healey, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Heppell, John

      Meale, Alan

      Hesford, Stephen

      Merron, Gillian

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hill, Keith

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hinchliffe, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hood, Jimmy

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hope, Phil

      Mountford, Kali

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mullin, Chris

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hurst, Alan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hutton, John

      Olner, Bill

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jamieson, David

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jenkins, Brian

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pearson, Ian

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pound, Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prescott Rt Hon John

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Purchase, Ken

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rammell, Bill

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rapson, Syd

      Khabra, Piara S

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kidney, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rogers, Allan

      740

      Rooker, Jeff

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Roy, Frank

      Timms, Stephen

      Ruane, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Todd, Mark

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Touhig, Don

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Truswell, Paul

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Tynan, Bill

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Singh, Marsha

      Wareing, Robert N

      Skinner, Dennis

      Watts, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Winnick, David

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wise, Audrey

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wood, Mike

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Woolas, Phil

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Worthington, Tony

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Mr. David Clelland.

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Brake, Tom

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Breed, Colin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Burstow, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cotter, Brian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Webb, Steve

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Hancock, Mike

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Mr. Edward Davey.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 224 to 228 agreed to.

    Clause 143

      POWERS OF DISPOSAL
      Lords amendment: No. 229, in page 77, line 3, leave out ("In")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 230, 231, 297 to 333, 335, 569 and 705 to 707.
      Mr. Hill: Again, I—
      Mr. Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you investigate the fact that, apparently, the Division Bells are not ringing in Norman Shaw North?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That point has already been made and steps are being taken to investigate the matter.
      Mr. Hill: This group of amendments makes a number of largely technical or clarifying changes to the provisions relating to the London Underground public-private partnership. The structure and overall effect of the PPP provisions remain the same as they were when this House last considered the Bill.
      The first batch of amendments relates to PPP agreements and the arrangements for designating key assets. Amendments Nos. 287, 299, 300 and 335 extend to a subsidiary of London Regional Transport and Transport for London the powers already held by those parent bodies to enter into PPP agreements and to designate key system assets for the special protection provided by the Bill.
      Amendment No. 298 provides for the PPP agreements to be entered into while infrastructure companies are still subsidiaries of London Underground Ltd. Amendments Nos. 301 to 304 give Transport for London greater flexibility over the format, but not the content, of the information about key assets that it is required to make publicly available.
      Amendments Nos. 305 to 310 and amendment No. 329 provide for TfL to make transfer schemes for the distribution of property among its subsidiaries and PPP companies, so as to enable the mayor to retrieve all protected assets at the end of PPP contracts.
      The second and largest batch of amendments—Nos. 318 to 328, 330 to 333, and 560—adjust and expand the existing provisions regarding the PPP arbiter, a post created by the Bill to determine the price to be paid by London Underground for the work undertaken by a PPP company, if a dispute were to arise at a periodic review of the contract. The provisions allow the same person to hold the offices of Rail Regulator and arbiter, although I stress that no decision has been taken on an appointment. The provisions clarify the circumstances in which the arbiter can issue directions and guidance; refine the drafting of some of his statutory duties; provide legal protections and sanctions relating to his information-gathering powers; and ensure that terms used in the chapter are adequately defined.
      The third batch of amendments makes technical or editorial changes. Amendments Nos. 229 to 231 clarify London Transport's existing powers of disposal. Amendments Nos. 311 to 317 adjust the existing land provisions to avoid uncertainty in the treatment of PPP leases. Amendments Nos. 705 to 707 delete a couple of superfluous provisions in schedule 11.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Woodward: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his explanation of this group of amendments. We have a special interest in amendment No. 332. Our interest is heightened because I am aware that the hon. Gentleman,
      742
      who is relatively new to his post, has, like Opposition Members, had some difficulty in fathoming the extraordinary number of amendments that we have had to consider.
      The job of the Opposition has been made especially difficult by the absence—by and large—of explanatory notes for the amendments. Last Wednesday, the day before we first considered Lords amendments to the Bill, the Under-Secretary made some notes available. As there are 818 Government amendments, it has, however, been extremely difficult to cope at this late stage with the explanatory notes, which do not in any case include an explanation of many of the amendments. I hope that my preamble is giving the Minister for Housing and Planning time to provide his assistant with the necessary information to cope with my comments. My questions are genuine. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to satisfy us—perhaps not. We look forward to hearing what he has to say.
      Amendment No. 332 follows on from the previous amendment—they are interrelated and deal with the power of the PPP arbiter to requisition any information that he desires, within legal bounds. However, amendment No. 332 seems to restrict the arbiter from making some of the information public. Its stated purpose is to give statutory protection to third parties against the disclosure of information collected by the arbiter. How do the Government reconcile that protection with the principle of open government and freedom of information? What has happened to the principle of freedom of information in the Bill?
      We now know that some serious questions have to be answered regarding safety in our public transport system. For that reason, some people have been especially concerned about whether it is appropriate to continue to hold negotiations between Railtrack, the Secretary of State and five of the London tube lines. Questions have been put about freedom of information and the background to those negotiations, but the Secretary of State has strenuously refused to supply an answer. If the amendment were accepted, would it mean that, if Railtrack did not want to disclose information, it would—or could—have the power to stop that disclosure?
      People are rightly concerned that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has been content to hold secret negotiations with Railtrack, despite concerns about safety, and that he continues to refuse to allow information to enter the public domain in any shape or form. We have no information about his negotiations: we know nothing about the tender, or about the demands he is making with regard to safety. The answer to those and many other questions is that we simply do not know.
      Perhaps when he has finished consulting his colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Under-Secretary will he able to answer our questions. If he cannot, I am sure that his right hon. Friend will take time off from his campaign duties to advise the House. In the current circumstances of concern about public transport, secrecy is unfair. Why should the travelling public not know what is happening to the currently publicly owned tube? Why, in the age of open government, can information pertaining to the relationship between the PPP and, for example, the Civil Aviation Authority, be obliged to be made public, whereas

      743
      information pertaining to discussions between Ministers and Railtrack on the PPP remain secret? What guarantees are being made in respect of safety?
      We know that large numbers of trains on the underground—a system held in public ownership—have gone through red lights. We know that a train protection system is in use on the underground. As Ministers will know, concerns have been raised by those working on underground trains about the adequacy of that train protection system. Will the PPP arbiter be obliged to keep background details about such safety issues, and can that information be made public? Will the arbiter have access to all the papers currently in the possession of the Secretary of State as he takes advice on those issues? Will he have access, as the House does not, to the unpublished Deloitte and Touche report on the PPP, which we believe says that the PPP cannot work and will not work commercially without a dramatic increase in fares and a diminution of service provision to the public? What access will the Assembly have to information held by the arbiter? If the people of London cannot have it, will the Assembly be allowed to see it?
      Subsection (4) of amendment No. 332 would appear to give the Secretary of State the order-making power to modify the preceding subsections, as and when he wants, and so to undermine subsections (2) and (3). What is the reason for that provision, and in what circumstances would it be used by the Secretary of State?
      The amendments would appear to be ill-considered. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide a genuinely satisfactory explanation and tell us that the PPP arbiter will be able to gain the necessary information and that all the information will be made public. Perpetuating a climate of secrecy is the wrong way to proceed in the current circumstances. As for the on-going negotiations with Railtrack, does amendment No. 332 mean that Railtrack could be obliged to disclose information, or that the company could say, as the amendment suggests it could, that the information was not
      "for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by"
      the Secretary of State or others
      "of any or his or, as the case may be, its functions",
      and so could remain secret?
      Mr. Brake: The House heard earlier the rather weak and confused grounds on which the mayor is to be denied the opportunity to issue bonds. Now we have heard the Minister's explanation of the current group of amendments, but many doubts about the PPP remain.
      First and foremost of those concerns is the role of Railtrack in the public-private partnership, to which amendment No. 332 is highly relevant. We need to know what negotiations with Railtrack are taking place; why the subsurface lines have not been put out to tender; and whether there is any likelihood that that might in future be subject to legal challenge on the grounds that it is anti-competitive.
      What is the timetable for signing the PPP contracts? Earlier, I quoted a response to a parliamentary question in which I was told that the contracts would be signed when they were ready; that is not a satisfactory response. If they are to be signed in 18 months or two years, what impact will that have on the availability of funds for investing in the tube during the period before the PPP kicks in?
      744
      I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions in detail. We have faced continuous stalling, month after month and year after year. Unless the Minister is able to provide a satisfactory response, many hon. Members will go away believing that the PPP is off course and bound to fail.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). We are clearly entering new territory with the concept of the public-private partnership. My view is that a service or industry is either in the public sector or privatised, and that to try to mix the two does not augur well unless the parties involved have information and unless that information is open to the public to judge for themselves.
      The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked why the subsurface lines were not being put out to tender. Incidentally, I should like to put on record the fact that "subsurface" is a contradiction in terms, but, setting that aside, there must be some explanation. In addition, if one is to try to make the concept of public-private partnership work, the length of the contracts to be awarded is crucial, as are the back-up compensation clauses for the private organisation that has its tender accepted.
      A myriad of issues must be addressed—if not before the Bill is passed, then when the PPP concept begins to take shape. The Government have prided themselves on open government and joined-up government; sadly, in respect of putting flesh on the bones of PPP, they have achieved neither.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I rise to support the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) in respect of his concerns about amendment No. 332 and the restrictions on disclosure of information.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, we debated the matter in Committee, where we expressed our concern about the financial modelling of the PPP scheme. Ministers told us that we had nothing to worry about and that huge fare increases were not contained in the modelling. The consultants' report which the Government used to dream up the scheme contained no assumption of huge tube fare rises. However, only recently, London Transport has announced that fares on the London underground are to rise by 7 per cent.—that is incredibly worrying as it goes against the spirit of many of the speeches made by Ministers in the Committee.
      Mr. Woodward: I am struck by the way in which, whereas Ministers have resorted throughout our two-day debate to saying that all the Lords amendments are technical, if we examine one amendment and pull it apart, we find that it is anything but technical and has implications that extend well beyond the scope of the Bill.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
      Returning to the matter of fares, the PPP scheme and future versions of the PPP scheme as considered by the PPP arbiter, are we going to find in future years that large fare increases have been negotiated yet again? Behind the PPP and the secret negotiations, is there a hidden agenda of fare rises stretching into the future? If London

      745
      Transport is prepared to announce publicly a 7 per cent. rise before the GLA elections, what is being decided behind closed doors, out of public view?
      I am incredibly worried by the amendments, which make problems that were highlighted in Committee even worse. Most disturbing is the fact that, during the run-up to the GLA elections, when the different parties put before the people of London their different models and agendas for London transport, we shall not know what financial modelling assumptions lie behind the PPP scheme and the negotiations that will be going on at that time.
      6.30 pm
      Perhaps the Greater London Authority, as it takes power and starts its work, will not be informed until the PPP has been signed. Until it has been signed, the mayor will not be privy to the assumptions behind it. The absurd situation could therefore arise in which the mayor and the Assembly members had fought an election without knowing the fare increases that had been debated in the negotiations on the PPP. Such secrecy makes a mockery of open government and of the Government's claim that they are modernising their methods of government.
      I hope that the Government will withdraw amendment No. 332 because the debate exposes their vulnerability to attack during the election campaign. We shall be able to claim that they try to prevent debate and refuse to provide information on their plans. Unless the Government are prepared to withdraw such gagging measures, I warn the Minister that we shall have the benefit of the Government's actions as proof to back up our argument that they have a secret agenda of fare rises.
      Mr. Paul Burstow: I want to speak briefly to the amendments, and pick up one or two of the anxieties that have been expressed by Conservative Front Benchers and my hon. Friends.
      The PPP and its genesis could be seen to symbolise the Bill and the large number of amendments that have been tabled at almost every stage of its passage. In its Commons and Lords stages, the Government have attempted to create on the hoof an elaborate architecture for the fabrication of the funding for investment in London Transport. It beggars belief that, at this stage, Ministers are unable to come to the House and provide detailed figures and the assurances that we need about how the PPP will work in practice.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said that we are still told by Ministers that we will not know when the PPP is ready: that it will be ready when it is ready and signed when it is signed. That is unsatisfactory both for mayoral candidates and for the House. We are being asked to approve legislation tonight that will establish a procedure whose implications we cannot foresee or understand. Ministers seem unable or unwilling to share with us the Bill's consequences.
      We have no information about the PPP's long-term cost to the public purse. Yet that is fundamental to assessing whether the PPP constitutes the right way to proceed. How can we have a serious mayoral debate about investment in London transport when amendment No. 332 and many other provisions in the Bill deny us essential
      746
      information about the PPP? I hope that the Government will withdraw the amendment and rethink a structure that would leave Londoners with an unsatisfactory arrangement and cost the taxpayer far more than necessary.
      Mr. Hill: The amendment has provoked a wide range of grievances and charges. I shall attempt to deal with them more or less in chronological order.
      The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) began by complaining about lack of information on amendments. I acknowledge that there is much to be tackled. However, as the hon. Gentleman should concede, we have been scrupulous in ensuring that the Opposition in another place were sent explanatory notes on all major amendments during the Bill's progress through the House so that they were able to scrutinise them fully. In response to a specific request in the form of a parliamentary question on Monday last week by the hon. Gentleman, we were able to place in the Library on Wednesday explanatory notes on all new clauses and schedules that were added in another place. The explanatory note on amendment No. 332, which has proved so contentious, was available from the Library almost a week ago—in good time for deliberations on it today.
      Various points have been made about the proposed London Underground public-private partnership. Let me deal with one of them—safety. I cannot emphasise too strongly that safety is paramount when considering the PPP. We shall take account of any lessons of the Southall and Ladbroke Grove accidents that have implications for the underground. The PPP deal is structured so that public sector London Underground will continue to have responsibility for the statutory railway safety case for the whole underground. The PPP infrastructure companies will take over existing safety cases that are agreed with Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. They form part of London Underground's overall safety case and the PPP companies will be obliged to maintain them. I stress that public sector London Underground Ltd. will have overall responsibility for safety. It will be the guiding mind on safety on the London Underground under the PPP.
      There has been some scaremongering about fares from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. On a point of information, the report that the hon. Gentleman had in mind was not by Deloitte and Touche, as the hon. Gentleman claimed, but by Chantrey Vellacott. That report suggested that the PPP would lead to a 30 per cent. increase in fares. The analysis in the note that Chantrey Vellacott published is flawed.
      Mr. Woodward: Of course, I was right: there are two reports. The Chantrey Vellacott report is available to everyone; we have all read it. It claims that tube fares will increase by 30 per cent. under the PPP—the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) claims that the increase will be 40 per cent. The other report analyses the various options for the future of London Underground. It has been on the Secretary of State's desk, but he refuses to make it public because it claims that the PPP proposals are barmy and that the Government should not proceed with them.
      Mr. Hill: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that all the reports that claim that there will be vast increases in London Underground fares under the PPP are wrong. I shall explain the reasons briefly.
      Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
      Mr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a second, I shall say a little more about the Chantrey Vellacott report, which has been mentioned in the debate.
      Mr. Woodward: We did not ask the Minister to say more about it.
      Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman may not have done so, but one of his sidekicks on the Liberal Democrat Benches asked about it. Therefore, I shall deal with that point first. We shall deal with other reports in due course. There is a fundamental position on fares on London Underground under the PPP, about which I shall speak shortly.
      I have not forgotten the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), but I want to comment on the Chantrey Vellacott report first. We do not accept that fares will increase on the scale that Chantrey Vellacott suggested. Its working assumptions were flawed. It is an error to assume that the bulk of initial investment will be financed through borrowing. Neither does Chantrey Vellacott take account of the efficiency savings that will result from London Underground having a stable longterm investment programme. The savings have been variously projected at between 15 and 20 per cent., so they will be substantial.
      We have repeatedly stated that we shall award the contracts only if they represent best value. We would not be embarking on a PPP competition if we did not believe that there was a very good chance of achieving best value for the taxpayer.
      I thank the hon. Gentleman for his patience; I now give way.
      Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the Minister for his patience, and I appreciate the opportunity to intervene now. Will he assure the House that, when the PPP finally becomes operational, annual fare rises on the London underground will be significantly lower than the inflation-busting increases that Londoners have had to endure since May 1997?
      Mr. Hill: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, because I want to come to precisely that issue. The economic modelling on which the PPP proposals have been based has operated on the assumption that fares would increase by no more than the retail prices index plus 1 per cent. in the next two years, and in line with inflation after that. Therefore, I assure him and the wider public, whom he is attempting to terrify, that there is absolutely no question of significant fare increases under the PPP. It will be funded by the efficiency savings achieved by a long-term stable rolling programme of investment.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful that the Minister has tried to reassure the House—I am not sure that he has succeeded—that, once the PPP is in operation, fare increases will not be of the size that we have just
      748
      experienced. Is that because there will be many more huge fare increases before the PPP is signed? Is that why there has been such a delay in signing the PPP? Just like the Tories did before rail privatisation, the Government might want to sneak in a few high fare increases.
      Mr. Hill: Rather than sitting there preparing his intervention, the hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully I made it absolutely clear that, in the first two years leading up to the PPP, the assumption in the economic modelling is that fares will not increase by more than the retail prices index plus 1 per cent. There is no question of huge increases leading up to that point. From spring next year and up to the conclusion of the PPP, the mayor will have a stake in the arrangements for the PPP, including those for the fare levels. I am certain that the new mayor of London will not be in the business of encouraging substantial fare increases.
      The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) referred to the Deloitte and Touche report and made several accusations. I confirm that we are not aware of any Deloitte and Touche report on the PPP. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the study that my Department commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was concluded last year. We published a summary of it, but we cannot publish it in its entirety because of commercially confidentiality. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. It certainly did not say that fare increases would result from the PPP.
      On the achievability of the PPP, I reiterate what I said in an earlier debate: London Transport announced on 7 October that five consortiums have pre-qualified in the competition for deep tubes and will be invited to tender for the deep tube infrastructure contracts. The invitation to tender was issued on 19 October and bids are due back next March. The House will be pleased to hear that there was a strong field of applications, and that reflects the keen interest for the PPP in the marketplace. It is on stream and will be achieved.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Redwood: Before the Minister leaves the subject, will he tell the House how much preparations for the PPP have so far cost? What is his estimate of the total cost, including all the expenses of legal and financial advice from inside and outside his Department? Will that be paid for out of the fare box or out of taxation?
      Mr. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek in raising that issue. Few of us will forget that the cost of consultancies and preparations for the deeply flawed privatisation of the railways, which broke up our railway system into a hundred pieces, was about…650 million. The last parliamentary answer provided by the Government in response to a question about the cost of the preparations for the PPP stated that they had cost not more than…20 million to date. There is a massive difference between the extortionate costs that the right hon. Gentleman's Government imposed on the taxpayer and the extremely reasonable and cautious attitude adopted by this Government.
      Reference was made to negotiations with Railtrack and to the provision of information. I emphasise that amendment No. 332 is not relevant to the negotiations of PPP agreements, including those with Railtrack. It relates

      749
      to periodic reviews of contracts after they have been entered into. Information on the negotiation of PPPs will be made available in the normal way to the National Audit Office. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has also made it clear that details of the public sector comparator, another issued raised by Opposition Members, will be published.
      Mr. Woodward: If the PPP arbiter wishes to review the terms and conditions of a contract with Railtrack once the mayor is in post, will it be possible to disclose that information and make it public?
      Mr. Hill: Yes. New clause 332 restricts the disclosure only of information that is irrelevant to the statutory duties of the arbiter and other statutory bodies listed. That is a reasonable protection to third parties, such as suppliers to PPP companies.
      Mr. Brake: Will the Minister clarify at what point he expects the public sector comparator test for the PPP to be complete, what cost he expects to have been incurred at that point and who will pick up the bill should the public sector comparator test reveal that the PPP is not financially viable?
      Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman raises two issues. I am not able—the hon. Gentleman could not reasonably expect me to be able—to speculate about the final costs of the consultancy and preparatory work for the PPP. No one could do that. I think that I have demonstrated clearly, however, that the Government have adopted an extremely prudent and cautious approach to such costs.
      The Government have repeatedly made it clear that we will publish the public sector comparator before the conclusion of the PPP. When that occurs—we presume that it will be in 2001—the hon. Gentleman, other Members and the public will be able to judge on the basis of that test. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that, if the public sector comparator were negative about the PPP, there would be no question of our going forward with it.
      Mr. Woodward rose—
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
      Mr. Hill: I see several Members wishing to challenge me on that point, but I saw the hon. Member for Witney first. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Woodward: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. We may wish to divide the House on the amendment, so it must be made crystal clear. Is the Minister saying that amendment No. 332 will not stop the PPP arbiter from obtaining all the background information on the negotiations with Railtrack, the consultation documents and the advice to the Secretary of State, and that that information can be published—yes or no?
      Mr. Hill: I shall revert to that. I had intended to go on to the safety issue. Let me deal with that before I deal with the question about the role of the arbiter. [HON. MEMBERS:
      750
      "Come on.] It is a matter of good order in responding to the points raised in the debate, as I am sure hon. Members understand.
      Let me deal with the issue of whether amendment No. 332 covers disclosure affecting functions relating to the Health and Safety Executive and safety provisions. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue. Subsection (2) makes it clear that the provisions of the new clause do not apply
      "to any disclosure of information which is made"—
      I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to subsection (f)—
      "for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Health and Safety Commission or the Health and Safety Executive of any of its functions under any enactment or of facilitating the carrying out by any enforcing authority, within the meaning of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, of any function under a relevant statutory provision within the meaning of that Act".
      That makes it crystal clear that no matter relating to health and safety on the underground will be subject to any prevention of disclosure under the terms of the Bill.
      On the broader issue of freedom of information, I remind the hon. Gentleman that amendment No. 332 provides statutory protection to third parties against disclosure of information collected by the arbiter, except where it is necessary to carry out the specific statutory functions referred to in the clause. It is enforceable by means of a civil injunction.
      The hon. Gentleman asked how that was compatible with freedom of information principles. I find that an extraordinary question.
      Mr. Redwood: Why?
      Mr. Hill: For the simple reason that the provisions are again based on the Railways Act 1993, but again, for reasons of proportionality, provide a civil rather than a criminal sanction. In other words, the legislation introduced by the Conservative Government imposed a criminal sanction for the disclosure of information. The legislation that the present Government are introducing imposes a civil rather than a criminal sanction. The House will recognise where the balance of openness and transparency lies between a criminal sanction for those seeking to disclose information and a civil sanction in that situation.
      Mr. Corbyn: I wanted to give my hon. Friend a little time to catch up with the other issues that have been raised. Many people are deeply concerned about the PPP and the possibility that it will fail and that Londoners will be saddled with an expensive bill and large fare rises to pay for it. Will the matter come back before the House before the PPP is signed, or will the mayor to be appointed next year have to implement the deal that has been done? Will the scrutiny of the PPP be for the mayor and the Assembly, or for the House before such a deal is signed?
      Mr. Hill: I can reassure my hon. Friend. Of course there will be a report back to the House. It is inconceivable that, the Secretary of State and the House having sanctioned the PPP, the matter should not be brought back in due course to the House of Commons.
      Mr. Woodward: As we all know, the Minister is filibustering while he desperately tries to obtain

      751
      the answers. Any accusations of filibustering made by the Government will sit uncomfortably in the House. I hope that the Minister has now got the answers. Will he wind up the debate by telling the House whether, when the mayor is in place, if the PPP arbiter wishes, he will be given all the advice behind the commercial dealings currently going on with the Secretary of State and Railtrack? Will that information be made available to the PPP arbiter and will it be made public—yes or no?
      Mr. Hill: Not all of it. Despite the hilarity on the Opposition Benches, it is an entirely reasonable proposition that there will be elements of commercial confidentiality, which I clearly recollect the previous Government were only too eager to plead on many occasions. It is not an intrinsically unreasonable principle.
      I have already made it clear that amendment No. 332 is not related to the negotiation of contracts and that information on all PPPs will be available to the National Audit Office, which will no doubt wish to scrutinise them.
      Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister told the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that there would be a report back to the House before the PPP was signed. Are the Government minded to allow the House to vote on that report, and will it contain details of the negotiations behind the PPP—details that we have not yet seen?
      Mr. Hill: That question is a little premature. It will be a matter for the usual channels, but undoubtedly the Secretary of State will wish to report back to the House. With that, I urge the House to support amendment No. 332 and other amendments in this group.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 230 to 238 agreed to.

    Clause 148

      ADDITION OR VARIATION OF A NETWORK SERVICE
      Lords amendment: No. 239, in page 79, line 1, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 240 to 267, 273 and 274.
      Mr. Hill: This group of amendments provides further safeguards for the interests of holders of, and applicants for, London service permits. They respond to concerns raised in this House at Committee stage.
      The amendments also make improvements to consultation procedures for both London bus network services and London permit services.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 240 to 274 agreed to.

    Clause 161

      POWER OF AUTHORITY TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO THE FRANCHISING DIRECTOR
      Lords amendment: No. 275, in page 85, line 3, after ("give") insert ("instructions or")
      7 pm
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 276 to 296, 554, 568, 573, 718 and 802.
      Mr. Hill: The amendments, which concern railways and trams, deal with services on the national rail network and aspects of Transport for London rail services. They will achieve a number of things, such as giving effect to the undertaking given on Report by my predecessor to introduce measures that will more fully define the relationship between the mayor and the Strategic Rail Authority. That undertaking was generally welcomed by Conservative Members and, indeed, in the other place. The Bill will thus fully provide for the mayor to have a strong voice in rail, while ensuring that that will not detract from the Strategic Rail Authority's overall responsibility for services on the national network.
      We have taken a balanced approach which is designed to encourage a constructive relationship. For example, Transport for London and the franchising director will be under a duty to co-operate in the provision of services, and the franchising director will be required to consult the mayor about his plans for London rail fares and services.
      The amendments also set out the procedures to be followed for the consideration of proposals to discontinue rail services operated by Transport for London, primarily on the underground. They transfer to the mayor the current responsibility of the Secretary of State to take decisions on proposed discontinuance of services, but otherwise there is no significant alteration. They also provide that London Transport and Transport for London will not be constrained—for example, by the terms of London Transport's exemption from the national licensing and access regulatory regime—from entering into appropriate arrangements to integrate the tube and national rail networks.
      The amendments place restrictions on the mayor's ability to franchise or contract out certain train and station-operating functions. The purpose is to ensure that underground trains and stations continue to be operated by a publicly owned, publicly accountable London Underground in line with the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 15 June. Finally, they transfer to the mayor certain responsibilities of the Secretary of State in respect of the docklands light railway and Croydon tramlink, and provide for the continuation of the arrangements for penalty fares on Croydon tramlink.
      Mr. Brake: I support the amendments. It was clear at the beginning of the process that there was a major flaw in the Government's proposals: the mayor would have very little say over rail services in London and his ability to give guidance to the franchising director would hardly

      753
      be likely to achieve integration of rail, tube and bus services in London. I therefore welcome this slight amendment, which will ensure that the mayor is also able to give instructions.
      I hope that there will be co-operation between the mayor and the franchising director and that it will not be necessary to give instructions, but it is important that such a power exists. It will mean that the mayor should be able to have a greater say over the quality of train services in London. Those of us who commute regularly know that every passenger is affected every day by overcrowding, cancellations and dirty trains. I support the change and hope that, as a result of it, the mayor's ability to give instructions to the franchising director will help to achieve the leap to better-quality rail services in London.
      Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I listened to what the Minister said about the effects of the amendments. Those to clause 161 and amendment No. 288 refer to instructions, guidance and consultation in respect of the mayor, the authority and the franchising director, which is all very well. A few minutes ago, the Minister said that they refer in particular to instances in which there might be proposals for discontinuing services. Epping Forest is in Essex, not London. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of my constituents depend on London underground services? The Central line runs out to Chigwell, Loughton, Theydon Bois and even to Epping, but my constituents—
      Mr. Raynsford: To Ongar.
      Mrs. Laing: From a sedentary position, the Minister says that the Central line runs to Ongar. It no longer does so.
      Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman has not been a Minister for long.
      Mrs. Laing: I know; he has forgotten about Ongar.
      I was given assurances by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—who might become mayor of London herself—when she was a Minister that the track between Epping and Ongar would be protected as railway track. [HON. MEMBERS: "Early pledge."] It was an early pledge, indeed, and I am pleased to put that on the record.
      At present, the service runs all the way to Epping, but my constituents in Epping Forest, who are not residents of London, do not have a vote for either the mayor or the authority. Therefore, one could hardly expect either the mayor or members of the Assembly to put the interests of my constituents high on their list of priorities when they consult, or issue instructions or guidance to, the franchising director or deal with any other issue concerning the future of London underground.
      London underground is extremely important to my constituents. I consider it to be one of my first duties as Member of Parliament for Epping Forest to protect the future of London underground services to my constituency. Will the Minister guarantee that, in conjunction with all those other people who will be consulted about the interests of the people they represent
      754
      in Greater London, I will be consulted and will continue to have the right to speak in the Chamber on behalf of my constituents, who depend utterly on London underground? They will have no voice in the Authority or with the mayor—only with their Member of Parliament. The House must not lose its right to discuss those matters.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on beginning to fly solo, although he seems to hit the odd bit of turbulence when he is forced away from his script. I have noticed that his instructor's hands occasionally twitch back towards the controls, but let us hope the hon. Gentleman gains confidence as time goes on.
      Listening to the Minister's introductory comments, one might have thought that the amendments were fairly minor and would have relatively little effect. The reality, of course, is very different, which is a common theme throughout the Bill. According to my analysis, amendments Nos. 288, 289, 290, 291, 294, 295, 296 and 554 all incorporate new clauses to the Bill. That is worth thinking about, at least for a moment, in relation to the helter-skelter way in which we are considering the amendments.
      Mr. Redwood: We are not allowed a minute.
      Mr. Waterson: As my right hon. Friend says, we are not even allowed a minute. It is worth pointing out that substantial changes are being made by a group of amendments which we have again to debate at great speed.
      Clause 161(8) refers to the functions of the authority that are
      "exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority."
      There is a lot of confusion in the provisions about the powers of the mayor, and where they finish and those of the Secretary of State or, in due course, the Strategic Rail Authority—start.
      Some of the amendments are to include the "instructions", as well as guidance, which are to be given by the mayor to the franchising director. The amendments depend heavily on good will existing between the mayor and the Secretary of State. One could envisage those two being from different political parties, but that would be as nothing compared with the possibility of their being from the same party if the mayor has been elected in spite of his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government—[Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and the Regions is continuing her running commentary on all Opposition speeches. How paltry our debates would be without her contributions. Clearly, problems will arise because, if the new mayor has had difficulties in being approved as a candidate for the Labour party, or in being elected to the post of mayor, he or she may not be entirely well disposed towards the Secretary of State—whoever that might be.
      The amendments seem to face in two directions. They appear—as the Minister would like them to—to beef up the mayor's powers. The Minister echoed the words of Lord Whitty in the other place when he said that the mayor would be a "voice for London". In reality, however, the amendments might bring the mayor into conflict with the Secretary of State. Although the mayor

      755
      is supposed to stand up for Londoners—we have heard that theme more than once in this and previous debates—he or she must also deal with the Secretary of State and, in due course, the Strategic Rail Authority. The current Secretary of State has a penchant for rail summits and the like, and seeks to interfere more and more at all levels in the operation of the railways, both within and outside London.
      Lord Whitty talked about defining
      "the relationship between the mayor and the franchising director"—
      and, in due course, between the mayor and the proposed Strategic Rail Authority. He said that the Government were
      "committed to giving the mayor a strong voice in rail, but that the mayor's powers should not detract from the wider strategic responsibilities of the franchising director and the strategic rail authority."
      It is difficult to see, where there is also a duty to consult the mayor over proposed changes to service levels and fares, what will happen if the mayor takes a radically different view from that of those other bodies. As Lord Whitty pointed out,
      "the franchising director will have to implement the mayor's instructions and guidance unless to do so will 'prevent or seriously hinder him' complying with the Secretary of State's guidance."
      He then said, no doubt with a straight face:
      "The amendment preserves that principle but gives the mayor more flexibility".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 1999; Vol. 603, c. 544-55.]
      It seems to be left entirely to the franchising director to decide whether what the mayor wants would have an adverse impact on the remainder of the network. That was left in the air in an exchange between Lord Whitty and Baroness Hamwee. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government's thoughts on that point have changed in the interim.
      7.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) made some excellent points on behalf of her constituents and expressed concern about the closure of services. One of the amendments proposes that the mayor, rather than the Secretary of State, should make decisions on closures, although there will still be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. Although we hear a lot of rhetoric about giving the mayor a voice on subjects such as railways, ultimately, the Secretary of State will retain a lot of power to ensure that the mayor cannot kick over the traces and cause too many difficulties. Those comments apply also to the provisions for penalty fares.
      As with other groups of amendments, we should have liked much more time to consider these matters in more detail. A look behind the Minister's introductory remarks, reveals that some of these amendments incorporate fairly complex new clauses into the Bill. Unless the Minister's explanation is superlatively good, I intend to press amendment No. 294 to a vote.
      Mr. Hill: May I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for his support on this matter? The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) made an interesting and useful intervention, which permits me to offer her some reassurances about the rights of her constituents who live outside the area
      756
      covered by the GLA. Schedule 9 gives Transport for London powers similar to those currently enjoyed by London Transport, under which the latter runs services to destinations outside London. There is no reason why Transport for London should do differently. Moreover, it will be the mayor's duty, under clause 123, to promote services to, from and within London. Similarly, those aggrieved about closures outside London will be able to appeal to the Secretary of State, as at present.
      On the representation of people outside London, Transport for London will inform local authorities outside London affected by the proposals of its plans for fares and services. The Assembly will also be required to have regard to the interests of rail users outside London when it makes appointments to the London Transport Users Committee. The mayor will also consult widely on his or her transport strategy.
      Mrs. Laing: I sincerely thank the Minister for those straight answers to my questions. Could my constituents have a representative role by being appointed to the consultative committee?
      Mr. Hill: My understanding is that they could, bearing in mind that the responsibilities of the LTUC, as it will be called, extend well outside the London area—from Bicester in the north to Gatwick in the south. Thus there will be opportunities for representation on that committee. The LTUC has statutory duties with regard to the representation of rail and other transport users outside as well as within London. It will have a close relationship with the mayor and the Assembly, and it will expect those wider responsibilities to be taken on board by the GLA. The hon. Lady can therefore rest reasonably assured about the future of railway services in her locality.
      The hon. Lady also asked whether she would continue to have the right to speak about those matters in this Chamber. Of course she will. However, some 7 million Londoners currently have no right to govern their affairs. Under the GLA, they will have precisely that right, as they elect the mayor and the Assembly.
      On the issues raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I would expect tensions occasionally to arise between the mayor and the Secretary of State. That is the nature of politics, and it would be improper if it were otherwise. What one seeks to do in legislation of this nature is to create a framework for conflict resolution. That, I think, is a fruitful process.
      The hon. Member for Eastbourne raised issues relating to the mayor's powers in regard to the franchising director. It is as well to remember that, in all that he or she does, the mayor will be operating with the mandate of many millions of Londoners. That is a powerful basis on which to relate to the railway authorities.
      As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Bill gives the mayor powers to issue instructions and guidance—terminology taken from the Railways Act 1993, introduced by his own Government. However, we also make it perfectly clear that the franchising director, the Secretary of State and the relevant railway bodies will need to have their primary responsibility, the national rail network, firmly before their eyes. If the issues and guidance offered by the mayor seemed to impinge on that, the national interest would—probably rightly—need to prevail.

      757
      What we envisage, however, is a positive, constructive and fruitful relationship between the mayor and the railway authorities. We are delighted to commend to the House amendments that meet a widespread demand for the mayor to be given more precise and more effective powers as a strong voice on behalf of railway users, in both London and the surrounding areas.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 276 to 293 agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 294, after clause 166, to insert the following new clause—Restrictions on contracting out certain services—
    ".—(1) For the purposes of this section, the services which are "reserved services" are those whose provision by a person would involve that person in performing or securing the performance, for the purposes of any TfL passenger rail service, of—

    (a) any station-operating function; or

    (b) any train-operating function.

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

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

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

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

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

    (b) may be given subject to conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    758

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

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

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

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

    (b) any duties of guards on passenger trains;

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

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

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

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

    (8) In this section—

    "contract of employment" means any contract of service or apprenticeship;

    "outside contractor" means a person other than Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London;

    "passenger train" means a train which is being, has just been, or is about to be, used for the provision of a TfL passenger rail service;

    "premises" includes any land, building or structure;

    "railway" has the meaning given in section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992;

    "reserved service" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1) above;

    "station" means any land or other property which consists of premises used as, or for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, a railway passenger station or railway passenger terminal (including any approaches, forecourt, cycle store or car park), whether or not the land or other property is, or the premises are, also used for other purposes;

    "TfL passenger rail service" means any public service for the carriage of passengers by railway which is under the control of Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London;

    "ticket" includes any other authority to travel or to be present in a part of a station where such an authority is required.

    (9) The Secretary of State may by order amend this section for the purpose of varying the meaning in this section of any of the following expressions—

    (a) "train-operating function";

    (b) "station-operating function";

    (c) "outside contractor"; or

    (d) "TfL passenger rail service"."

    Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 158.

    Division No. 297]

    [7.22 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Barnes, Harry

    Ainger, Nick

    Barron, Kevin

    Alexander, Douglas

    Bayley, Hugh

    Allen, Graham

    Beard, Nigel

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Ashton, Joe

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Austin, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    759

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Flint, Caroline

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Flynn, Paul

    Berry, Roger

    Follett, Barbara

    Betts, Clive

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Foulkes, George

    Borrow, David

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Gapes, Mike

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Browne, Desmond

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Burgon, Colin

    Godsiff, Roger

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Goggins, Paul

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Grocott, Bruce

    Casale, Roger

    Grogan, John

    Caton, Martin

    Gunnell, John

    Chaytor, David

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Healey, John

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hill, Keith

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hinchliffe, David

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cohen, Harry

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Coleman, Iain

    Hope, Phil

    Connarty, Michael

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Corston, Jean

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cox, Tom

    Hurst, Alan

    Cranston, Ross

    Hutton, John

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Illsley, Eric

    Cummings, John

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jamieson, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Darvill, Keith

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Doran, Frank

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dowd, Jim

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Drew, David

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Edwards, Huw

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Khabra, Piara S

    Etherington, Bill

    Kidney, David

    Reid, Rt Hon Frank

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Fisher, Mark

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    760

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Rowlands, Ted

    Laxton, Bob

    Roy, Frank

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ruane, Chris

    Levitt, Tom

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Linton, Martin

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Salter, Martin

    Lock, David

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sawford, Phil

    McCabe, Steve

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Sheerman, Barry

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Macdonald, Calum

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McDonnell, John

    Singh, Marsha

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Skinner, Dennis

    McIsaac, Shona

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McNulty, Tony

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    McWalter, Tony

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    McWilliam, John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Stringer, Graham

    Martlew Eric

    Maxton, John

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Meale, Alan

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Merron, Gillian

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Miller, Andrew

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Moffatt, Laura

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Timms, Stephen

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mountford, Kali

    Todd, Mark

    Mudie, George

    Touhig, Don

    Mullin, Chris

    Truswell, Paul

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Olner, Bill

    Tynan, Bill

    O'Neill, Martin

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Wareing, Robert N

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Watts, David

    Pearson, Ian

    White, Brian

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Pike, Peter L

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Plaskitt, James

    Pope, Greg

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Pound, Stephen v

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Wills, Michael

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Winnick, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Wise, Audrey

    Purchase, Ken

    Wood, Mike

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Woolas, Phil

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Worthington, Tony

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Rammell, Bill

    Wyatt, Derek

    Rapson, Syd

    Raynsford, Nick

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Mr. David Clelland and

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

    761

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Hunter, Andrew

    Amess, David

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Keetch, Paul

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Key, Robert

    Baldry, Tony

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Bercow, John

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Blunt, Crispin

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Boswell, Tim

    Lansley, Andrew

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Leigh, Edward

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Lidington, David

    Brady, Graham

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Brake, Tom

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Brazier, Julian

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Breed, Colin

    Loughton, Tim

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Luff, Peter

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Burns, Simon

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Burstow, Paul

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Butterfill, John

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Madel, Sir David

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Maples, John

    Chidgey, David

    Mates, Michael

    Chope, Christopher

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Clappison, James

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Collins, Tim

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Colvin, Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Page, Richard

    Cotter, Brian

    Paice, James

    Cran, James

    Paterson, Owen

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Pickles, Eric

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Prior, David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Randall, John

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Rendel, David

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Robathan, Andrew

    Duncan, Alan

    Robertson, Laurence

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Evans, Nigel

    Ruffley, David

    Faber, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Fabricant, Michael

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Fallon, Michael

    Sanders, Adrian

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Flight, Howard

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Shepherd, Richard

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Soames, Nicholas

    Fraser, Christopher

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Gale, Roger

    Spring, Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Gibb, Nick

    Streeter, Gary

    Gill, Christopher

    Stunell, Andrew

    Gray, James

    Swayne, Desmond

    Green, Damian

    Syms, Robert

    Greenway, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Grieve, Dominic

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hammond, Philip

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hancock, Mike

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hawkins, Nick

    Townend, John

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Tredinnick, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Trend, Michael

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Horam, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Wardle, Charles

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Waterson, Nigel

    762

    Wells, Bowen

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Woodward, Shaun

    Whittingdale, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wilkinson, John

    Willetts, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Willis, Phil

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    Wilshire, David

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 295 to 331 agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 332, after clause 188, to insert the following new clause—Restrictions on disclosure of information—
    ".—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no information with respect to any particular business which—

    (a) has been obtained by the PPP arbiter under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this Chapter, and

    (b) relates to the affairs of any individual or to any particular business,

    shall, during the lifetime of that individual or so long as that business continues to be carried on, be disclosed without the consent of that individual or the person for the time being carrying on that business.
    (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to any disclosure of information which is made—

    (a) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London, Transport for London or the PPP arbiter of any of his or, as the case may be, its functions under this Act;

    (b) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Secretary of State, the Rail Regulator, the Franchising Director, the Competition Commission or the Mayor of any of his or, as the case may be, its functions under the Railways Act 1993;

    (c) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by—

    (i) any Minister of the Crown,

    (ii) the Director General of Fair Trading,

    (iii) the Competition Commission,

    (iv) the Director General of Telecommunications,

    (v) the Director General of Gas Supply,

    (vi) the Director General of Water Supply,

    (vii) the Director General of Electricity Supply,

    (viii) the Civil Aviation Authority,

    (ix) the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal, or

    (x) a local weights and measures authority in Great Britain,

    of any of his or, as the case may be, its functions under any of the enactments or instruments specified in subsection (3) below;

    (d) for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Secretary of State or the Treasury to exercise any powers conferred by the Financial Services Act 1986 or by the enactments relating to companies, insurance companies or insolvency or for the purpose of enabling or assisting any inspector appointed under the enactments relating to companies to carry out his functions;

    (e) for the purpose of enabling or assisting an official receiver to carry out his functions under the enactments relating to insolvency or for the purpose of enabling or assisting a recognised professional body for the purposes of section 391 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to carry out its functions as such;

    (f) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Health and Safety Commission or the Health and Safety Executive of any of its functions under any enactment

    763
    or of facilitating the carrying out by any enforcing authority, within the meaning of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, of any functions under a relevant statutory provision, within the meaning of that Act;

    (g) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Comptroller and Auditor General of any of his functions under any enactment;

    (h) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the International Rail Regulator of any of his functions under any subordinate legislation made for the purpose of implementing—

    (i) the Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 29th July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways; or

    (ii) Council Directive 95/19/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees;

    (j) in connection with the investigation of any criminal offence or for the purposes of any criminal proceedings;

    (k) for the purposes of any civil proceedings brought under or by virtue of this Act or any of the enactments or instruments specified in subsection (3) below; or

    (l) in pursuance of a Community obligation.

    (3) The enactments and instruments referred to in subsection (2) above are—

    (a) the Trade Descriptions Act 1968;

    (b) the Fair Trading Act 1973;

    (c) the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

    (d) the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976;

    (e) the Resale Prices Act 1976;

    (f) the Estate Agents Act 1979;

    (g) the Competition Act 1980;

    (h) the Telecommunications Act 1984;

    (j) the Airports Act 1986;

    (k) the Gas Act 1986;

    (l) the Insolvency Act 1986;

    (m) the Consumer Protection Act 1987;

    (n) the Electricity Act 1989;

    (o) the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991;

    (p) the Water Industry Act 1991;

    (q) the Water Resources Act 1991;

    (r) the Railways Act 1993;

    (s) any subordinate legislation made for the purpose of securing compliance with the Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 10th September 1984 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member States concerning misleading advertising.

    (4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsections (2) and (3) above shall have effect subject to such modifications as are specified in the order.
    (5) The prohibition imposed by subsection (1) above shall be enforceable by civil proceedings—

    (a) by the individual mentioned in that subsection, or

    (b) by the person for the time being carrying on the business there mentioned,

    for an injunction or for any other appropriate relief or remedy.
    (6) In this section "the Franchising Director" means the Director General of Passenger Rail Franchising."
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 156.

    Division No. 298]

    [7.36 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Ainger, Nick

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Darvill, Keith

    Alexander, Douglas

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Allen, Graham

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Ashton, Joe

    Davis, Terty (B'ham Hodge H)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Denham, John

    Austin, John

    Dobbin, Jim

    Barnes, Harry

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Barron, Kevin

    Doran, Frank

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dowd, Jim

    Beard, Nigel

    Drew, David

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Edwards, Huw

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Etherington, Bill

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fisher, Mark

    Berry, Roger

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Betts, Clive

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Flint, Caroline

    Blizzard, Bob

    Flynn, Paul

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Follett, Barbara

    Borrow, David

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Fyfe, Maria

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Gapes, Mike

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Browne, Desmond

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gerrard, Neil

    Burgon, Colin

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Goggins, Paul

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Caplin, Ivor

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Casale, Roger

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Caton, Martin

    Grocott, Bruce

    Chaytor, David

    Grogan, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Gunnell, John

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Healey, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clelland, David

    Heppell, John

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hesford, Stephen

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hill, Keith

    Cohen, Harry

    Hinchliffe, David

    Coleman, Iain

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Connarty, Michael

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Corbett, Robin

    Hope, Phil

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Corston, Jean

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cox, Tom

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cranston, Ross

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hurst, Alan

    Cummings, John

    Hutton, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Illsley, Eric

    765

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Jenkins, Brian

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Pearson, Ian

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Pike, Peter L

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Plaskitt, James

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pound, Stephen

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Purchase, Ken

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kemp, Fraser

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Rammell, Bill

    Khabra, Piara S

    Rapson, Syd

    Kidney, David

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Rogers, Allan

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Roy, Frank

    Laxton, Bob

    Ruane, Chris

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ruddock, Joan

    Levitt, Tom

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Linton, Martin

    Salter, Martin

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Lock, David

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sawford, Phil

    McCabe, Steve

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Sheerman, Barry

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Macdonald, Calum

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    McDonnell, John

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Singh, Marsha

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McNulty, Tony

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McWalter, Tony

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    McWilliam, John

    Spellar, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mallaber, Judy

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Martlew, Eric

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Maxton, John

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Meale, Alan

    Stringer, Graham

    Merron, Gillian

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Miller, Andrew

    Mitchell, Austin

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Mountford, Kali

    Timms, Stephen

    Mudie, George

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mullin, Chris

    Todd, Mark

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Touhig, Don

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Truswell, Paul

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Olner, Bill

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    766

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Wills, Michael

    Tynan, Bill

    Winnick, David

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Wise, Audrey

    Wareing, Robert N

    Wood, Mike

    Watts, David

    Woolas, Phil

    White, Brian

    Worthington, Tony

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Wright Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wyatt, Derek

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Mrs. Anne McGuire.

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Green, Damian

    Amess, David

    Greenway, John

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Grieve, Dominic

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Hammond, Philip

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Hancock, Mike

    Baldry, Tony

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bercow, John

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Blunt, Crispin

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Boswell, Tim

    Horam, John

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Brady, Graham

    Hunter, Andrew

    Brake, Tom

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Keetch, Paul

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Key, Robert

    Burns, Simon

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Burstow, Paul

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Butterfill, John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Leigh, Edward

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Lidington, David

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Chidgey, David

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Chope, Christopher

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Clappison, James

    Loughton, Tim

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Luff, Peter

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Collins, Tim

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Colvin, Michael

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Cotter, Brian

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Cran, James

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Madel, Sir David

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Maples, John

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Mates, Michael

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Duncan, Alan

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Moss, Malcolm

    Evans, Nigel

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Faber, David

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Fallon, Michael

    Page, Richard

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Paice, James

    Flight, Howard

    Paterson, Owen

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Pickles, Eric

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Randall, John

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Fraser, Christopher

    Rendel, David

    Gale, Roger

    Robathan, Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Robertson, Laurence

    Gibb, Nick

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Gill, Christopher

    Ruffley, David

    Gray, James

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    767

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Trend, Michael

    Sanders, Adrian

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Viggers, Peter

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Wardle, Charles

    Shepherd, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Wells, Bowen

    Soames, Nicholas

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Whittingdale, John

    Spring, Richard

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wilkinson, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Willetts, David

    Stunell, Andrew

    Willis, Phil

    Swayne, Desmond

    Wilshire, David

    Syms, Robert

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Woodward, Shaun

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Townend, John

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    Tredinnick, David

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 333 to 336 agreed to.

    Clause 193

      TRAVEL CONCESSIONS ON JOURNEYS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON
      Lords amendment: No. 337, in page 104, line 21, after (" 233") insert ("or 324")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 339, 561, 708 to 711, 713, 716 and 719.
      Mr. Hill: The Government understand that the London concessionary fares scheme is much valued by elderly and disabled Londoners. That is why we are firmly committed to ensuring that users of the scheme can continue to enjoy its travel benefits. The Bill makes provision for those travel concessions to continue on services that will transfer from the control of London Transport to Transport for London.
      We have given careful consideration to a number of proposals for improvements to the scheme. As a result, we have amended the Bill to update the scheme and to help maintain its stability. For the statutory reserve scheme, the start and finish times will be brought into line with those currently in the voluntary scheme, and arrangements for determining the costs of the reserve scheme will be clarified. We have also given the boroughs powers to set up a statutory joint committee dealing with concessionary fares, which will have the option of taking decisions on the basis of qualified majority voting.
      The amendments will bring up to date the concessionary fares provisions first enacted in 1984. They will increase the stability of the scheme by making it easier for the boroughs to reach agreement every year. They will also provide further reassurance to users that concessions will continue to be provided. These amendments have the support of the Association of London Government and users' groups, and were welcomed in the other place.
      768
      On penalty fares, the Government have noted the views of Members of both Houses—expressed both during the passage of this Bill and when writing on behalf of constituents—about the operation of London Transport's penalty fares scheme. We are, of course, also aware of the considerable public interest in the subject.
      Lords amendment No. 719 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish an independent penalty fares appeal body, if he is requested to do so by the mayor. We think it likely that, once the mayor has taken stock of the penalty fares procedures, he or she will make such a request. We should not, however, wish to prejudge the mayor's consideration of the issue, particularly in the light of the reforms that London Transport has established after its review of tube penalty fares. We think that the mayor will want to see how those reforms bed down before deciding to invoke the powers in the amendment.
      The amendment also gives a general indication of the ground that the regulations may cover. If the mayor were to request the Secretary of State to make such regulations, we would expect there to be close consultation between the mayor, the Secretary of State and other interested parties before the regulations were drawn up.
      Mr. Burstow: I should like to speak briefly to the amendments dealing with the concessionary fares issue, which concerned hon. Members greatly in our earlier consideration of the Bill. I also want to express our appreciation of the fact that the Government have at last listened to the representations made not only by hon. Members both here and in the other place, but by the many thousands of people across London who asked the Government to think again about the way in which the Bill would have put at risk the future of the London concessionary fares scheme.
      I know from my own constituency case load that some of my constituents, particularly those involved in a seniors' forum in my constituency, were most anxious that the provisions should be included in the Bill. I know that they are pleased to note that the scheme is secure, and look forward to seeing it continue well into the future.
      Mr. Hill: I express my gratitude for the hon. Gentleman's warm words. We regard inclusion of the provisions as an example of consensual government that should be a model for the way in which the Greater London Authority conducts its business.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 338 and 339 agreed to.

    Clause 199

      THE LONDON TRANSPORT USERS' COMMITTEE
      Lords amendment: No. 340, in page 106, line 29, after ("body") insert ("corporate")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 341 to 345, 347 to 353, 720 to 724 and 803.
      Mr. Hill: These are new and exciting times for users of transport services in London, and we believe that, with its

      769
      wider remit, the London Transport Users Committee will successfully build on the best traditions of the London Regional Passengers Committee. As part of the new democratic structures for London, it will ensure that the user's voice is clearly heard when the mayor and Assembly consider transport provision in the capital.
      The amendments are essentially technical ones, filling out the LTUC remit and more clearly defining its relationship with the assembly. The amendments also reflect the careful consideration that we have given to some of the points raised by peers of all parties during the Bill's consideration in the other place. Lords amendment No. 341, for example, deals with the concerns of Liberal Democrat Members, both in this place—in particular the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—and in the other place—in particular Baroness Thomas of Walliswood and Baroness Hamwee—of ensuring that the committee is properly representative of the wider community of rail users in the area for which the LTUC is a rail user consultative committee. Similarly, Lord Dixon-Smith and Baroness Miller sought assurances on audit and account, which we have provided for in Lords amendment No. 721.
      7.45 pm
      The amendments also include our proposals for the Assembly to issue guidance and directions to the LTUC and to establish firmly the new relationship between the Assembly and the committee.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment Nos. 341 to 353 agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 354, after clause 205, to insert the following new clause—Provision of facilities to benefit users of waterways—
    New Clause

      CHAPTER XA— WATER TRANSPORT
      .—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, Transport for London may provide or secure the provision of such amenities and facilities as it considers would benefit persons using any waterway.
      (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.")

      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 355, 356 and 697.
      Mr. Hill: This group of amendments deals with rivers and waterways. Lords amendment No. 354 gives Transport for London power to provide amenities and facilities on the Thames and other waterways in London. Lords amendment No. 355 transfers responsibility for the
      770
      operation of the Woolwich ferry. Lords amendment No. 356 ensures that there is no doubt about the validity of transfers of property, rights and liabilities that are transferred to London Regional Transport between 31 March 1999 and the coming into force of this clause, or that are subject to transfer agreements made during that period. Lords amendment No. 697 provides Transport for London with a power to make byelaws about piers that it owns or operates.
      There was considerable debate in another place on some of the amendments in this group. In the light of concerns expressed by the Port of London authority and British Waterways, the clauses were further amended in another place. Therefore, Lords amendment No. 354 clarifies that Transport for London must obtain any necessary consents or licences before commencing works on waterway amenities or facilities, and Lords amendment No. 697 ensures that TfL byelaws for landing places do not conflict or interfere with certain byelaws made by the Port of London authority.
      Tourism and the river have been a subject of concern to Members in both Houses. The Government, of course, recognise the importance of tourism to river services. However, we have taken note of the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members in this and the other place on behalf of a particular operator.
      The Government's proposals for the mayor and TfL envisage an integrated approach to the use of the river, which is not limited purely to public passenger transport. The mayor will be responsible for promoting both public transport and tourism. Ahead of the provisions coming into effect, the Government expect London River Services—as a predecessor body to TfL—to work in a similar manner. We have every confidence that it is doing just that. The Government have listened to the concerns that have been expressed—which is why my noble Friend Lord Whitty recently undertook that we would write to the chairman of London River Services to reiterate the point. We shall be doing so shortly.
      I hope that that further explanation will reassure hon. Members that the interests of tourism on the river are fully recognised in the Bill's provisions and in the interim period before TfL is established.
      Mr. Brooke: The alliance to which the Minister referred consists of the hon. Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and me. We discussed the matter in Committee, but did so before some of the developments had occurred. There is no possibility that I shall be able today to do justice to the subject, and I can only plead—through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and given the fact that it is an all-party coalition—that Madam Speaker might be prepared to contemplate granting an Adjournment debate on the subject early in the next Session.
      The Minister—whom I acknowledge knows about the issues—said that Lord Whitty will be writing to the chairman of London River Services. Although that calmed nerves in their Lordships' House, I should myself feel much better if he included in the letter an expectation, first, that London River Services will appoint a director with experience of and responsibility for tourism, and secondly, that an independent study will be made of the current impact of the introduction of transport services on current tourism services, so that both perspectives could be understood and viewed in a more balanced manner.
      8 pm
      Mr. Hill: I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and look forward to further exchanges in the Chamber on that subject.
      It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order this day.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
      Lords amendments No. 419 and Government amendment (a) thereto and No. 793 and Government amendments (a) to (f) thereto agreed to.
      Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments:—
      The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 133.

      Division No. 299]

      [8.2 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Casale, Roger

      Ainger, Nick

      Caton, Martin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Chaytor, David

      Alexander, Douglas

      Chidgey, David

      Allan, Richard

      Clapham, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ashton, Joe

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Austin, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clelland, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Clwyd, Ann

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cohen, Harry

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Coleman, Iain

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Connarty, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cooper, Yvette

      Berry, Roger

      Corbett, Robin

      Betts, Clive

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Corston, Jean

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cotter, Brian

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cousins, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Cox, Tom

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cranston, Ross

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Brake, Tom

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Cummings, John

      Breed, Colin

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Browne, Desmond

      Darvill, Keith

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Burden, Richard

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Burgon, Colin

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Burstow, Paul

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Denham, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Doran, Frank

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Drew, David

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Edwards, Huw

      772

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Etherington, Bill

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Keetch, Paul

      Fisher, Mark

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Fizpatrick, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Flint, Caroline

      Khabra, Piara S

      Flynn, Paul

      Kidney, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fyfe, Maria

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gapes, Mike

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Gardiner, Barry

      Laxton, Bob

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gerard, Neil

      Levitt, Tom

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Linton, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Goggins, Paul

      Lock, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McCabe, Steve

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Grocott, Bruce

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grogan, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Gunnell, John

      McDonnell, John

      Hain, Peter

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Hancock, Mike

      McNulty, Tony

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mactaggart Fiona

      Healey, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      McWilliam, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heppell, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hill, Keith

      Martlew, Eric

      Hinchliffe, David

      Maxton, John

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Meale, Alan

      Hood, Jimmy

      Merron, Gillian

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hope, Phil

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Miller, Andrew

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mountford, Kali

      Hurst, Alan

      Mudie, George

      Hutton, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Pond, Chris

      773

      Pope, Greg

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pound, Stephen

      Stringer, Graham

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rammell, Bill

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Rapson, Syd

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Timms, Stephen

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rendel, David

      Todd, Mark

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Touhig, Don

      Rogers, Allan

      Truswell, Paul

      Rooker, Jeff

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Roy, Frank

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Ruane, Chris

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tynan, Bill

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Salter, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sanders, Adrian

      Watts, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Webb, Steve

      Savidge, Malcolm

      White, Brian

      Sawford, Phil

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Sheerman, Barry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Singh, Marsha

      Willis, Phil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wise, Audrey

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wood, Mike

      Spellar, John

      Woolas, Phil

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Worthington, Tony

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mrs. Anne McGuire.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Clappison, James

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Baldry, Tony

      Collins, Tim

      Bercow, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cran, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Brady, Graham

      Brazier, Julian

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Duncan, Alan

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evans, Nigel

      Burns, Simon

      Faber, David

      Butterfill, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Cash, William

      Fallon, Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Flight, Howard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      774

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Page, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Gale, Roger

      Paterson, Owen

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Prior, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Gray, James

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Green, Damian

      Robathan, Andrew

      Greenway, John

      Robertson, Laurence

      Grieve, Dominic

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Ruffley, David

      Hammond, Philip

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hayes, John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Horam, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hunter, Andrew

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Key, Robert

      Streeter, Gary

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Syms, Robert

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Townend, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Tredinnick, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Trend, Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Wardle, Charles

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Waterson, Nigel

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Wells, Bowen

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Madel, Sir David

      Wilkinson, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Willetts, David

      Maples, John

      Wilshire, David

      Mates, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Woodward, Shaun

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Yeo, Tim

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tellers for the Noes:

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

      Ottaway, Richard

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments agreed to.
      Consequential Government amendment agreed to.

    Clause 243

      ESTABLISHMENT, MEMBERSHIP AND DUTY TO MAINTAIN POLICE FORCE
      Lords amendment: No. 426, in page 133, leave out lines 24 to 29 and insert—
      ("(c) the person or body responsible for the appointment of members of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority under regulations made under section 30B of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (which, by virtue of paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 2A to this Act, appoints magistrates to be members of the Metropolitan Police Authority).")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 745 to 758 and 779 to 781.
      Mr. Raynsford: All the amendments in this group are connected with the membership of the Metropolitan police authority. They fall into three categories which I will address in turn—magistrate members of the MPA, the position of the deputy mayor on the MPA and the upper age limit of MPA members.
      Amendment No. 426 heads a set of seven amendments which deal with the appointment of magistrate members of the Metropolitan police authority. Now that the Access to Justice Act 1999 has been passed, we need to make a number of changes to reflect the new arrangements that will apply to the administration of magistrates courts in London.
      Amendment No. 748 is the key amendment. It will substitute new arrangements for the appointment of the four magistrate members of the MPA. Paragraph 5 of schedule 21 to the Bill, as introduced in the other place, provided that the appointments would be made by a joint committee of the selection panels for the magistrates courts committees within the Metropolitan police district. There are 21 such selection panels, so it would be quite a task for them to join together to form a single panel to make the appointments.
      As the House will be aware, the Access to Justice Act 1999 establishes a new Londonwide body called the Greater London magistrates courts authority. That body will replace the existing magistrates courts committees in London, which will in turn mean the disappearance of the MCC selection panels.
      The GLMCA will not assume its full powers until April 2001, but work is already under way in relation to the appointment of its members. A selection panel is to be set up for that purpose around the turn of the year, and we think that that panel would be the ideal body to make the four magistrate appointments to the MPA. This is what Amendment No. 748 will achieve.
      Amendment No. 426 is consequential. It provides that the body or person who makes appointments to the GLMCA—the selection panel to which I have just referred—must be consulted by the Secretary of State when he is considering reducing the number of MPA members. That will replace the current provision in the Bill whereby it is the MCC selection panels that must be consulted. Amendments Nos. 747, 753, 756, 757 and 758 make further changes consequent on the passage of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
      Amendments Nos. 745 and 755 clarify a couple of matters regarding the position of the deputy mayor on the Metropolitan police authority. Amendment No. 755 provides that the deputy mayor will cease to be a member of the MPA if he or she ceases to be deputy mayor. The Bill already makes specific provision as to what should happen when the deputy mayor acts as the mayor, and in such cases he or she will sometimes be required to step down temporarily from the MPA.
      The Bill as introduced into the other place was silent, however, on what should happen if the deputy mayor ceased to be the deputy—for example, following a resignation. Amendment No. 755 will rectify that position. As the deputy has his or her place by virtue of that office, we think it right that that individual should be required to step down as a member of the MPA on losing that office. Equally, provided that he or she remains an Assembly member, there is no reason why he or she should not remain eligible for reappointment to the MPA in his or her capacity as an Assembly member. That will be possible by virtue of paragraph 18 of schedule 21.
      776
      Amendment No. 745 makes it clear that the deputy mayor will be subject to the disqualification criteria for MPA membership as set out in paragraph 8 of schedule 21. Those provisions cover standard disqualification issues such as bankruptcy and criminal convictions, and are very similar to those which the Bill applies to Assembly members, and hence to the deputy mayor.
      8.15 pm
      The third set of amendments will remove the upper age limit to membership of the Metropolitan police authority. The Bill as introduced into the other place barred those aged 70 and over from being MPA members. The origin of that age limit, which applies to all police authorities, seems to be linked to the position of magistrates. Since magistrates have to retire at 70, magistrate members of police authorities have to resign on reaching that age. The reasoning appears to have been that equality of misery should be applied to other police authority members.
      The Bill had echoed the position in other police authorities, in line with our general approach that the structures and functions of the MPA should, as far as possible, be the same as those of authorities outside London. However, on reconsideration, it seemed wrong to exclude from police authority membership perfectly able people of advancing years. Amendment No. 749 therefore removes the upper age limit for MPA members. The Government will bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to remove the upper age limit for other police authorities in England and Wales.
      The other amendments in this group are consequential on amendment No. 749. They amend or remove references elsewhere in schedule 21 and also in schedule 3, to the Police Act 1996 as amended by schedule 2 of the Bill, which relate to the age limit of MPA membership or membership of the MPA independent member selection panel.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the proposals regarding membership of the MPA and the age limits involved. However, a question arises that I ask in ignorance as I do not know the answer. Will it be possible for the new Metropolitan police authority, whose democratisation we welcome, to change the age limits for officers in the police service? I will quite understand if the Minister cannot answer me now, but the new MPA is to be slightly different from other police authorities in the country. How much autonomy will it have over the management of its service, and to what extent will it be governed by the legislation covering the other police services in England and Wales?
      It would be wonderful—and more than I expect—if the Minister could give me an answer now. An answer later is what I expect, but in any event I hope that I get one.
      Mr. Raynsford: I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, as I cannot give him an answer now. However, I undertake to write to him with the information that he seeks. I reiterate that the change that the Bill makes with regard to the Metropolitan police authority will be followed by legislation applying to other police authorities elsewhere in the country to remove the upper age limit.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 427, after clause 253, to insert the following new clause—Continuation in post of current Commissioners and Commanders—
    (".—(1) Any appointment of a person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under section 1 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 248 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9B of the Police Act 1996.
    (2) If, immediately before the coming into force of section 250 above, there is in force in respect of a person who is one of the Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis an authorisation under section 8 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1856 (authorisation of one of the Assistant Commissioners to act as Commissioner in case of vacancy, illness or absence) that person shall be taken, as from the coming into force of section 250 above, to have been appointed as the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9D of the Police Act 1996.
    (3) Any appointment of a person (other than a person in relation to whom subsection (2) above has effect) as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under section 2 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1856 which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 252 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9F of the Police Act 1996.
    (4) Any appointment of a person as a Commander in the metropolitan police force which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 253 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as a Commander under and in accordance with section 9G of the Police Act 1996.")
    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 428, 429, 535, 584, 585, 759 to 776, 782 to 785, 796 to 798 and 808 to 819.
    Mr. Raynsford: As the House will be aware, this group of amendments covers four separate areas. I beg the House's indulgence to take a little time to explain their significance.
    The four areas covered are: senior ranks of the Metropolitan police; the secondment of Met officers to county forces affected by changes to the boundary of the Metropolitan police district; pensions of civilian staff of the Met; and consequential amendments to various statutes. I shall take each set of amendments in turn.
    Amendments Nos. 427 and 428 are concerned with the ranks of the Metropolitan police force. Amendment No. 427 inserts a new clause which makes transitional provision in respect of those individuals in one of the four senior ranks of the Metropolitan police—commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner or commander—on the date when the new provisions applying to the appointment of those ranks come into force. That date will be the 3 July 2000. The new clause provides that those individuals will be deemed to have been appointed under the new arrangements inserted into the Police Act 1996 by the Bill, rather than under the various Acts covering the Metropolitan police, under which they would originally have been appointed.
    778
    Amendment No. 428 clarifies the wording in new section 9H of the 1996 Act, which sets out the ranks that may be held in the Metropolitan police. These are the four senior ranks to which I have already referred, and the ranks of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable.
    The wording of the Bill as introduced into another place might have been regarded as being ambiguous about whether the four senior ranks are indeed to be regarded as ranks of the Metropolitan police force. It is the intention that they should be treated as ranks and accordingly subject to regulations made under section 50 of the 1996 Act. The amended wording puts the matter beyond doubt.
    The next amendment, No. 429, deals with the secondment of Met officers. The new clause inserted by the amendment gives power to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to provide police officers to the county police forces of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. Those three forces will have the area that they police enlarged on 1 April 2000, when the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district are reduced to bring them into line with the outer boundary of Greater London. Changes to these boundaries are provided for by clause 255 of the Bill.
    In order to police their enlarged areas, Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey will need additional officers. It is of paramount importance that there is a seamless transfer of responsibilities between the Met and the county forces on 1 April 2000, so that the public do not suffer any loss of service during the handover period.
    The new clause will enable Met officers to be loaned to the county forces for a period of time which we would expect to be between six months and two years. During that period, they will retain the pay and allowances of a Metropolitan police officer, but will be under the direction and control of the chief constable of the force to which they have been seconded. At the conclusion of the secondment period, the officers would return to the Met.
    The third set of amendments is concerned with pensions. As the House will know, we wish to ensure that the organisational changes that we are introducing to London do not adversely affect the terms and conditions of the staff involved. That extends to their pension rights.
    Amendment No. 763, which is introduced by amendment No. 762, makes changes to section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967, which governs the payment of pensions to the civil staff of the Metropolitan police. These staff are on the Metropolitan civil staff superannuation scheme, which is analogous to the principal civil service pension scheme. This means that such staff receive the same benefits as civil servants.
    Amendment No. 763 supersedes the minor amendments to section 15 of the 1967 Act, which schedule 22 to the Bill already provides. It has a number of features. First, it amends the definition of who is a member of the Metropolitan civil staffs—that is, the definition of those staff who are members of the MCSSS. At present, there are two categories within this definition. One group is staff employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, or the receiver. The other category is made up of justices clerks in inner London. The latter category is not changed by the amendment, but the first is changed to staff who are employed by the Metropolitan police authority. This reflects the fact that the MPA will become the employer of Met staff on 3 July 2000.

    779
    Secondly, the amendment preserves entitlements to benefits accrued under the MCSSS scheme by staff who are not current employees on 3 July 2000, and who are not therefore within this definition.
    Thirdly, the amendment provides for circumstances in which staff currently on the MCSSS—or who have built up entitlements under that scheme—might move on to another pension scheme. These are set out in sub-paragraph (2D) for post-July 2000 members of the MCSSS and in sub-paragraph (9) for former members of the MCSSS who have benefit entitlements.
    Amendment No. 535 inserts an extra provision into clause 322, which requires that the Secretary of State must consult with the MPA and obtain the consent of the Minister with responsibility for the civil service before making an order under that section relating to pension transfers of MPA employees. The likely purpose of any such order would be to place those employees on to the PCSPS. As I have already mentioned, clause 309 includes the MPA among the list of bodies covered by section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972.
    Hon. Members will be extremely relieved to know that I come now to the final set of amendments, which make various consequential changes to legislation dating back to the last century. Schedule 22 already makes numerous such changes, which are required to reflect the creation of the Metropolitan police authority and the eventual abolition of the office of receiver. The amendments add a few more to that list and to the repeal schedule—schedule 27. They apply various provisions to the MPA to bring it into line with other police authorities and delete a few more references to the receiver. Such references will be repealed as and when the powers are no longer exercised by the receiver. The amendments remove some references to Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, which will no longer be needed once those two posts are made police ranks, and tidy up a couple of references affected by the Access to Justice Act 1999.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: We should like to place on record our thanks to the receiver—as we did in Committee—whose post will disappear in the transition. The receiver is a real person, despite having a title that most people would not understand. Intriguingly, he has played a constitutionally significant role in the history of the Met, and has been important in terms of its expenditure. In my experience, he has always done the job courteously and helpfully, and has assisted colleagues in trying to get to the bottom of matters that concern us and our constituents. We thank him for his work.
    Secondly, we support the Government's proposal to rationalise the boundaries of the Met with those of Greater London. That was not in the original Green Paper, but was agreed as a result of representations, and the new arrangements will give a logical boundary to the Met. It is therefore sensible, as the Minister said, for a transitional arrangement to allow people who are serving in Metropolitan police district areas which are in the counties surrounding Greater London to be temporarily seconded. We are relieved to note that they will return to the Met, which, on this occasion, will not be the subject of salami-slicing. The numbers are well below establishment and we should like to see them return to establishment levels.
    Thirdly—and I merely flag this up, as I know the Home Office is responsible for policing in the broader context—the police pensions bill in England and Wales rises every
    780
    year, as more police officers retire, but the pensions must be funded out of the allocated money to police forces under the normal budgetary allocations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others have referred to the possibility of the pensions of fire, civil defence and ambulance personnel being taken out of the normal revenue budget context, sooner rather than later, and put somewhere else. In that way, a huge increase in pensions payments would not have to be paid for out of any increase in revenue provided by the Government in a particular year, which would be a welcome development.
    I appreciate that the Minister cannot simply announce a new policy now, but a request to colleagues in the Treasury and the Home Office as well as those in his Department to look positively at such proposals would be widely welcomed.
    Mr. Raynsford: I wish to associate the Government with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the excellent work done by the receiver over 170-odd years.
    Mr. Hughes: Not the same one.
    Mr. Raynsford: Of course not, but the post goes back a long time. I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, however, because although the Bill presages the disappearance of the post of receiver, it can be seen from the next group of amendments that that does not happen quite yet. The receiver will have a role to play for a bit longer.
    I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the boundary changes and the transition arrangements. I shall not rise to the bait in respect of his comments about police numbers.
    The hon. Gentleman's third point about pension costs goes far wider than the Bill's remit, as he recognised. His comments are on the record and will be seen by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, but it would be wrong for me to make a commitment on something that goes far wider than the debate before us.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 428 and 429 agreed to.

    Clause 256

      ABOLITION OF OFFICE OF RECEIVER
      Lords amendment: No. 430, to leave out clause 256
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 431, 432, 558, 560 and 570.
      Mr. Raynsford: It is the Government's policy that the criminal justice agencies should share the same boundaries, namely those of the police force areas in England and Wales. In the case of probation, that means that the existing 54 probation services must become 42. In all, 20 probation services will be involved in amalgamations, which we intend shall take effect on 1 April 2001.

      781
      In London, the five existing services—Inner London, South-East London, South-West London, Middlesex and North-East London—need to merge to form a new service for Greater London. Section 2 of the Probation Service Act 1993 contains an order-making power to amalgamate probation services. However, there is a problem in relation to the creation of a single London probation service, in that the 1993 Act clearly envisages that there shall be more than one probation service in London. We have concluded that to make an order amalgamating the London services under the existing provision would go beyond the vires of that provision. Our amendments will allow us to proceed with the London amalgamation. The new clause inserted by Lords amendment No. 431 provides an order-making power to that effect.
      Our amendments also deal with the abolition of the receiver, an issue which arises because of the Inner London probation service's links to that office. To clarify my earlier remarks, the receiver will have a continuing responsibility in the transitional period until the new probation arrangements come into force.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 431 and 432 agreed to.

    Clause 262

      DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 433, in page 140, line 37, leave out ("for")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 434, 786, 787, 789 and 790.
      Mr. Raynsford: Lords amendments Nos. 433 and 434 deal with the power of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, LFEPA, to co-opt on to its committees and sub-committees individuals who are not members of the GLA. The need for the amendments emerged from consultation with the current fire authority and the Association of London Government. The effect of clause 262(2) is that a person may not be a co-opted member of a committee of LFEPA unless he or she is a member of a London borough council, the common council or the Assembly. That is more prescriptive than the present arrangements, and the amendments are intended to bring the Bill much more into line with existing law.
      Lords amendment No. 786 arose from discussions with the Association of London Government. It sets out the action to be taken if a vacancy arises in the office of chairman of LFEPA. Paragraph 3(1) of schedule 23 requires the mayor in each year to appoint a chairman from among the members of the authority. Comparable legislation expressly provides for the filling of a vacancy in the office of chairman. The amendment therefore provides that, in the event of a vacancy arising in that office, the mayor will be required to appoint a new chairman from among the members of LFEPA as soon as possible.
      782
      Lords amendment No. 787 is a minor technical amendment dealing with inconsistent wording in paragraph 3 of schedule 23. It substitutes the word "appoint" for "elect" in paragraph 3(2), so that the same word appears throughout the paragraph. The wording used is consistent with other local government legislation.
      The last two amendments relate to the consequential changes to legislation listed in schedule 24. Lords amendment No. 789 is a minor technical amendment to legislation affecting fire service pensions. For public service pensions increase legislation to apply to pension awards payable by LFEPA in the same way as it does to the current fire authority, a minor amendment is required to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.
      Lords amendment No. 790 will apply to LFEPA a provision that applies to the current fire authority. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on certain authorities to exercise their functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do what is possible to prevent, crime and disorder.
      I hope that the House will support all those amendments.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 434 agreed to.

    Clause 264

      THE SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
      Lords amendment: No. 435, in page 141, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      ("( ) The spatial development strategy must include statements dealing with the general spatial development aspects of—

      (a) such of the other strategies prepared and published, or to be prepared and published, under the enactments mentioned in section 33(1) above as involve considerations of spatial development, and

      (b) such of the Mayor's other policies or proposals as involve such considerations,

      whether or not the strategy, policy or proposal relates to the development or use of land.")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 436 to 438, 442, 443 and 452.
      Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 435 defines more succinctly, taking into account clause 33(5), the relationship between the mayor's spatial development strategy and other strategies. Discussion in Commons Committee revealed some difficulties of interpretation, so we have taken the opportunity to rationalise and improve the wording of existing subsection (4). The amendment is, therefore, a drafting amendment, which clarifies that the mayor's spatial development strategy must cover the spatial aspects of his or her other strategies and policies.
      Amendments Nos. 436 and 437 arise from a commitment that the Government gave in another place to consider an amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has left the Chamber, at the very moment when I was about to

      783
      say something nice about his contribution. However, I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) will relay to him my comments. The amendments ensure that, when deciding to whom consultation copies of the SDS should be sent, the mayor has to consider relevant bodies under the descriptions specified in clause 27(3)—the general consultation clause—as well as the consultees set out in part VIII of the Bill.
      Government amendment No. 438 arises from my agreement in Committee to consider an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It places a duty on the mayor to notify any withdrawal of the draft SDS to those who are consulted during the preparation of the strategy and on the draft. At present, the Bill requires only that those who have made representations about the SDS—rather than those who have been formally consulted—should be informed. We accepted that there might possibly have been a gap, and were thus happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, because his approach seemed to be constructive.
      Amendment No. 442 clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that the regulations that we are producing for the SDS may include procedures to be followed by the mayor to ensure that the Secretary of State has an opportunity to exercise the power of direction over the strategy referred to in clause 267.
      Amendment No. 443 clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to direct amendment of the SDS can be made at any point before publication—not just on the consultation draft.
      Amendment No. 452 is, in essence, a tidying-up amendment in relation to the mayor's role in representing London's interests to the rest of the south-east. It clarifies that the mayor is able to represent London's collective interests on planning matters on any relevant body, not merely one that is made up solely of local authority membership.
      Lords amendment No. 435 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 436 to 438 agreed to.

    Clause 267

      PUBLICATION
      Lords amendment: No. 439, in page 143, line 5, leave out ("findings reported") and insert ("report made")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 440, 441, 444 and 447 to 450.
      Mr. Raynsford: Amendments Nos. 439, 440, 441 and 444 arise from commitments made by the Government in another place to consider Opposition amendments relating to the report of the chair or of the panel of the examination in public into the spatial development strategy. Our intention is that the report of an EIP panel should include not merely findings of fact, but recommendations. After the debates held in the House during the past week over the report of the EIP panel into the south-east regional planning guidance, some hon. Members might question
      784
      the view that there should be recommendations. However, the notion that the panel should make recommendations, rather than including only findings of fact, is very much part of our approach. Concern was expressed that the current term, "findings", may be too narrow to encompass "recommendations". In planning Acts and secondary legislation, the term "report" is more often used. We believe that that would be a more appropriate word: the amendments therefore change relevant references in the Bill from "findings" to "report."
      8.45 pm
      The Bill as it stands provides for the Secretary of State to give the mayor by way of a development order the power to direct a London borough to refuse planning permission. Amendment No. 447 provides clarification to make certain that, when the Secretary of State makes such a development order, he can also impose a duty on the mayor to give reasons when he or she uses the power to direct refusal.
      Amendments Nos. 448 and 449 arise from a commitment I gave to consider an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). They provide that the mayor shall have regard to the unitary development plan and the spatial development strategy, so far as they are material to the application, when considering using his or her power to direct refusal of planning permission.
      Amendment No. 450 also arises from Government commitments given in another place to consider amendments proposed by the Opposition. We have always made it clear that the mayor will be liable for the costs of holding an appeal inquiry and the costs of other parties where the mayor has directed refusal of planning permission unreasonably. That is an important discipline and safeguard. The amendment puts that provision on the face of the Bill and ensures that an order for costs can be made, whether or not the mayor participates in an inquiry.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 440 to 450 agreed to.

    Clause 276

      MONITORING AND DATA COLLECTION
      Lords amendment: No. 451, in page 148, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (7)
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 500 to 511.
      Mr. Hill: Amendments Nos. 451 and 508 to 511 set the framework within which the mayor can work with London boroughs and the common council to promote research and monitoring work. They provide for the continuing involvement of London local authorities in pan-London research and ensure that the mayor has all the tools necessary to inform the development and monitor the implementation of strategies.
      The amendments supersede the amendments on monitoring in clause 276, reflecting points raised in consideration of those provisions in another place,

      785
      especially about the need to ensure that excessive burdens are not placed on London local authorities. I gave an undertaking to table amendments to meet those concerns. During their development, the amendments have been the subject of close consultation between the Government and representatives of London government. I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his considerable help with them.
      Amendments Nos. 500 to 506 fulfil the Government's commitment to tidy up the mayor's power to obtain information, advice and assistance from the functional bodies. The effect is to limit the duty to supply information, advice and assistance to that which the mayor may reasonably require for the exercise of his or her functions. The amendments also simplify the Secretary of State's power, by order, to make appropriate arrangements to protect privacy and confidentiality. We anticipate that the arrangements will be based on Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972.
      Amendment No. 507 corrects a loophole that we noticed in the provisions of clause 315, which provides the Secretary of State with a fallback power enabling him to instruct the GLA to make research data that it has collected available to others, in recognition of the important role it is to inherit from the London Research Centre. However, the existing provisions do not extend to research work carried out by predecessor bodies but inherited by the GLA. The amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State's power should extend to enabling him to instruct the GLA to make available information transferred to it under the transfer provisions in clauses 319 and 320.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 452 agreed to.

    Clause 281

      THE MAYOR'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
      Lords amendment: No. 453, in page 150, line 3, at end insert—
      ("( ) biodiversity,")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 454, 456, 480 and 481.
      Mr. Hill: Amendments Nos. 453 and 454 concern the state of the environment report. Amendment No. 453 would add biodiversity to the list of issues that the report should cover. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for spotting that omission in Committee.
      Amendment No. 454 would delete the detailed definition of information that the mayor would be required to provide in the report under the heading, "road traffic levels". That definition should be up to the mayor.
      Amendment No. 456 is also simple. On 1 April this year, the Countryside Commission merged with the Rural Development Commission. The new organisation is now known as the Countryside Agency, and the amendment would merely ensure that the correct name was on the face of the Bill.
      786
      Amendments Nos. 480 and 481 would correct an anomaly in the Bill. Hon. Members will note that the Bill abolishes three existing organisations—the London Planning Advisory Committee, the London Ecology Committee and the London Research Centre—which are all due to be subsumed into the main body of the Greater London Authority.
      We have already made clear our intention to abolish the three organisations on 1 April 2000 to allow a smooth transition to the new Authority. However, the Bill, as currently drafted, allows us to abolish the London Ecology Committee only
      "on the establishment of the Authority"—
      that is, after the GLA elections have taken place. That will not allow us to plan properly in advance—as is clearly desirable—for the establishment of the GLA. The amendments would correct the position and allow us to abolish the London Ecology Committee at the same time as LPAC and LRC, on 1 April 2000.
      Mr. John Randall: I thank the Minister for his gracious words. It would be mealy-mouthed to point out that I had to wait a long time for the amendment to be tabled. The Minister was gracious enough in Committee to say that such an amendment could be made to the Bill. It is a lesson to new Members of Parliament like me that patience is sometimes rewarded. I have not worked out the great difference between the amendment and the original amendment that required expert draftsmanship, but I am nevertheless grateful.
      Mr. Brake: I hope that the Minister will concede that Liberal Democrat Members also raised the matter on several occasions. We were keen for the mayor's state of the environment report to reflect biodiversity. I should not nit-pick, but it is surprising that biodiversity was originally omitted from the Bill.
      Londoners are worried about biodiversity. In a debate last week, I referred to the threat to London's biodiversity that developments associated with the millennium dome present. Biodiversity should be reflected in the mayor's report. When he or she produces a strategy and environmental statement, I hope that it will help to drive local biodiversity plans, many of which are in abeyance and are waiting for a kick-start from the London mayor. Therefore, I support the amendment.
      Mr. Hill: Although I acknowledge the contribution that Liberal Democrats Members have made, we should be in no doubt that the amendment is a monument to the hon. Member for Uxbridge. We are enormously grateful, and congratulate him on what posterity will record as the Uxbridge amendment.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment Nos. 454 to 456 agreed to.

    Clause 286

      DIRECTIONS BY THE MAYOR
      Lords amendment: No. 457, in page 152, line 29, leave out from
      ("direction") to end of line 31
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 458 to 466.
      Mr. Hill: The way in which the Bill was previously drafted may have resulted in some ambiguity concerning the use of the mayor's powers of direction. Over the summer, my officials held several meetings with representatives of the boroughs and the joint waste disposal authorities, so as to tease out the problems that could exist in the interface between the mayor's power of direction and the contractual nature of waste management. Once the position was clarified, my officials consulted every borough on our proposals, and I am pleased to be able to say that, for the most part, our proposals were warmly welcomed.
      This group of amendments clarifies the scope of the mayor's power of direction, setting out how that power can be made to sit with the contractual nature of local authority waste management while retaining mayoral influence over municipal waste management in London. It is important to remember that the mayor's effectiveness in that matter, to some extent, depends, on the influence that he has, through his power of direction, over existing and new contracts. We recognise that most long-term contracts will make allowances for some flexibility and adjustment, which will allow the mayor some room for manoeuvre. However, it was never our intention that the mayor should be able to use the power of direction to require an authority to exercise a so-called "break clause" in a contract.
      Such a use of that power could lead to authorities incurring substantial financial penalties and would have serious effects on London's waste management. It would certainly result in an increase in the cost of waste contracts as companies sought to cover the increased financial risk, and it could even result in companies not being prepared to enter contracts because they considered the risk too high. That would have very serious consequences for London.
      The amendments clarify the proposals that we set out in the White Paper, which did not go into detail about the mayor's power of direction.
      Mr. Woodward: We are all grateful for the work that the Minister and his officials carried out in the summer with a view to removing the ambiguity in the clause. However, has the ambiguity been finally removed? Some further clarification is necessary.
      The amendment would clarify the mayor's powers with regard to the contractual nature of local authority waste management. However, it still poses more questions. The mayor's specific powers remain unclear and the amendment does not clarify whether the mayor would be obliged to have regard to the cost, practicality and environmental benefit of the waste management in question. What regard to cost would the mayor be obliged to have, and how specifically would those costs be audited and monitored?
      Mr. Brake: I support the amendments, but wish to express a few words of caution.
      788
      It is entirely appropriate that a local authority should not be forced to terminate an existing contract. Equally, it is right that a local authority should inform the mayor of the impending expiry of any contract. That is desirable, because there will be opportunities for economies of scale at a London level, for Londonwide recycling projects and for waste-minimisation initiatives.
      The mayor will have to tread carefully. The mayor should not use a stick against local authorities such as mine, the London borough of Sutton, which have effective waste-minimisation and recycling initiatives. There would be strong objections if the mayor attempted to overrule the local authority, even if it were perceived to be doing something slightly different from what the mayor desired.
      9 pm
      Mr. Brooke: I reinforce the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). Obviously, I do not have the Hansard record of how the Minister opened his speech, but my recollection is that he said that there might have been some ambiguity. As I remember it, that ambiguity unquestionably existed when we first considered the Bill, and I recall asking some probing questions. As the text of my probing questions is not of the same importance as those I asked in an earlier exchange with the Minister for Housing and Planning, I shall not bore the House with the date or the column reference in the Official Report.
      Because there unquestionably was ambiguity at the beginning, I join my hon. Friend in thanking the Minister and his officials for the work that has been done in the summer, but I want to make certain that any last ambiguity has been squeezed out before we leave the matter.
      Mr. Hill: Let me—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister requires leave.
      Mr. Hill: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) for raising an important issue.
      On the issue of cost, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the explanatory note, which clearly states that there are further specific provisions to deal with contracts caught under public procurement regulations. When authorities are seeking offers in relation to the proposed contract under the public procurement procedures, they must generally issue two notices, the first containing general information—for example, as to the nature and extent of services to be provided—and the second advertising the authority's invitation to seek offers. The first is usually general in nature, and the second more specific.
      Once the second notice is published, the authority cannot substantially alter the terms without having to go through the procedure again. The amendment ensures that the mayor cannot issue a direction once the second notice has been sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities in order that public procurement procedures are not frustrated.
      The mayor must have regard to the best practical environmental option, as set out in the Secretary of State's guidance, to which the mayor must have recourse. The

      789
      mayor must consult the authority before issuing directions, and take into account a number of considerations in dealing with those matters, of which cost will be one. For the better information of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I undertake to write to him on the matter.
      In response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), may I say that I am aware of the high standards achieved by his borough on waste minimisation. The mayor must in no way impinge upon those excellent standards. Indeed, we would expect such an example of best practice to be widely disseminated throughout the new Authority area.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 458 to 466 agreed to.

    Clause 294

      DIRECTIONS UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT ACT 1995
      Lords amendment: No. 467, in page 156, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("The") in line 10 and insert—
      ("(3) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
      "(4A)")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 468 to 471.
      Mr. Hill: This group of amendments corrects an anomaly in the Bill relating to the mayor's powers to direct London local authorities in respect of Community air quality obligations and international agreements.
      As hon. Members are aware, clause 294 devolves to the mayor the powers of direction under section 85 of the Environment Act 1995. Those powers relate to the local air quality management functions of London local authorities. For example, the mayor could direct a London authority to carry out a review and assessment of air quality in its area, or to prepare an action plan if it appears that air quality standards are unlikely to be met. However, section 85(5) of the 1995 Act includes the power to direct London local authorities "for the implementation of Community air quality obligations and international agreements. That power can be used in an essentially legislative manner to transpose such obligations.
      It has never been intended that the mayor should have the legislative function of transposition. After all, the mayor is not a law-making body. Rather, he should police Community obligations once they have been transposed by the Secretary of State, as well as policing the operation of the local air quality management system in London.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 468 to 471 agreed to.

    Clause 297

      THE LONDON AMBIENT NOISE STRATEGY
      Lords amendment: No. 472, in page 157, line 13, leave out ("contain") and insert ("consist of").
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 473 to 479.
      Mr. Hill: The amendments clarify what is expected from the mayor's strategy so as better to reflect the intentions of the White Paper. We have defined what the strategy may consist of, removed the separate reference to the spatial development strategy and ensured that the Environment Agency is consulted when the mayor prepares or revises his strategy. We have provided that the mayor's strategy may contain information about the impact of noise on those living and working in London.
      In response to Opposition amendments, "ambient noise" now includes transport rather than transport services and the mayor may include other descriptions of noise that he considers to be appropriate. There is provision for including in the strategy noise caused by aircraft and traffic and noise from a fixed industrial source. The White Paper commitment was that the mayor would not deal with neighbour noise and we have ensured that local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive will continue to deal with matters using powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
      There are two additional provisions. We have placed a duty on any person providing air navigation services to consult the mayor, where it is reasonably practicable to do so, when the provision of those services would have a significant adverse effect on the level or distribution of noise in Greater London or any part of Greater London.
      The duty is limited to air navigation services only so far as they amount to the lateral or vertical alteration or addition of routes used regularly by civil aircraft before landing at, or after departing from, any aerodrome; or substantial alterations to the procedures used for managing the arrival of civil aircraft at aerodromes. It does not apply in relation to tactical decisions necessary in day-to-day air traffic control. The mayor will also be added to the list of organisations to be consulted by aerodromes designated under section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
      Mr. Woodward: I have a simple question about amendment No. 478 for the Minister. As so many other hon. Members wish to speak, doubtless his officials will be given the chance to scramble some answer to him. Under the amendment, the mayor will have the right to be consulted on new flights and flight paths and be allowed to give his opinion. Opinions are all well and good, as we in the House know, but the crucial question is, what force will his opinion have on the air navigation services?
      Mr. McDonnell: I echo that question. It would be helpful to have clarification of the weight that will be given

      791
      to the mayor's opinion on this matter. From my constituency perspective, I wholeheartedly welcome the amendment, which will give us the opportunity for further debate about the impact of noise on many of our constituents in west London. It will give us a further lever to influence the direction and flow of aircraft and reduce the impact of noise on our communities as a result of that. I hope that it will also allow us to confirm some of the issues that we need to debate in connection with any further planning proposals that the British Airport Authority makes for Heathrow and a potential third runway.
      Mr. Brake: I suspect that the same question will be asked three times, so that will save the Minister time. I echo what other hon. Members have said: I am pleased that the impact of noise on those who live and work in Greater London will appear in the ambient noise strategy and that aircraft noise will be included in that. However, the Minister must clarify exactly what he means when he says that any person providing air navigation services must consult the mayor. Residents in south-west London are glad that the mayor will be consulted, but if an increasing number of flights still goes over their heads at all times of the day and night, that will not give them much satisfaction.
      Mr. Hill: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) for welcoming the provisions. I am aware that he is closely concerned with the issues and that a consultation on runway alterations has taken place locally. That is exactly the sort of issue that the mayor and the Assembly would be expected to deal with in due course.
      The hon. Members for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked what force the mayor's opinion will have. The simple truth is that the mayor has no absolute powers in this matter. However, he or she will be an influential person, personally elected by 7 million Londoners. It is therefore entirely predictable and reasonable that the mayor's representations will be seriously taken into account by the relevant authorities. It remains the case, however, that it is an opinion in a process of consultation, and consultation means that views have to be taken into account before a final decision is made.
      To some extent, the question is akin to the sort of question that constituents might ask about representations made by Members of Parliament—I am certainly often asked about the force of my representation. We cannot always quantify the force of our representation, but as individuals with a democratic mandate in our locality, we know that our representation is normally taken into account. The mayor represents a massive constituency and has a massive mandate, so his or her opinion will be seriously considered by the relevant authorities.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 473 to 481 agreed to.

    Clause 301

      THE MAYOR'S CULTURE STRATEGY
      Lords amendment: No. 482, in page 158, line 39, at end insert—
      ("( ) archives;")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      792
      We now come to part X of the Bill, which deals with culture. The purpose of the amendment is to make specific reference to archives in the list of topics that may be included in the draft culture strategy. I would emphasise that the list of topics is purely exemplary and that the addition has no legal significance.
      Nevertheless, the Government regard archives as an important part of the cultural life of the nation and wish to raise the profile of the sector. Archives are one of the strategic responsibilities of the new Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. London, in particular, is the home of many unique and important archive collections, which play a vital role in defining the city's cultural identity.
      9.15 pm
      In Committee, the matter was raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who made an eloquent plea for the inclusion of the specific reference to archives. I am glad that we are able to respond now. Let me also take this opportunity to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for inadvertently suggesting in an earlier debate that something was included in a White Paper when it was not. I was incorrect; I apologise unreservedly to the right hon. Gentleman, and once again acknowledge his mastery of the detail of this legislation, which ensured that his original comment was entirely accurate.
      It is because of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention that—having taken into account his views and those of others put to us in Committee and elsewhere, and in another place—the Government decided to accept the amendment tabled by the Opposition. The effect will be to insert "archives" on a new line, as a separate sub-heading, under "library services".
      Mr. Brooke: I thank the Minister for his gracious words.
      This was always the shortest of all the amendments tabled to the Bill during its progress. Although—partly owing to provocation by the Minister—I spoke at some length when the subject was last debated, I shall be brief on this occasion. The amendment was rejected in Committee here, and in Committee in the Lords. I am delighted that, thanks to the eloquence of my noble Friend Lord Teviot, it was accepted on Report in the Lords, and I am delighted that it is in the Bill now.
      I have two reasons for being pleased about that. First, towards the end of my over-long speech, I invoked the spirit of my old friend the late Raphael Samuel. He was a tremendous oral historian: every shelf of his library in Spitalfields was three-deep in books. I think that, in another place—in a really different place, I mean—he may be smiling about what we have achieved today.
      Secondly, shortly after the Committee stage, I accepted a request to review Mr. Stephen Inwood's book, "A History of London"—I did not realise that it contained 1,111 pages. In any event, my review closed with the coda that it would be a worthy tribute to Mr. Inwood's book if the Government could be persuaded to incorporate in the Bill the amendments relating to archives. I do not know what Mr. Inwood's views are, but I personally am very pleased.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 483 agreed to.

    Clause 302

      GRANTS BY THE MAYOR FOR MUSEUMS, GALLERIES ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 484, in page 159, line 18, leave out ("pay grants") and insert
      ("provide financial or other assistance")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 485 to 488.
      Mr. Raynsford: The overall effect of the amendments is to ensure that the mayor may give both financial and non-financial assistance—subject to conditions—to cultural institutions and tourism in London. The Government consider that that provision improves the Bill. It gives the mayor full discretion to choose in what form to make assistance available, and with what limitations.
      Again, I express my gratitude to the Opposition, who first suggested extending the power in respect of cultural institutions, and whose amendments had been accepted, in spirit, by Third Reading.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 485 to 488 agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 489, after clause 304, to 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,

    794
    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 byelaws under section (Byelaws)(1) below.

    (7) An authorisation under subsection (1) above which relates to—

    (a) any function under section 301 above; or

    (b) the exercise of any function under or by virtue of section (Trafalgar Square)(1) or (Parliament Square)(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 byelaws made under section (Byelaws)(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 (Parliament Square) below."
    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 490 to 495 and 820.
    Mr. Raynsford: We have been coming closer to home with the amendments. We now reach Trafalgar square and Parliament square, which are the subject of the amendments. We are considering the amendments

    795
    together because, although they involve two distinct topics—delegation and the transfer of management responsibilities for Trafalgar and Parliament squares—they are closely related. The amendments cover the transfer from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the GLA of day-to-day responsibility for Trafalgar square and Parliament square. Both squares will remain Crown land.
    The mayor will be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the fabric of the squares, including cleaning and lighting, and for regulating their use, with functions such as giving permission for rallies and events in Trafalgar square and the control of trading, which is a controversial and significant issue.
    I think there will be general agreement that Trafalgar and Parliament squares are of huge importance to London—and, indeed, to the whole nation. The Government consider that the mayor should have responsibility for them and be able to take the lead in implementing the World Squares for All master-plan project.
    Amendment No. 494 gives the GLA the power to make byelaws that will replace the regulations through which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport currently manages the squares. The mayor will be the confirming authority for the byelaws, through which he or she will be able to exercise new enforcement powers, which the Secretary of State does not have, equivalent to those of Westminster city council—the neighbouring local authority—to control illegal trading in the squares. That will allow the mayor to deal effectively with the long-standing and ever-increasing nuisance caused by illegal traders in Trafalgar square, and to prevent such problems from arising in Parliament square.
    The amendments will also give the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport the powers to issue guidelines to ensure the effective care, control, management and regulation of the squares. We intend to issue guidelines initially to reflect current policy for the management of Trafalgar square in particular. That approach recognises the national significance of the squares and provides scope for a policy steer without constraining the mayor's discretion to carry out his or her new responsibilities. The mayor must have regard to such guidelines, but he or she will remain the ultimate arbiter.
    It is envisaged that the mayor will make contracts and arrangements with other organisations in respect of most of those functions. For example, officers of Westminster city council could undertake policing functions in the squares, specifically in relation to unlicensed traders. However, decisions on whether a particular public demonstration should take place in the squares are to be taken by the mayor, representing a democratically elected Authority. The Government believe that it is right to ensure that decisions affecting such sensitive matters cannot be delegated.
    That brings me to the general powers of delegation for this part of the Bill. Amendment No. 489 largely substitutes for the general power of delegation in respect of part X. The new clause, which will follow clause 304, makes part X largely self-contained in that respect. Its effect is generally to mirror the mayor's other powers of delegation, for example to the deputy mayor and staff of the GLA and to local authorities. However, it removes the possibility of delegating cultural functions to Transport
    796
    for London. Instead, it adds the essential power for the mayor to delegate to the cultural strategy group for London. That is a consequential, technical amendment.
    Apart from the limitations already outlined, the mayor will not be able to delegate the making of byelaws or his or her own decisions on the culture strategy. Delegation of the policing of the squares is also restricted. There are specific provisions requiring delegation to be in writing and, in the case of delegation to a local authority, with its written consent. There are technical subsections ensuring, for example, that the delegates have the requisite powers to accept delegation and to act through committees or staff where appropriate.
    Earlier, I inadvertently described the mayor as the confirming authority for the byelaws. In fact, it is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The mayor will make the byelaws, which will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State. I hope that that clarifies the purposes of the amendments. I urge the House to agree with the Lords in them.
    Mr. Brake: I wholeheartedly support the amendments. One can imagine the disappointment of the mayor if, on election, he or she found that they had no control over two of London's greatest squares. I am certain that one of the first things the mayor will want to do is to get cars out of, and to get pedestrians, bicycles and public transport into, those squares, and to turn them into squares of which we can be proud and which register internationally. The squares could be places where people could walk in relative tranquillity and safety in the middle of London's frenetic bustle. Londoners want more squares, and it will be the mayor's job to deliver them.
    Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) in support of the amendments. I enjoyed the Minister's reference to coming "closer to home," and there was a touch of the Monopoly board about his sequence. I can only assume that Parliament square has never appeared on the Monopoly board because it has no residential accommodation—other than that of Madam Speaker. If the procedure is as successful as the Minister was adumbrating, the sooner the mayor takes responsibility for the illegal vendors in the royal parks, the better I shall be pleased. There is nothing that the Bill can do about that, but I join the Minister in the belief that what has been done so far has been thoroughly sensible.
    Mr. Raynsford: With leave of the House, Madam Speaker. I endorse the views of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). It is essential that we carry the improvements forward and make Trafalgar square and Parliament square accessible to pedestrians and a pleasant environment for people to enjoy. That is the objective of the world squares initiative, which we are determined to take forward—the Deputy Prime Minister has given a strong personal commitment to it.
    I enjoyed the reference by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to the Monopoly board. I hope that, as a consequence of this, neither of us will go to jail. I strongly endorse the amendments.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 490 to 511 agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 512, after clause 315, to insert the following new clause—Overseas assistance—
    .—(1) Section 1 of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (power of local authorities to provide advice and assistance overseas) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
    "(6A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the Greater London Authority shall be treated as having skill and experience as respects a particular matter if—

    (a) the Authority does not have skill and experience as respects that matter,

    (b) the London Development Agency does have such skill and experience, and

    (c) the Agency provides advice and assistance as respects that matter to the Authority."

    (3) In subsection (9)(a) (authorities given power to provide assistance) after "Wales," there shall he inserted "the Greater London Authority,".")
    Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment provides for the Greater London Authority and the London development agency to be able to provide assistance under the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993, meeting assurances given by Ministers earlier in the Bill's passage.
    Similar provision is not needed for Transport for London—which already has the power to offer such assistance under paragraph 9 of schedule 9 to the Bill—or for the police or fire authorities, which are already covered by existing legislation.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 513 and 514 agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 515, after clause 318, to insert the following new clause—Appointments 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."

    Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Lords amendment No. 515 is required to make it clear that the Secretary of State has power to appoint such persons as he considers necessary to ensure that provisions by or under the Act operate satisfactorily when
    798
    they come into force. Such persons may be appointed on terms and conditions that differ from standard civil service ones. It might be helpful if I gave some examples of when the Government intend that that power should be used.
    9.30 pm
    The first example concerns the London Ecology Unit, the London Planning Advisory Committee and the London Research Centre—each of which will be abolished on 1 April 2000. The staff of the three bodies will transfer to the GLA on its establishment, on 8 May 2000. Between 1 April and 8 May, the intention is, first, that they will be employed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Staff will retain their existing terms and conditions and pension arrangements throughout that period.
    Our intention is, secondly, that some of the people who will eventually work for the GLA and functional bodies should be recruited in advance of their establishment to do the necessary groundwork, so that the bodies will be able to operate effectively from the outset. The intention is that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Home Secretary, as appropriate, should act as the employer of those people prior to their transfer to the GLA, or to the relevant functional body once it has been established. Therefore, in the case of the GLA itself, for example, the newly recruited people would transfer from the Secretary of State's employ to that of the GLA on 8 May 2000.
    The likelihood is that the first of those people will need to have been recruited before the end of this year—well in advance of the Secretary of State becoming the employer of the staff of the LEU, LPAC and LRC. We think that clear statutory authority is desirable, to ensure that Ministers have the necessary powers to make such appointments.
    I should make it clear that any appointments to the most senior posts in the new bodies will be made on a temporary basis, and that some posts will be left vacant, to allow the GLA and the relevant responsible bodies to decide for themselves in due course the most appropriate arrangements. The power of the Secretary of State to make appointments to each body will cease once the relevant functions become exercisable by that body. Thereafter, it will be for the bodies themselves to make appointments.
    Mr. Woodward: I am sorry to have to bring to an abrupt end the rather convivial atmosphere that has developed in the House in the past hour—nevertheless, with great regret, it must end.
    Lords amendment No. 515 will soon be know as the Brent, East amendment, as it is the preparatory work that the Government feel is necessary should the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) manage, despite the work of various campaign managers, to secure the Labour party nomination for London mayor.
    The new clause is breathtaking, both for the power that it would give to the Secretary of State and for its casual inclusion at such a late stage in the Bill's passage—but we have become rather accustomed to the Government's late inclusion of such provisions.

    799
    In another place, Baroness Miller—whose work on the Bill, throughout its passage, has been tireless—said that to present
    "this type of amendment at Third Reading is beyond belief."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 675.]
    She admitted to being appalled that the new clause should have been considered by the other place at such a late stage in the Bill's progress, and Opposition Members share her view.
    Is the amendment not yet another example of the truly dreadful standards practised in the Bill's construction? Is it not another example of the Bill's rather shoddy construction? Is not the Bill effectively being re-written through 818 Government amendments, most of which we shall have no possibility to consider today because of the Government's timetable motion?
    How can the Minister say with any dignity that the provisions of Lords amendment No. 515 had not been thought of before? Did the Government finally realise that the amendment was necessary, or did its introduction have more to do with the fact that the campaign manager realised that his candidate might not win and that the candidate from Brent, East might secure the nomination?
    Ministers have said that the powers in the amendment would be for only temporary use. If it were a matter simply of the Minister's charm, I am sure that we might wish to believe him. However, the amendment does not say when the contracts might come to an end. Indeed, the amendment gives no point of termination for the arrangements that the Minister would like us to believe will be short-term and temporary. The new clause will allow the Secretary of State to make all the appointments that the mayor and Assembly should make when they take office. Why can that not be left to the mayor? If it is so important that the appointments be made earlier, it takes the biscuit for the Minister to say with an honest face that he and his officials could not have thought about it before.
    Lords amendment No. 515 says:
    "the Secretary of State may appoint a person on such terms and conditions…as the Secretary of State thinks fit."
    That creates carte blanche for the Secretary of State to hire whomever he chooses, under any contractual conditions for any period. Nowhere in the amendment is there anything to the contrary.
    The arrangement relies on trust alone, yet unfortunately, during our discussion of the Bill, we have repeatedly had grounds not to trust the Government on such matters. Where is the guarantee that the amendment will not be used to put placemen into Transport for London, the London development agency or the cultural strategy group before the mayor takes over?
    If people are hired on contract, will it not be expensive to get rid of them if the mayor decides that he does not want them? Who will pay? The London council tax payer will pay the cost of the Secretary of State's folly. How many posts does the right hon. Gentleman have it in mind to fill in that way? The Minister gave some examples, for which we are grateful, but perhaps he could give us guarantees of some of the appointments that will not be made under the amendment.
    We will divide the House on the Lords amendment because we do not believe in it in any shape or form, and we do not believe that it is in the democratic interests of
    800
    the Assembly or the city itself. Putting placemen from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions into the Authority is not a good idea. It will corrupt a body that we would like to see stand up for London.
    Mr. McDonnell: I shall quickly move on from that bluster and make a serious point concerning the transfer of staff. Both as an elected local councillor and as a local government officer, I have now experienced six reorganisations at the strategic and local levels, so I ask the Minister to reassure us that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply to most staff who are transferred from existing bodies to a new body to serve the same function.
    Most of the senior staff are now on fixed-term appointments, so if senior staff are to be appointed as the Lords amendment suggests, fixed-term contracts will apply. The question is therefore: what is the definition of "temporary"? How long does the Minister envisage that the fixed-term appointments will last?
    Mr. Hill: The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) worked himself into a bit of a lather on this one. I suppose that, having planted the story that we read in the Sunday Express yesterday, he felt obliged to bring it, with such energy as he could summon—which was not a great deal—to the Chamber. There was a slight piece in that newspaper at the weekend, but it was none the less clotted nonsense for being slight.
    There is nothing in the charge that the staff being recruited and appointed to the back-up team at the GLA are anything other than essential staff, such as security, clerical, administrative and IT staff who are vital if we are to achieve an effective transition when the mayor and the Assembly take over. They will take over in Romney house where the transition team is already in place and is recruiting the staff I have just mentioned. We expect that it will recruit 200 out of a potential 250 staff for the GLA, to be in place by the time that the mayor and Assembly take over.
    The key point is that all the key heads of departments and senior figures in the GLA administration—and, without qualification, all those who will be deemed to play any kind of political advisory role within the mayoralty and the Assembly—will be left for the mayor and Assembly to appoint. They will not be appointed by the transition team, much less—as the ludicrous piece in the Sunday Express suggested—by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
    As a clear indication of our total transparency and usual honesty, the whole question of the appointment of senior personnel for the GLA is, as is usual with this Government, the subject of a current consultation. We are seeking the advice of all the relevant players on the London scene, so that we can get it right. Getting it right means doing the best for London and Londoners, and not playing petty party political games, such as I fear the hon. Member for Witney—unusually—is playing this evening.
    Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 346, Noes 138.

    Division No. 300]

    [9.42 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Coleman, Iain

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Ainger, Nick

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Alexander, Douglas

    Corbett, Robin

    Allan, Richard

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Allen, Graham

    Corston, Jean

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cotter, Brian

    Ashton, Joe

    Cousins, Jim

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cox, Tom

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cranston, Ross

    Austin, John

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Baker, Norman

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Barnes, Harry

    Cummings, John

    Barron, Kevin

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Beard, Nigel

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Darvill, Keith

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Berry, Roger

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Betts, Clive

    Denham, John

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dobbin, Jim

    Blizzard, Bob

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Doran, Frank

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Dowd, Jim

    Borrow, David

    Drew, David

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Edwards, Huw

    Brake, Tom

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Etherington, Bill

    Breed, Colin

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Reid, Rt Hon Frank

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Fisher, Mark

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Fizpatrick, Jim

    Browne, Desmond

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Flint, Caroline

    Burden, Richard

    Flynn, Paul

    Burgon, Colin

    Follett, Barbara

    Burnett, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Burstow, Paul

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Fyfe, Maria

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gapes, Mike

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Caplin, Ivor

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Casale, Roger

    Godsiff, Roger

    Caton, Martin

    Goggins, Paul

    Chaytor, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Chidgey, David

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Clapham, Michael

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Grogan, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hain, Peter

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hancock, Mike

    Clelland, David

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clwyd, Ann

    Healey, John

    Coaker, Vernon

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Cohen, Harry

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    802

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Heppell, John

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hesford, Stephen

    Martlew, Eric

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Maxton, John

    Hill, Keith

    Meale, Alan

    Hinchliffe, David

    Merron, Gillian

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Hope, Phil

    Miller, Andrew

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Moffatt, Laura

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mountford, Kali

    Hurst, Alan

    Mudie, George

    Hutton, John

    Mullin, Chris

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Illsley, Eric

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pearson, Ian

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Pike, Peter L

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Plaskitt, James

    Keeble. Ms Sally

    Pond, Chris

    Keen, Alan (Feltharn & Heston)

    Pope, Greg

    Keetch, Paul

    Pound, Stephen

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Kemp, Fraser

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Kidney, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Purchase, Ken

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rammell, Bill

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Rapson, Syd

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Laxton, Bob

    Rendel, David

    Leslie, Christopher

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Levitt, Tom

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Linton, Martin

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Roy, Frank

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Ruane, Chris

    Lock, David

    Ruddock, Joan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McCabe, Steve

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Salter, Martin

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Sanders, Adrian

    Macdonald, Calum

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McDonnell, John

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sawford, Phil

    McIsaac, Shona

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sheerman, Barry

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McNulty, Tony

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McWalter, Tony

    Singh, Marsha

    McWilliam, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Snape, Peter

    803

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Spellar, John

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Tynan, Bill

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Watts, David

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Webb, Steve

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    White, Brian

    Stringer, Graham

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stunell, Andrew

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Willis, Phil

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Wills Michael

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Winnick, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Wise, Audrey

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Wood, Mike

    Timms, Stephen

    Woolas, Phil

    Tipping, Paddy

    Worthington, Tony

    Todd, Mark

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Touhig, Don

    Wyatt, Derek

    Truswell, Paul

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Mr. Kevin Hughes.

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Fraser, Christopher

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Gale, Roger

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Garnier, Edward

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gibb, Nick

    Baldry, Tony

    Gill, Christopher

    Bercow, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gray, James

    Blunt, Crispin

    Green, Damian

    Boswell, Tim

    Greenway, John

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Brady, Graham

    Hammond, Philip

    Brazier, Julian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hayes, John

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Burns, Simon

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Butterfill, John

    Horam, John

    Cash, William

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Chope, Christopher

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Clappison, James

    Key, Robert

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Collins, Tim

    Lansley, Andrew

    Colvin, Michael

    Leigh, Edward

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Letwin, Oliver

    Cran, James

    Lidington, David

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Loughton, Tim

    Luff, Peter

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Duncan, Alan

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Evans, Nigel

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Faber, David

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Fabricant, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fallon, Michael

    Madel, Sir David

    Flight, Howard

    Malins, Humfrey

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Maples, John

    804

    Mates, Michael

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Streeter, Gary

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Swayne, Desmond

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Syms, Robert

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Page, Richard

    Townend, John

    Paice, James

    Tredinnick, David

    Paterson, Owen

    Trend, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Viggers, Peter

    Prior, David

    Wardle, Charles

    Randall, John

    Waterson, Nigel

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Wells, Bowen

    Robathan, Andrew

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Robertson, Laurence

    Whittingdale, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Wilkinson, John

    Ruffley, David

    Willetts, David

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Wilshire, David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Woodward, Shaun

    Shepherd, Richard

    Yeo, Tim

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Soames, Nicholas

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    Spring, Richard

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in amendments Nos. 516 to 521.— [Mr. Dowd.]
    The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 139.

    Division No. 301]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Borrow, David

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Ainger, Nick

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Brake, Tom

    Alexander, Douglas

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Allan, Richard

    Breed, Colin

    Allen, Graham

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Ashton, Joe

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Browne, Desmond

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Burden, Richard

    Austin, John

    Burgon, Colin

    Baker, Norman

    Burnett, John

    Barnes, Harry

    Burstow, Paul

    Barron, Kevin

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Bayley, Hugh

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Beard, Nigel

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Campbell—Savours, Dale

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Caplin, Ivor

    Berry, Roger

    Casale, Roger

    Betts, Clive

    Caton, Martin

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Chaytor, David

    Blizzard, Bob

    Chidgey, David

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Clapham, Michael

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    805

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Grogan, John

    Hain, Peter

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hancock, Mike

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clelland, David

    Healey, John

    Clwyd, Ann

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Coleman, Iain

    Heppell, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Hesford, Stephen

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hill, Keith

    Corbett, Robin

    Hinchliffe, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Corston, Jean

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cotter, Brian

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Cousins, Jim

    Hope, Phil

    Cox, Tom

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cranston, Ross

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cummings, John

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hurst, Alan

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Hutton, John

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Dalyell, Tam

    Illsley, Eric

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Darvill, Keith

    Jamieson, David

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Mrs Rona (Newark)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Doran, Frank

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dowd, Jim

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Drew, David

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Edwards, Huw

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Efford, Clive

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Keen, Alan (Feltharn & Heston)

    Etherington, Bill

    Keetch, Paul

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Reid, Rt Hon Frank

    Kemp, Fraser

    Fisher, Mark

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Khabra, Piara S

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Kidney, David

    Flint, Caroline

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Flynn, Paul

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Follett, Barbara

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Fyfe, Maria

    Laxton, Bob

    Gapes, Mike

    Leslie, Christopher

    Gardiner, Barry

    Levitt, Tom

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Linton, Martin

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Lock, David

    Godsiff, Roger

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Goggins, Paul

    McCabe, Steve

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Grocott, Bruce

    McDonnell, John

    806

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Salter, Martin

    McIsaac, Shona

    Sanders, Adrian

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Sawford, Phil

    McNulty, Tony

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McWalter, Tony

    Sheerman, Barry

    McWilliam, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Mallaber, Judy

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Singh, Marsha

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, John

    Snape, Peter

    Meale, Alan

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Merron, Gillian

    Spellar, John

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Miller, Andrew

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Stringer, Graham

    Mountford, Kali

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Mudie, George

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mullin, Chris

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Timms, Stephen

    Olner, Bill

    Tipping, Paddy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Todd, Mark

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Touhig, Don

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Truswell, Paul

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pearson, Ian

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Pike, Peter L

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Plaskitt, James

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pond, Chris

    Tynan, Bill

    Pope, Greg

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Pound, Stephen

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Wareing, Robert N

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Watts, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Webb, Steve

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    White, Brian

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Purchase, Ken

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Rammell, Bill

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Rapson, Syd

    Willis, Phil

    Raynsford, Nick

    Wills, Michael

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Winnick, David

    Rendel, David

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Wise, Audrey

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wood, Mike

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Woolas, Phil

    Rowlands, Ted

    Worthington, Tony

    Roy, Frank

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Ruane, Chris

    Wyatt, Derek

    Ruddock, Joan

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Mr. Kevin Hughes.

    807

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Letwin, Oliver

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Lidington, David

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Loughton, Tim

    Baldry, Tony

    Luff, Peter

    Bercow, John

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Blunt, Crispin

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Boswell, Tim

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Brady, Graham

    Madel, Sir David

    Brazier, Julian

    Matins, Humfrey

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Maples, John

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Mates, Michael

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Burns, Simon

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Butterfill, John

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Cash, William

    Moss, Malcolm

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Chope, Christopher

    Ottaway, Richard

    Clappison, James

    Page, Richard

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Paice, James

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Paterson, Owen

    Pickles, Eric

    Collins, Tim

    Prior, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Randall, John

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Cran, James

    Robathan, Andrew

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Robertson, Laurence

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Ruffley, David

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Duncan, Alan

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Shepherd, Richard

    Evans, Nigel

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Faber, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Fabricant, Michael

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Fallon, Michael

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Flight, Howard

    Spring, Richard

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Streeter, Gary

    Fraser, Christopher

    Swayne, Desmond

    Gale, Roger

    Syms, Robert

    Garnier, Edward

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Gibb, Nick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Gill, Christopher

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Gray, James

    Townend, John

    Green, Damian

    Tredinnick, David

    Greenway, John

    Trend, Michael

    Grieve, Dominic

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Viggers, Peter

    Hammond, Philip

    Wardle, Charles

    Hawkins, Nick

    Waterson, Nigel

    Hayes, John

    Wells, Bowen

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Whittingdale, John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Horam, John

    Wilkinson, John

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Willetts, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Wilshire, David

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Woodward, Shaun

    Key, Robert

    Yeo, Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lansley, Andrew

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    Leigh, Edward

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendments agreed to.
    It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to the Order this day.
    Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments:—
    The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 136.

    Division No. 302]

    [10.13 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Allan, Richard

    Clelland, David

    Allen, Graham

    Clwyd, Ann

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Coaker, Vernon

    Ashton, Joe

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cohen, Harry

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Coleman, Iain

    Austin, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Baker, Norman

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Barnes, Harry

    Cooper, Yvette

    Barron, Kevin

    Corbett, Robin

    Bayley, Hugh

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Beard, Nigel

    Corston, Jean

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cotter, Brian

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Cousins, Jim

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Cox, Tom

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Cranston, Ross

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cummings, John

    Berry, Roger

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Betts, Clive

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dalyell, Tam

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Darvill, Keith

    Borrow, David

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Brake, Tom

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Breed, Colin

    Denham, John

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Dobbin, Jim

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Doran, Frank

    Browne, Desmond

    Dowd, Jim

    Burden, Richard

    Drew, David

    Burgon, Colin

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Burnett, John

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Burstow, Paul

    Edwards, Huw

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Efford, Clive

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Etherington, Bill

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Reid, Rt Hon Frank

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Fisher, Mark

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Flint, Caroline

    Caplin, Ivor

    Rynn, Paul

    Casale, Roger

    Follett, Barbara

    Caton, Martin

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Chaytor, David

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Chidgey, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Clapham, Michael

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Gapes, Mike

    Gardiner, Barry

    809

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Linton, Martin

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Lock, David

    Godsiff, Roger

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Goggins, Paul

    McCabe, Steve

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Grocott, Bruce

    McDonnell, John

    Grogan, John

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hain, Peter

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Hancock, Mike

    McNulty, Tony

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Healey, John

    McWalter, Tony

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    McWilliam, John

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Heppell, John

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Hill, Keith

    Martlew, Eric

    Hinchliffe, David

    Maxton, John

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Meale, Alan

    Hood, Jimmy

    Merron, Gillian

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hope, Phil

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hurst, Alan

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hutton, John

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Mountford, Kali

    Illsley, Eric

    Mudie, George

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mullin, Chris

    Jamieson, David

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Öpik, Lembit

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Pearson, Ian

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Pickthall, Colin

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pike, Peter L

    Keen, Alan (Feltharn & Heston)

    Plaskitt, James

    Keetch, Paul

    Pond, Chris

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Pope, Greg

    Kemp, Fraser

    Pound, Stephen

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Khabra, Piara S

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisharn E)

    Kidney, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Purchase, Ken

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Rammell, Bill

    Laxton, Bob

    Rapson, Syd

    Leslie, Christopher

    Raynsford, Nick

    Levitt, Tom

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    810

    Rendel, David

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Roy, Frank

    Timms, Stephen

    Ruane, Chris

    Tipping, Paddy

    Ruddock, Joan

    Todd, Mark

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Touhig, Don

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Truswell, Paul

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Salter, Martin

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Sawford, Phil

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tynan, Bill

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wareing, Robert N

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Watts, David

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Webb, Steve

    Singh, Marsha

    White, Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Snape, Peter

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Spellar, John

    Willis, Phil

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Wills, Michael

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Winnick, David

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wise, Audrey

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wood, Mike

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Woolas, Phil

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Worthington, Tony

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Stringer, Graham

    Wyatt, Derek

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Stunell, Andrew

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mr. Kevin Hughes and

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Baldry, Tony

    Duncan, Alan

    Bercow, John

    Evans, Nigel

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Faber, David

    Blunt, Crispin

    Fabricant, Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Fallon, Michael

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Flight, Howard

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Brady, Graham

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Brazier, Julian

    Fraser, Christopher

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Garnier, Edward

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gibb, Nick

    Burns, Simon

    Gill, Christopher

    Butterfill, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Cash, William

    Gray, James

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Green, Damian

    Greenway, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Grieve, Dominic

    Clappison, James

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Hammond, Philip

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Hayes, John

    Collins, Tim

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Colvin, Michael

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Horam, John

    Cran, James

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    811

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Ruffley, David

    Key, Robert

    St Aubyn, Nick

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shepherd, Richard

    Lansley, Andrew

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Leigh, Edward

    Soames, Nicholas

    Letwin, Oliver

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Lidington, David

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spring, Richard

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareharn)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Loughton, Tim

    Streeter, Gary

    Luff, Peter

    Swayne, Desmond

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Syms, Robert

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Townend, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tredinnick, David

    Madel, Sir David

    Trend, Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Maples, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Wardle, Charles

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Waterson, Nigel

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Wells, Bowen

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Moss, Malcolm

    Whittingdale, John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Wilkinson, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Willetts, David

    Page, Richard

    Wilshire, David

    Paice, James

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Paterson, Owen

    Woodward, Shaun

    Pickles, Eric

    Yeo, Tim

    Prior, David

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Randall, John

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Robathan, Andrew

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    Robertson, Laurence

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendments agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments numbered 1 and 6; Mr. Jim Dowd, Mr. Phil Hope, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Mr. Shaun Woodward to be members of the Committee; Mr. Nick Raynsford to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee; Committee to withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 158.

    Division No. 303]

    [10.27 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Ainger, Nick

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Allen, Graham

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Ashton, Joe

    Berry, Roger

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Betts, Clive

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Austin, John

    Blizzard, Bob

    Barnes, Harry

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Barron, Kevin

    Borrow, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Beard, Nigel

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    812

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Fyfe, Maria

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Gapes, Mike

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Browne, Desmond

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Burden, Richard

    Gerrard, Neil

    Burgon, Colin

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Goggins, Paul

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Caplin, Ivor

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Casale, Roger

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Caton, Martin

    Grocott, Bruce

    Chaytor, David

    Grogan, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Hain, Peter

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Healey, John

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Heppell, John

    Clelland, David

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hill, Keith

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Coleman, Iain

    Hood, Jimmy

    Connarty, Michael

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hope, Phil

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Corbett, Robin

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Corston, Jean

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cotter, Brian

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cox, Tom

    Hurst, Alan

    Cranston, Ross

    Hutton, John

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Illsley, Eric

    Cummings, John

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jamieson, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Darvill, Keith

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Denham, John

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Dobbin, Jim

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Doran, Frank

    Keen, Alan (Feltharn & Heston)

    Dowd, Jim

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Drew, David

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Edwards, Huw

    Kidney, David

    Efford, Clive

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Etherington, Bill

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Fisher, Mark

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Laxton, Bob

    Flint, Caroline

    Leslie, Christopher

    Flynn, Paul

    Levitt, Tom

    Follett, Barbara

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Lock, David

    813

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ruane, Chris

    McCabe, Steve

    Ruddock, Joan

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Macdonald, Calum

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McDonnell, John

    Sawford, Phil

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McIsaac, Shona

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McNulty, Tony

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McWalter, Tony

    Singh, Marsha

    McWilliam, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Snape, Peter

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Spellar, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Maxton, John

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Meale, Alan

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Merron, Gillian

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Miller, Andrew

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mitchell, Austin

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stringer, Graham

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Mountford, Kali

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Mudie, George

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Mullin, Chris

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Timms, Stephen

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Tipping, Paddy

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Todd, Mark

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Touhig, Don

    Olner, Bill

    Truswell, Paul

    O'Neill, Martin

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Pearson, Ian

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Tynan, Bill

    Pike, Peter L

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Plaskitt, James

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Pond, Chris

    Wareing, Robert N

    Pope, Greg

    Watts, David

    Pound, Stephen

    White, Brian

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Purchase, Ken

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Wills, Michael

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Winnick, David

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Wise, Audrey

    Rammell, Bill

    Wood, Mike

    Rapson, Syd

    Woolas, Phil

    Raynsford, Nick

    Worthington, Tony

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Wyatt, Derek

    Rooker, Jeff

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rowlands, Ted

    Mr. Mike Hall and

    Roy, Frank

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

    814

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Amess, David

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Keetch, Paul

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Key, Robert

    Baker, Norman

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Baldry, Tony

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Bercow, John

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Blunt, Crispin

    Lansley, Andrew

    Boswell, Tim

    Leigh, Edward

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Letwin, Oliver

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Lidington, David

    Brady, Graham

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Brake, Tom

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Brazier, Julian

    Loughton, Tim

    Breed, Colin

    Luff, Peter

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Burnett, John

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Burns, Simon

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Burstow, Paul

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Butterfill, John

    Madel, Sir David

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Malins, Hurnfrey

    Maples, John

    Cash, William

    Mates, Michael

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Chidgey, David

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Chope, Christopher

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Clappison, James

    Moss, Malcolm

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Ottaway, Richard

    Collins, Tim

    Page, Richard

    Colvin, Michael

    Paice, James

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Paterson, Owen

    Cran, James

    Pickles, Eric

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Prior, David

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice &Howden)

    Randall, John

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Rendel, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Robathan, Andrew

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Robertson, Laurence

    Evans, Nigel

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Faber, David

    Ruffley, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Fallon, Michael

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Flight, Howard

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Shepherd, Richard

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Soames, Nicholas

    Fraser, Christopher

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Garnier, Edward

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gibb, Nick

    Spring, Richard

    Gill, Christopher

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Streeter, Gary

    Gray, James

    Swayne, Desmond

    Green, Damian

    Syms, Robert

    Greenway, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Grieve, Dominic

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hammond, Philip

    Townend, John

    Hancock, Mike

    Tredinnick, David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Trend, Michael

    Hayes, John

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Viggers, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Wardle, Charles

    Horam, John

    Waterson, Nigel

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Webb, Steve

    815

    Wells, Bowen

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Woodward, Shaun

    Whittingdale, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wilkinson, John

    Willetts, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Willis, Phil

    Mr. Andrew Stunell and

    Wilshire, David

    Mr. Adrian Sanders.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We now come to motion No. 3, which I intend to put together with the Questions on the other motions on the Order Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In that case, we shall take them separately.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      TAXES
      That the draft Tax Credit (New Category of Child Care Provider) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
      The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes 59.

      Division No. 304]

      [10.39 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Browne, Desmond

      Ainger, Nick

      Burden, Richard

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Burgon, Colin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Burnett, John

      Allan, Richard

      Burstow, Paul

      Allen, Graham

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Austin, John

      Baker, Norman

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Barron, Kevin

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bayley, Hugh

      Casale, Roger

      Beard, Nigel

      Caton, Martin

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Chaytor, David

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Chidgey, David

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Clapharn, Michael

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Benton, Joe

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clelland, David

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Clwyd, Ann

      Borrow, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cohen, Harry

      Brake, Tom

      Coleman, Iain

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Connarty, Michael

      Breed, Colin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cooper, Yvette

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Corbett, Robin

      816

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hope, Phil

      Corston, Jean

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cotter, Brian

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cranston, Ross

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cummings, John

      Hutton, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Illsley, Eric

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jamieson, David

      Darvill, Keith

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Denham, John

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Drew, David

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Keeble, Ms Salty

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Keetch, Paul

      Efford, Clive

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kemp, Fraser

      Etherington, Bill

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Khabra, Piara S

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Kidney, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Flint, Caroline

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Flynn, Paul

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Follett, Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Levitt, Tom

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Linton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lock, David

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Love, Andrew

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McCabe, Steve

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Goggins, Paul

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Macdonald, Calum

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Grocott, Bruce

      McIsaac, Shona

      Grogan, John

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Hain, Peter

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hancock, Mike

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McWarter, Tony

      Healey, John

      McWilliam, John

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Martlew, Eric

      Hill, Keith

      Maxton, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Meale, Alan

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Merron, Gillian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      817

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Singh, Marsha

      Miller, Andrew

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mitchell, Austin

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Snape, Peter

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Spellar, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mudie, George

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mullin, Chris

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stringer, Graham

      Olner, Bill

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stunell, Andrew

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pearson, Ian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pike, Peter L

      Timms, Stephen

      Plaskitt, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pond, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Pope, Greg

      Touhig, Don

      Pound, Stephen

      Truswell, Paul

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Purchase, Ken

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tynan, Bill

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rammed, Bill

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rapson, Syd

      Wareing, Robert N

      Raynsford, Nick

      Watts, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Webb, Steve

      Rendel, David

      White, Brian

      Rooker, Jeff

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roy, Frank

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Willis, Phil

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wills, Michael

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Winnick, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wise, Audrey

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wood, Mike

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Woolas, Phil

      Sawford, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wyatt, Derek

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      NOES

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Baldly, Tony

      Chope, Christopher

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Brazier, Julian

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Faber, David

      Burns, Simon

      Fabricant, Michael

      Cash, William

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      818

      Gill, Christopher

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Robertson, Laurence

      Gray, James

      Ruffley, David

      Horam, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Leigh, Edward

      Syms, Robert

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Townend, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tredinnick, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Malins, Humfrey

      Viggers, Peter

      Wardle, Charles

      Mates, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Page, Richard

      Paterson, Owen

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Pickles, Eric

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Randall, John

      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

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

      TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
      That the draft Working Time Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
      The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 48.

      Division No. 305]

      [10.52 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Burnett, John

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Burstow, Paul

      Ainger, Nick

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caplin, Ivor

      Austin, John

      Casale, Roger

      Baker, Norman

      Caton, Martin

      Barnes, Harry

      Chaytor, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Chidgey, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Benton, Joe

      Clelland, David

      Berry, Roger

      Clwyd, Ann

      Betts, Clive

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cohen, Harry

      Borrow, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Connarty, Michael

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Brake, Tom

      Cooper, Yvette

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Corbett, Robin

      Breed, Colin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Corston, Jean

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cotter, Brian

      Browne, Desmond

      Cousins, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Cox, Tom

      Burgon, Colin

      Cranston, Ross

      819

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hutton, John

      Cummings, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Illsley, Eric

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jamieson, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Doran, Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dowd, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Drew, David

      Keetch, Paul

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Edwards, Huw

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Efford, Clive

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kidney, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fearn, Ronnie

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Fisher, Mark

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Flynn, Paul

      Laxton, Bob

      Follett, Barbara

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gapes, Mike

      Lock, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Love, Andrew

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCabe, Steve

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Godsiff, Roger

      Macdonald, Calum

      Goggins, Paul

      McDonnell, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Grocott, Bruce

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Grogan, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hain, Peter

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds WE;)

      McWilliam, John

      Hancock, Mike

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mallaber, Judy

      Healey, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Heppell, John

      Maxton, John

      Hesford, Stephen

      Meale, Alan

      Hill, Keith

      Merron, Gillian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hope, Phil

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mountford, Kali

      820

      Mudie, George

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mullin, Chris

      Snape, Peter

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Spellar, John

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Olner, Bill

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Öpik, Lembit

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stringer, Graham

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pearson, Ian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Swayne, Desmond

      Pike, Peter L

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pond, Chris

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pope, Greg

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Todd, Mark

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Touhig, Don

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Truswell, Paul

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Quinn Lawrie

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Rammell, Bill

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rapson, Syd

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Tynan, Bill

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rendel, David

      Wareing, Robert N

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Watts, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Webb, Steve

      Roy, Frank

      White, Brian

      Ruane, Chris

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Willis, Phil

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wills, Michael

      Sawford, Phil

      Winnick, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wise, Audrey

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wood, Mike

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Woolas, Phil

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Worthington, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Faber, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fallon, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Flight, Howard

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Burns, Simon

      Gray, James

      Butterfill, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Cash, William

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Leigh, Edward

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Collins, Tim

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Colvin, Michael

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Madel, Sir David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Evans, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      821

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Wardle, Charles

      Paterson, Owen

      Wells, Bowen

      Prior, David

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Robertson, Laurence

      Wilkinson, John

      Ruffley, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Townend, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tredinnick, David

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

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

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Licensing and Registered Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
      The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 33.

      Division No. 306]

      [11.3 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Caplin, Ivor

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Casale, Roger

      Ainger, Nick

      Caton, Martin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Chaytor, David

      Alexander, Douglas

      Chidgey, David

      Allan, Richard

      Clapham, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Austin, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Baker, Norman

      Clelland, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Clwyd, Ann

      Barron, Kevin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Connarty, Michael

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Corbett, Robin

      Benton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Berry, Roger

      Corston, Jean

      Betts, Clive

      Cotter, Brian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cousins, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cox, Tom

      Borrow, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cummings, John

      Brake, Tom

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Breed, Colin

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Darvill, Keith

      Browne, Desmond

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Burden, Richard

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Burgon, Colin

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Burnett, John

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Burstow, Paul

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Denham, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Doran, Frank

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Drew, David

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      822

      Edwards, Huw

      Kidney, David

      Efford, Clive

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Etherington, Bill

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fisher, Mark

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Laxton, Bob

      Flint, Caroline

      Leslie, Christopher

      Flynn, Paul

      Levitt, Tom

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Follett, Barbara

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fyfe, Maria

      McCabe, Steve

      Gapes, Mike

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gardiner, Barry

      Macdonald, Calum

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonnell, John

      Gerard, Neil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Goggins, Paul

      McNulty, Tony

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McWalter, Tony

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Grogan, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hancock, Mike

      Maxton, John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Meale, Alan

      Healey, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mitchell, Austin

      Heppell, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hill, Keith

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mountford, Kali

      Hope, Phil

      Mudie, George

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hurst, Alan

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Illsley, Eric

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jamieson, David

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jenkins, Brian

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pike Peter L

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keetch, Paul

      Purchase, Ken

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quinn, Lawrie

      823

      Radice, Fit Hon Giles

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Rammell, Bill

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rapson, Syd

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Raynsford, Nick

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Rendel, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Todd, Mark

      Rowlands, Ted

      Touhig, Don

      Roy, Frank

      Truswell, Paul

      Ruane, Chris

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Tynan, Bill

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sawford, Phil

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sheerman, Barry

      Watts, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Webb, Steve

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      White, Brian

      Singh, Marsha

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Spellar, John

      Willis, Phil

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Winnick, David

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wise, Audrey

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wood, Mike

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Woolas, Phil

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Stringer, Graham

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mr. Kevin Hughes and

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Loughton, Tim

      Blunt, Crispin

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Paterson, Owen

      Chope, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Swayne, Desmond

      Colvin, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Townend, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Viggers, Peter

      Gill, Christopher

      Wilshire, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Horam, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Leigh, Edward

      Mr. James Gray and

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

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

      LEGAL SERVICES
      That the draft Chartered Institute of Patent Agents Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 25th October, be approved—[Mr. Clelland.]
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 27.

      Division No. 307]

      [11.17 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ainger, Nick

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Alexander, Douglas

      Darvill, Keith

      Allan, Richard

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ashton, Joe

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Austin, John

      Denham, John

      Baker, Norman

      Dobbin, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Barron, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dowd, Jim

      Beard, Nigel

      Drew, David

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Edwards, Huw

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Efford, Clive

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Benton, Joe

      Etherington, Bill

      Berry, Roger

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Betts, Clive

      Reid, Rt Hon Frank

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Fisher, Mark

      Blizzard, Bob

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Flynn, Paul

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Follett, Barbara

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Breed, Colin

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Browne, Desmond

      Fyfe, Maria

      Burden, Richard

      Gapes, Mike

      Burgon, Colin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burnett, John

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Burstow, Paul

      Gerrard, Neil

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caton, Martin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chaytor, David

      Grogan, John

      Chidgey, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Hill, Keith

      Connarty, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hope, Phil

      Corbett, Robin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Corston, Jean

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cotter, Brian

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cousins, Jim

      Hurst, Alan

      Cox, Tom

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cummings, John

      Jamieson, David

      825

      Jenkins, Brian

      Maxton, John

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Meale, Alan

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Merron, Gillian

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Miller, Andrew

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Keetch, Paul

      Mountford, Kali

      Kemp, Fraser

      Mudie, George

      Khabra, Piara S

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Kidney, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Olner, Bill

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      O'Neill, Martin

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Öpik, Lembit

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Laxton, Bob

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Leslie, Christopher

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Levitt, Tom

      Pearson, Ian

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Linton, Martin

      Pickthall, Colin

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Pike, Peter L

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Plaskitt, James

      Love, Andrew

      Pond, Chris

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Pound, Stephen

      McCabe, Steve

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Prosser, Gwyn

      McDonnell, John

      Purchase, Ken

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      McIsaac, Shona

      Quinn, Lawrie

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Rammell, Bill

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Rapson, Syd

      McNulty, Tony

      Raynsford, Nick

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      McWalter, Tony

      Rendel, David

      McWilliam, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mallaber, Judy

      Roy, Frank

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Ruane, Chris

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Martlew, Eric

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      826

      Sanders, Adrian

      Touhig, Don

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Truswell, Paul

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Singh, Marsha

      Tynan, Bill

      Skinner, Dennis

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Snape, Peter

      Watts, David

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Webb, Steve

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      White, Brian

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Willis, Phil

      Stringer, Graham

      Winnick, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wise, Audrey

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wood, Mike

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Woolas, Phil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Worthington, Tony

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Todd, Mark

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Paterson, Owen

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Robertson, Laurence

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Colvin, Michael

      Townend, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Wilkinson, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Wilshire, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Leigh, Edward

      Mr. James Gray and

      Loughton, Tim

      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

  Food Standards Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)
  Ordered,
  That the Order of the House of 22nd July 1999 be supplemented as follows:
  Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion one and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
  2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
  (3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) the Question on any further amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) the Question on any amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended;

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
  (7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
  Subsequent stages
  3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
  (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  (3) For the purpose of bringing these proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall put forthwith—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message; and

  (c) the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Miscellaneous
  4.—(1) This paragraph applies to proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments and proceedings on any further Message from the Lords.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which this paragraph applies.
  (3) Proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (5) Where proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Urgent matters), commence at a time when proceedings to which this paragraph applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.
  (6) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings to which this paragraph applies are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.—[Mr. Clelland.]

  Food Standards Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Food Standards Bill
    Clause 10

      POWER TO CARRY OUT OBSERVATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 32, after ("activities") insert—
      ("(ba) premises, businesses or operations involved in fish farming;")
      11.30 pm
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 and 7.
      Ms Quin: This group of amendments makes some minor clarifications to the scope of the power to carry out observations in clauses 10 and 11. It includes some important additional safeguards on the powers of entry in both clauses 11 and 14, which the Government agreed in response to concerns raised in the other place.
      As to amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, at earlier stages in the House we debated the agency's need to gather representative information on food safety and related matters, subject to the limitations in the Bill and the agency's general duty to act proportionately. The amendments ensure that there are no technical gaps in the powers to carry out observations.
      The amendments include a reference to fish farms alongside the existing references to food, agricultural and animal feed businesses and premises. Although it was always intended that fish farms should be covered—because, as hon. Members know, shellfish can be a high-risk product—it was necessary to put the issue beyond doubt. The amendments also clarify the fact that the samples that may be taken during observations include samples from food sources, live animals and plants. The existing text was intended to cover this, but the amendment removes any doubt.
      As to amendments Nos. 3 and 7, we have always emphasised that the Bill's powers must be used reasonably and proportionately, with proper regard paid to the needs of businesses. The Bill has safeguards that provide for this, some of which were added following debate in Committee. We also gave assurances that the agency's officers would follow guidance to ensure that they behaved reasonably and followed the principles of better regulation.
      Therefore, the Government were happy to accept two additional amendments from the Earl of Radnor relating to the authorisations to exercise powers of entry to undertake observations or enforcement monitoring. They provide that authorisations given to use the powers of entry may include a requirement to follow particular conditions—for example, ensuring that the necessary hygiene precautions are taken, including wearing appropriate protective clothing.
      830
      The Government have given a commitment that authorisations will, in practice, require the authorised officer to follow conditions equivalent to those already applicable to enforcement officers under code of practice 9, made under section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990. That required officers to observe any reasonable food safety precautions that are required by the company or organisation under inspection.
      The amendments strengthen the Bill's existing safeguards, and I hope that the House will welcome them.
      Mr. James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of the amendments. We welcome clarification of food sources and samples and the further moves in the Bill to emphasise hygiene precautions. We support that sensible measure.
      However, I want to make a point about fish farming, relating not only to the fundamental question whether fish farming should be included in the Bill but to the concern expressed in another place that the Bill now refers simply to "fish farming", rather than "commercial fish farming". There are, of course, fish farms that produce fish for ornamental and amenity purposes, and not normally for food. When that concern was expressed in the other place, Baroness Hayman said that, because the Bill related to food safety, the measure obviously related only to commercial fish farms. However, having reflected on that, I hope that the Minister will give the matter a little more thought.
      There is no definition of the word "food" in the Bill, because it takes the definition used in the Food Safety Act 1990. The Government have resisted further definition, but for most people food is a matter of individual perception. Although we may not want to eat certain types of fish, people in other parts of the world do. It worries me that the amendment covers any fish farm, when it could be shown that some fish species were being used for food by a particular culture—we are a multicultural society these days.
      I accept that it is not the Government's intention to include within the Bill all types of fish farm, but I am concerned that the Bill does not include the description "commercial" or "fish for food" to narrow its scope to those fish farms that produce fish for human consumption.
      Dr. Peter Brand: We welcome the amendments and the inclusion of fish farms. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), but I do not know of many sects or religions that might eat koi carp. On the other hand, I do know of people who catch trout that may well have been fish-farmed earlier in their existence. It makes sense to include fish farms in the Bill.
      Mr. David Maclean: I have a small concern about the amendment. Although I welcome the addition of fish farming to the Bill, the definition goes too far and may potentially include fish that are too young.
      I understand that there are specialist breeding centres where the fish are spawned and, as small fry, are transported in tanks in their millions to the fish farms or breeding grounds. At that stage, the fish may be given foodstuffs, or canthazaxin or other chemicals. They are

      831
      weighed as they begin to put on flesh and therefore become more suitable for human consumption. Of course, it is vital that they and their foodstuffs are monitored and checked, but I am not sure what would be the benefit to the Government or the Food Standards Agency of including the very earliest stages of the fish-breeding process.
      That is my simple point. It is not a strong point of principle. Rather, I am not sure of the merit of including those stages in the Bill. I would be happy if the Minister could explain the logic behind that part of the definition, which, in my reading of amendment No. 2, includes those early stages of fish breeding and rearing.
      Mr. Owen Paterson: I shall briefly draw the attention of the House to amendment No. 7, and the biggest problem facing many abattoirs, which is the poor quality of the staff, many of whom have come from Spain and do not speak English very well. In an abattoir in my area, a young Spanish fellow attended the dressing of a carcase, and believing that it was that of a bullock, said that the spine should be taken out. The carcase was that of a pig. Such ignorance among many young vets who come in to make up numbers, simply because the word "vétérinaire" has been mistranslated by officials, is causing grievous problems in many abattoirs.
      I receive numerous letters from abattoirs on the subject. One letter states that a study has shown that the largest single cause of meat contamination was the inspection process in the slaughterhouse. In another abattoir, the strictest enforcers of hygiene standards are the customers—the men from the supermarkets—which is as it should be. They found that the inspectors in that abattoir were not wearing clean overalls, were going from one designated zone to another and were using contaminated tools.
      I welcome amendment No. 7, as it is essential that vets understand the basic principles of hygiene. I regret that some of those in abattoirs do not.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome the inclusion of fish farming. For us in Scotland, fish farming by and large means salmon farming. It is an important industry employing thousands of people in rural communities, but the licensing of such farms has caused considerable consternation among our pelagic, demersal and shellfish fishing communities. It is therefore important that the quality standards that exist in the fish—generally salmon—farms are maintained at a high level, and it is right that there should be inspection of those farms.
      Ms Quin: Most of the comments on this group of amendments relate to the amendment on fish farms. I thought I heard one of my colleagues unkindly suggest that some of the comments amounted to red herrings.
      Fish farming is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) rightly pointed out, because of the number of fish farms and the employment that they provide for increasing numbers of people.
      My understanding is that ornamental fish farms would not be covered by the provision, because the powers of entry can be used only to carry out the agency's responsibilities—that is, for food safety and other consumer interests in relation to food.
      832
      I recognise that the inclusion of fish farms has been welcomed. It makes sense that that should be specifically stated in the Bill, as hon. Members have pointed out.
      The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred to amendment No.7. I am pleased that he welcomed the amendment, although some of his comments were curious. The people who have powers of entry must respect conditions of hygiene. It is an important issue, but some of the fears that the hon. Gentleman expressed should be covered by other parts of the Bill dealing with the agency's responsibility for training and standards of staff working in such establishments.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

    Clause 12

      MONITORING OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 6, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      ("(3) Each annual report of the Agency shall contain a report on its activities during the year in enforcing any relevant legislation for which it is the enforcement authority and its performance in respect of—

      (a) any standards under subsection (2) that apply to those activities; and

      (b) any objectives relating to those activities that are specified in the statement of objectives and practices under section 22.")

      Ms Quin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 15.
      Ms Quin: The Government accepted these two amendments, which were tabled by Cross-Bench and Opposition peers. Lords amendment No. 6 relates to the requirement on the agency to report in its annual report on its own performance as an enforcement authority. That relates primarily to the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service, which was extensively debated in the House and by the Special Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
      11.45 pm
      The Government have made it clear throughout that they believe that it is right that the MHS, which is responsible for enforcement in a key area of food safety, should be part of the agency, but we also made it clear that we believe that it should be subject to rigorous audit of its performance—that point was made strongly by my predecessor—and that its officers should behave reasonably, in accordance with the principles of better regulation.
      Amendment No. 6 will put in the Bill the clear requirement that the agency should include in its report to Parliament information on its activities where it acts as an enforcement authority in relation to specific standards which will be set for its performance, and in relation to specific objectives and practices included in the agency's statement of objectives and practices, which, as hon. Members know, is required by clause 22. We have made

      833
      it clear that those objectives will include compliance with the better regulation principles. We believe that that will contribute to greater openness about the performance of the MHS, which has been of concern to Members on both sides of the House. I therefore hope that the House will agree that the amendment is helpful and will improve the Bill.
      In a similar vein, amendment No. 15 requires that the agency's agreed statement of objectives and practices be laid before Parliament and the devolved legislatures. That will make a helpful contribution to openness. We expect the agency to consult interested bodies on its statement before it is finalised. I stress that the amendment was tabled by the Opposition—by Baroness Byford—and the Government believe that it will improve the Bill.
      Mr. Paice: The right hon. Lady is right: the amendment represents an improvement to the Bill—obviously we support it, because it was tabled by my noble Friend—but I must tell her that the improvement is tiny. It goes nowhere towards addressing the real concerns expressed by Conservative Members throughout the earlier stages of the Bill's consideration about the MHS and the dual role of enforcement and monitoring authority that the Food Standards Agency will play. It does not tell us how the two roles will be separated in practice—nor have the Government produced any convincing reason for their rejection of the advice of the Special Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), to which the Minister referred.
      We also need to question MHS charges. At present, as I understand it, the Minister has to approve all charges—at least her predecessor regularly told the House that he had not yet approved any rises, so we assume that he had the power to do so if he needed to. If the MHS is to go into the FSA, what controls will there be on charging? If the annual report is published in the way described in the amendment, will it include, for example, separate MHS accounts and a schedule of charges and how they have been arrived at so that people can see transparently what is going on?
      Given that a slaughterhouse is closing every week under this Government, it is time that we had much more transparency in respect of the charges made for meat hygiene inspection. The House will be aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food himself has announced studies of comparative costs and charges in abattoirs in other countries. If that matter is to be dealt with by the MHS, is the right hon. Gentleman wasting his time? Will he have any powers to do anything, even if he uncovers evidence showing, as we believe, that British abattoirs are being treated unfairly? If not, and if the Meat Hygiene Service is to have total control over its charging mechanisms, it is essential that it be transparent and that the report for which amendment No. 6 provides covers all those possibilities. We may then be able to put an end to the constant arguments about the level of charges. Under this Government, however, I do not see that happening.
      Mr. Michael Jack: My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the Minister both talked about the need for transparency. The Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency will deal with some of the most sensitive issues relating to the food chain.
      834
      The Minister said that the report would be published and laid before Parliament. She knows, however, that a great number of statutorily required reports are laid before Parliament, but that no effort is made to debate their content. Given the importance of the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the importance of the work of the Food Standards Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service, will the Minister assure us that the report will not just be laid before Parliament, but tabled for a proper debate in Government time so that we can examine many of the sensitive issues that my hon. Friend outlined?
      Dr. Brand: Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the creation of the Food Standards Agency, because we all see the need to restore confidence in British food. To achieve that, it is essential that we have openness and transparency. That is why I welcome the amendments.
      The annual report should not just look back at the events of the previous year, but should look forward and give us a business plan and a budget for the following year. One of our concerns is that the Meat Hygiene Service could take over all the energies and resources of the Food Standards Agency and, so, defeat the very purpose for which the agency was set up. Will the Minister assure us that the report relating to the Meat Hygiene Service will show clearly the resources that the service will use, so that we can see that the other arm of the agency is protected?
      Mr. Eric Forth: I am beginning to wonder whether the amendment is totally fatuous. The more I listen to the words of praise echoing around the Chamber about it, the more it occurs to me that it will be utterly useless. The clue to my suspicion came from the Minister, who said that it would contribute to openness. That immediately makes me suspicious, as it is completely meaningless. Matters became even worse when the right hon. Lady said that she expected the agency to consult. There seems to be no obligation on the agency to consult in this part of the process; it is simply a ministerial expectation. That is not good enough.
      As if that were not bad enough, the amendment will oblige a copy of the statement approved by the agency to be laid
      "before Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly"—
      "laid before", no more. One can only conclude that there will be a process, possibly of consultation—we do not know; the Minister hopes so, but nothing obliges it—and the agency will reach its own conclusions about its objectives. There will be no outside check on that process. Then, in a grand gesture of openness, the agency will lay its conclusions before Parliaments and Assemblies.
      Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), there the process ends. A report, about which no consultation was needed, is laid before Parliament. We all know that that could well be a completely meaningless part of the process.
      In my more negative moments—there are few, I admit, but every now and again, during debates such as this, a bit of negativity arises—I ask myself what all this means, and where it is leading us. Will it advance the process in any way? Here is yet another piece of paper—another

      835
      document. No doubt it will be available in the Vote Office; no doubt Members will be able to apprise themselves of its contents. But will the process go any further? If my right hon. Friend's proposal is not taken up, and if the Minister cannot give us an absolute undertaking that something will complete the process, it will have no meaning.
      Why are we all gathered here, praising the amendment—which originated in another place—when, on the face of it, it has no meaning whatever? It constitutes yet another layer of bureaucracy: yet another part of the process, which will add nothing to the ensuring of food safety—or, I think, to the role that the House likes to think it takes upon itself in scrutinising the Government and holding them accountable. There is no provision for scrutiny, or for holding to the Government to account.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I do not know why my right hon. Friend is worried. Like all the other annual reports produced by quangos, this report will be sent to my right hon. Friend as a matter of course, because he is a Member of Parliament. He will pass it quickly across his desk into the nearest wastepaper bin, where it will remain unread by numerous Members of Parliament. What is the point?
      Mr. Forth: May I make a plea, following my hon. Friend's remarks? I do not wish to receive a copy of the document; I should be very distressed if I did. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has the gall to suggest that it might be sent by e-mail. I do not know what that is, and I do not know whether I would receive any of it either. What I do not want is for my time to be wasted by my being sent a copy of a document that has so little meaning. If it stops at the Vote Office, at least I will have discretion in regard to whether I wish to peruse it. That would be something.
      My plea is this: unless the Minister can reassure us that the amendment will have greater meaning than I have suggested, I think we should reject it. It will provide for an additional layer of bureaucracy and an additional unnecessary procedure that will do nothing to reassure the public about the safety of our food.
      Mr. Michael Fallon: The Minister described the amendment as an improvement. I am not sure that it is an improvement; I see little substantial difference between the original subsection (3) and the present subsection (3). Indeed, the key word "performance" in the old subsection is left out of the new subsection.
      What really concerns me, however, is the Minister's attempt to defend the amendment on the ground that it strengthens the audit of the Meat Hygiene Service. I think that she used the words "as a regulatory practice". In my view, the real difficulty lies in the fact that we are allowing one regulatory authority to approve the regulatory performance of another. In other words, the audit will not be independent. Feed regulators will be assessing the performance of a food regulation agency, namely the Meat Hygiene Service, and I do not think that that is satisfactory.
      Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I do not think that the amendment
      836
      goes far enough. I would have liked to see some kind of independent audit of the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service, not least because it is the key service in relation to charging. When, some years ago, I visited the headquarters of the service in York, I was struck by its complete independence in regard to fees. It was for the Minister to decide in the end, but it was entirely for the MHS to propose.
      The amendment does nothing to protect the service's clients against the increases in charges which we have seen in recent years, and could go on seeing. Surely we need a much more independent audit to establish whether the MHS is providing good value for money, and the good regulation that the Minister and the House want.
      12 midnight
      Mr. Paterson: The Meat Hygiene Service reminds me of a tax farm under the Bourbons. It has a free remit to extend its area of operation and the more it extends that area of operation, the more money it can raise.
      I have a copy of its report for last year. It is beautifully printed and expensively produced—and glib. It has a list of targets and—surprise, surprise—a list of results. Each one has the stamp "Achieved". Further on there is a glossy photograph of an employee called John, who has worked for the Meat Hygiene Service since its inception. He says:
      "The Meat Hygiene Service training courses and videos have enabled me to perform my enforcement duties with confidence. This, combined with good working relations at the plants I visit has enabled to maintain high standards of hygiene and strict compliance with legislation."
      That is entirely different from the world portrayed in letters that people have sent me. One letter from an abattoir says that its charges have increased from£300 per year to£17,000 per year. That means inspection fees of£180 per tonne. The letter says:
      "Were we a large, full-throughput plant, the comparative cost would be around£1 per tonne."
      Another letter says:
      "we are charged almost£40 for these people and they know as much about a turkey as I know about a llama, it makes you want to 'spit', especially when you are aware that the government are seemingly hell bent on increasing these charges, some by as much as a staggering 80 per cent.
      We had at our site one particular Iberian who found out after almost two months that the turkeys we exclusively process weren't the chickens he thought they were, and there are many more equally ludicrous examples."
      The report serves no purpose. It is purely a publicity pamphlet for the quango. We need an independently audited report, properly debated in Parliament. I should also like a statement on the appeal mechanisms. We hear that in informal discussions with the industry the Government are coming round to the idea of having an appeal mechanism. As we said in Committee, it is not good enough to have the Food Standards Agency in charge of the Meat Hygiene Service. The gamekeeper cannot also act as the poacher. What is the audit mechanism to ensure an independent report? What appeal mechanism is there to allow crushed, benighted little firms to avoid being put out of business by the quango? The number of abattoirs has gone down in the past couple of

      837
      years from 4,000 to 350. That has happened partly because of the quango.
      Ms Quin: I am somewhat surprised by the content of some of the speeches that I have just heard, because the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), speaking for the Official Opposition, said rather grudgingly that this was a small amendment. Other Opposition Members have described it as fatuous—I think that that was the expression used by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—or meaningless. That is surprising, because the amendment was moved eloquently by Baroness Byford in the other place. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seems to think it extraordinary that he should be expected to support an amendment put forward by his party. I find it surprising that he does not support it.
      Many of the questions that hon. Members have raised were answered by the former Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), in the debate on 22 July. However, given some of the questions that have been raised, it is important to repeat some of the points that he made. He spelled out the separation of roles for the audit of the Meat Hygiene Service. That will be achieved in a number of ways. The veterinary public health unit, which audits the Meat Hygiene Service, will be separated within the Food Standards Agency. There will also be a separate supervisory committee. There are also audits by the European Commission and the state veterinary service, as well as the financial audit by the National Audit Office. I am rather surprised that Opposition Members did not refer to these.
      On controls on charging, charges will still be set ultimately by Ministers, as now. Any changes to the charges will be subject to consultation, as now.
      Mr. David Drew: Could my hon. Friend assure me that where the private sector is employed by the Meat Hygiene Service, that also will be subject to audit and account?
      Ms Quin: As far as I know, it should be. However, the best thing would be for me to write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library, so that he knows the exact position.
      On charging, I must stress that the Meat Hygiene Service will continue to produce its own separate accounts—a point raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand).
      Of course the House will be able to debate the annual report—and any of the reports contained within that—if it wishes. Owing to the interest across the House in the work of the Meat Hygiene Service, it is obvious that Members will use existing methods to raise concerns and to make sure that the issues presented to them in annual reports can be debated fully.
      The Meat Hygiene Service will have to produce its own accounts, and account for the way in which it has used its resources. The agency will consult on its clause 22 statement. These measures all provide excellent
      838
      opportunities to deal with the points raised by hon. Members.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

    Clause 14

      POWER OF ENTRY FOR MONITORING ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
      Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 8, line 2, leave out from ("1991") to ("a") in line 3 and insert
      ("(in this Act referred to as "the 1991 Order") or orders or regulations made under it is (by virtue of Article 26(1A), (1B), (2), (3) or (3A) of that Order)")
      Ms Quin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11, 17, 18, 20, 24, 27, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 45, 47 and 48.
      Ms Quin: The amendment, and the others in the group, are all technical drafting amendments which deal with Northern Ireland aspects of the Bill.
      The Bill has been passing through Parliament at a time of considerable uncertainty over the future of the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. As the agency will operate in Northern Ireland, it is important that we review the text of the Bill at the latest possible moment to ensure that the references to Northern Ireland are all correct. That is why the Government made these changes in the House of Lords, which were accepted.
      One important amendment in the group is No. 35, which ensures that the powers will take proper effect—both under the existing transferred power, and afterwards, once the devolution settlement has come into force and the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister have taken up their powers. Most of the other amendments are minor drafting points that clarify the references to Northern Ireland legislation.
      The amendments to the schedules make changes to Northern Ireland legislation to parallel proposed amendments to existing Great Britain legislation which are already contained in the schedules to the Bill. In particular, the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 will be amended to parallel amendments to the Food Safety Act 1990, and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 will be amended to reflect changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and to provide consistency.
      Although the amendments include a lot of new text, they do nothing new in policy terms. They will simply make equivalent changes to Northern Ireland legislation. As a whole, therefore, they will ensure that, when the agency is established, there is a consistent legislative framework in place across the United Kingdom, regardless of whether the devolution settlement is fully in place.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11 agreed to.

    Clause 19

      PUBLICATION ETC. BY THE AGENCY OF ADVICE AND INFORMATION
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 9, line 33, at end insert—
      ("( ) The exercise of that power is subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.")
      Ms Quin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13, 14, 19, 23, 26, 28, 29 and 42.
      Ms Quin: This group of amendments is composed largely of minor drafting points. However, I should like to comment briefly on Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which were tabled by the Opposition in another place on Report, and agreed to by the Government.
      The Government made it clear that our intention was that the Data Protection Act 1998 should apply, so that in using its powers to publish under clause 19, the agency should not be able to disclose personal data. The amendments make a useful clarification of that point. The inclusion of a special reference to the 1998 Act makes it absolutely clear that the agency will be subject to the data protection principles that the Act contains, and that the agency must, therefore, maintain the personal privacy of individuals about whom it has obtained information in the course of its work.
      As I said, the amendments largely concern technical drafting points. Lords amendments Nos. 14, 19, 28 and 29 do not change the Bill's substance at all. Lords amendment No. 42, however, makes it absolutely clear that the agency will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration by adding the ombudsman to the list of bodies covered by the PCA.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 15 agreed to.

    Clause 24

      DIRECTIONS RELATING TO BREACH OF DUTY OR TO INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 12, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      ("(b) by the Scottish Ministers (in so far as it is exercisable by them within devolved competence or by virtue of an Order in Council made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998); and")
      Ms Quin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 31.
      Ms Quin: This group of amendments includes some important technical points arising from devolution. As we have explained throughout the Bill's passage, the agency is being established as a United Kingdom body, with the aim of achieving across the United Kingdom a consistent approach to food safety. However, food safety and
      840
      standards are a devolved matter. We therefore have to ensure that the Bill correctly reflects the position following the devolution legislation, and takes account of the appropriate devolved responsibilities.
      Mr. Paice: The Bill must be right in addressing the devolution issue. I should simply like to challenge the Minister on Lords amendment No. 16, which would amend clause 24. Clause 24 itself refers to clause 23, and the fact that the powers would be given to Scottish Ministers if it appeared to them that
      "there has been a serious failure by the Agency
      …to comply with section 23".
      Clause 23(2) itself states that
      "The Agency, in considering whether or not to exercise any power, or the manner in which to exercise any power, shall take into account (among other things)—
      (a) the nature and magnitude of any risks to public health".
      That provision brings us immediately to the current crisis of confidence over the Government's policy on beef on the bone. If devolution does what the Bill says, if the arrangements are separate for each country and if the Lords amendment gives Scottish Ministers competence to consider whether there has been
      "a serious failure by the Agency"
      to take into account the nature and magnitude of those risks, what will happen after the agency is created?
      Now, despite the advice that he has received from the chief medical officer, the English Minister refuses to lift that absurd ban, on the basis that his Scottish counterpart says that he does not think it safe for Scots to eat beef on the bone. That is the price of devolution.
      12.15 am
      It seems odd that the Bill establishes, and a Government amendment reaffirms, Scottish competence to deal with such issues and to take into account the nature and magnitude of the risks to public health, which is the very core of the beef on the bone issue, while what the Government are actually doing—or rather, failing to do, which is to lift the absurd ban—shows a total disregard of the principles in the Bill.
      Dr. Godman: In relation to Lords amendment No. 16, I have every confidence in the Scottish medical officer of health—just as I have every confidence in the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament—to ensure that the Bill and the regulations are administered fairly and effectively.
      However, what would happen if Ministers in the Scottish Parliament expressed concern about the way in which fish farms were inspected by the agency? A few minutes ago, I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State how important that industry is to our coastal and island communities. What powers does the Scottish Parliament possess to change or introduce regulations governing such access to fish farms or other Scottish enterprises? We may require some sort of concordat, because Scottish Ministers and Members of the Scottish Parliament may have far greater knowledge of the local conditions surrounding such industries than do Ministers or Members here—with the obvious and estimable exception of Scottish Members of this Parliament.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I welcome the amendments in so far as they

      841
      clarify the position of the Scottish Parliament. None the less, I hark back to what I said on Second Reading—that if Scotland had been allowed to legislate for itself on food standards, neither the amendments nor the original clauses would have been necessary in the first place. The Government have embarked on devolution and the House has devolved the oversight of food standards, yet they do not seem prepared to accept the consequences and let the devolved Parliaments legislate in their own way. So be it. They have chosen this route, so I welcome the amendments.
      To follow what the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, I do not believe that anything in the Bill specifically states that the Scottish Parliament may in due course choose to legislate separately on such matters.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Nineteen minutes past 12 in the morning is not perhaps the most felicitous time to ask this question, so I preface it by saying that the Minister may wish to reply by putting a note in the Library. A judgment on beef on the bone has been made in the sheriff court in Scotland—a judgment that is very awkward from the Government's point of view. Ministers know that that judgment opens a Pandora's box of problems, so if they cannot comment off the top of their head, will they put a note in the Library about their attitude to the sheriff court's finding?
      Dr. Brand: I shall not enter into the beef on the bone debate, but I invite the Minister to clarify the mechanism that will be used. As I understand it, the Food Standards Agency will give advice to Ministers and will publish that advice. I imagine that the relevant Ministers in the relevant nations will be free to reject that advice, or to accept it. If that is the case, clearly it would be acceptable to have beef on the bone in Wales, but not in England—I am not sure what the Scots want to do.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: We should have it everywhere.
      Dr. Brand: That is a personal opinion. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on my point.
      Ms Quin: I have been somewhat surprised by the wide-ranging nature of the debate on what is a technical amendment. The amendment relates to Executive devolution under the Scotland Act 1998 and we cannot reopen the debate on the devolution settlement, as some of the contributions appeared to try to tempt me to do. Legislative responsibilities for food safety and standards, including beef on the bone, were already devolved by Parliament in the Scotland Act 1998. The issue of beef on the bone has been debated several times and will doubtless be raised again in various ways.
      Amendment No. 16 is simply a technical amendment which will ensure that Scottish Ministers have power of direction on matters within their devolved competence, including matters that are the subject of Executive devolution, as well as directly under the Scotland Act 1998. It will make no significant difference to the powers of direction, but it is necessary for consistency within the general framework of devolution in Scotland.
      842
      I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has a felicitous sense of timing, but my understanding is that the case he mentioned is still before the courts and, therefore, I cannot comment on it even though he tempted me to do so. Whether I am relieved about that, I will keep to myself.
      We have had an interesting debate, but it has ranged much wider than the technical nature of the amendment would suggest. None the less, I hope that the amendment will gain the approval of the House.
      Mr. Dalyell: For all the levity, the case I mentioned is a serious issue. When the courts finally come to a judgment, MAFF will have to make a statement on it.
      Ms Quin: I was not commenting on the seriousness or otherwise of the issue. I was simply saying that it is currently before the courts.
      Mr. Fallon: As I understand Lords amendment No. 22, it would allow the Scottish Parliament to confer an additional function of its choosing on the Food Standards Agency, which may be exercisable in Scotland, but presumably, once conferred, may also be exercisable in England. Can the Minister explain the amendment?
      Ms Quin: Lords amendment No. 22 is intended simply to remove any doubt that may arise about the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly to modify the functions of the agency in their own areas of jurisdiction, which have already been established. That does not necessarily mean that Scotland or Northern Ireland would do something different from England and Wales. However, because Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legislative competence on food safety and standards matters, we need to ensure that there is no doubt about their ability to make changes to the agency's functions which have been agreed across the UK.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 24 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 19, line 28, at end insert—
      ("(2A) In this Act the expression "interests of consumers in relation to food" includes (without prejudice to the generality of that expression) interests in relation to the labelling, marking, presenting or advertising of food, and the descriptions which may he applied to food.")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Ms Quin.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a).
      Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I shall speak to amendment (a) with confidence and with the full support of the National Farmers Union, which has written to me and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) saying that the amendment would open the door to better country-of-origin labelling, and that that would assist consumers to buy British, on the basis of quality, origin, taste and safety.
      The amendment would also encourage action better to inform consumers, through labelling and otherwise, about how the product has reached the supermarket shelf.

      843
      Farmers producing to the high welfare standards required by British law in the pig industry, for example, could then command the premium that they well deserve. We urge the Government to grab this opportunity, at this late stage of the Bill's progress through the House, to give the Food Standards Agency the power to regulate the sourcing of food in this country.
      On repeated occasions during the Bill's progress, Opposition Members have tried to get the question of labelling incorporated into the FSA. It seems ironic that one of the key reasons for bringing the agency into being is to protect public health from food risks, yet failure to give the agency responsibility for food sourcing and the labelling of food will simply prevent members of the public from protecting themselves against real or perceived risks. That is why we urge the Government most strongly to consider accepting the amendment, even at this very late stage.
      The fact that the co-director of the Food Commission has described present labelling arrangements as a shambles should serve to encourage the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to go further than his most recent statements about changing the guidelines on labelling. Indeed, speaking on BBC1's "Breakfast with Frost" programme on 24 October, he said:
      "I do think if people check where the product is sourced from they can make informed choices."
      However, people cannot do that. At the height of the Belgian dioxin scare, my nanny bought chicken breast from the local supermarket for my children's tea. From the label, there was no way of knowing where the meat had come from, so I followed the Minister's good advice of "when in doubt, throw it out".
      The Minister went on, in his interview on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, to state:
      "My personal choice is to look for the Meat and Livestock Commission's 'Assured British' label".
      Conservative Members wholeheartedly support that scheme, but its impact is limited. Out of curiosity, I went to my local supermarket and hunted—in vain—for British smoked back bacon. There was Dutch and Danish bacon of that variety, as well as many packs with no country of origin identified at all. To work, the Assured British scheme must be backed by statute. That is one of the strong reasons why we are looking for the incorporation of labelling into the work of the Food Standards Agency.
      The weakness of the Minister's announcement of 27 October about amending the guidelines is that it does not place any legal obligation on retailers to follow the recommended good practice regarding labelling as to country of origin. Without some extra obligation, as opposed to mere advice, there must be doubt about how effective the proposed changes will be.
      I hope that the Government will make the concession implied in the amendment and give the very important responsibility for the sourcing of food to the Food Standards Agency. Failure to do that will lead us to press the amendment to a vote.
      12.30 am
      Mr. David Heath: I support amendment (a), although, as I am no curmudgeon, I must point out that the Government have been responsive to many points made here and in the other place. They have gone a long way towards improving the Bill, but the amendment asks them to go one step further.
      844
      The amendment qualifies the definition of the interests of consumers in relation to food, a concept referred to throughout the Bill, notably in clauses 2, 6, 7 and 8. It defines the work of the agency in protecting the public from risk, developing policies, providing advice and information and obtaining, compiling and keeping under review such information. It is right that the agency should take account of the sourcing of food when considering those matters.
      To persuade me that that should not be stated in the Bill, the Minister may suggest that it is unnecessary because the point is already covered. If that is so, why is amendment No. 25 felt necessary, as it, too, defines the terms within which advice should be given? Alternatively, the Minister may suggest that amendment (a) might prejudice the agency's work. I cannot accept that, as the amendment would provide an important adjunct to the agency's core work. A further suggestion might be that the amendment would not be in the interests of consumers, an idea with which I would have to differ most strongly. It is greatly in the interests of consumers that they should know the source of food. It is a happy coincidence that the interests of consumers and producers are the same in this case.
      The Minister has mentioned the pig industry, but one of the major reasons for that industry's parlous state is the high welfare standards that prevail in the United Kingdom. Those standards are quite proper, but they are not matched in the pig industries of our principal competitors abroad, and our pig producers are therefore at a constant commercial disadvantage in the supermarkets if consumers cannot make a choice informed by knowledge of the source of the food and the conditions under which it was produced.
      In the interests of consumers, producers and transparency, we should avoid the type of confusion on which there have been recent exchanges during Question Time. Earlier this month, I pointed out that St. Ivel Shape yoghurt—not a product that I buy regularly—is made in France while Carte D'or ice cream is made in Gloucester. How is the consumer supposed to understand that?
      Mr. James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. St. Ivel yoghurt is made in my constituency, at Wootton Bassett.
      Mr. Heath: St. Ivel yoghurt is made in many places, and the brand to which I have referred is made in France. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. It is a tragedy that even an hon. Member who represents the area where a product is made may not be aware that it is also sourced from another country, but that fact highlights the very difficulty that the consumer faces when he or she goes to the supermarket. I sometimes do the shopping, rather than sending a nanny to do it, and I, like many people, find labelling confusing.
      If the Minister cannot respond adequately to these points, I fear that we shall support amendment (a), which is important to our primary producers.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish to make two brief points following the convincing argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I believe in free trade, and it is terribly important that people should be told the truth.

      845
      However, as one of the older Members in the House, I can recall other occasions on which we have discussed proposals that seemed sensible, sound and absolutely super, only to find to our horror that we could not in fact put them into practice. In such cases, we have ended up spending millions of pounds in compensation.
      I remember Members waving their Order Papers over the question of which ships were allowed to fish under the British quota. We all thought it was splendid, but now it is costing us a lot of money. I have a simple question for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the Minister: are we allowed to do this sort of thing? Sadly, I find that in Parliament these days, there are many things that we would like to do but are not allowed to do because, if we did, we would be fined horrendous sums or put in the equivalent of a Euro-prison.
      I shop in a store called Asda, of which hon. Members may have heard. I always intend to buy New Zealand lamb but, unfortunately, I am not allowed to, not because of labelling but because of National Farmers Union pressure. The NFU is so concerned about overproduction that we are not allowed to buy from New Zealand any more. That is sad because whenever we have been in trouble, our friends from New Zealand have always been there to help us.
      I have a horrible feeling that our basic problem is overproduction, not labelling. There is so much food. We are producing more and more, but, sadly, people are eating less and less. I am told that the continentals eat 2 per cent. less every year. The crucial question is whether we are allowed to label continental food according to its origin.
      The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is very pro-British and made it abundantly clear that he did not want to buy any more French food. The trouble is that, as I understand it, we are not allowed to determine whether food comes from France, so it will be hard to help him. I hope that my hon. Friends will not end up in another horrible mess where we have to pay more Euro-fines. Let us find out whether we are entitled to label food as coming from France, Germany or Italy. I understand that, under a derogation, we are allowed to say whether something comes from Britain or outside the European Economic Community, but not to give people the opportunity of knowing which part of the EEC something comes from.
      My point may seem minor, but bearing in mind the horrendous fines that we have had to pay and the undermining of our freedom to decide things in this House, before we do something that we know to be sound, sensible and reasonable and that would support a freedom, let us find out whether we are allowed to do it. One of the great tragedies in this House is that we spend a great deal of time talking about things that we are not allowed to do. We have debates on fishing or the age of homosexual consent, over which we have no power at all. Let us not make another blunder. Before taking the final plunge and approving this superb amendment, which was tabled for the best of reasons, let us find out if we can do it.
      Mr. Christopher Gill: I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. In a previous
      846
      debate, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food highlighted the importance of having meaningful labelling of our food. That must mean a statement of its source. Labelling should state the country of origin of food. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, the public need to know so that they can make informed choices between, for example, beef fed in this country on natural rations and that from cattle that we are told are fed on sewage sludge elsewhere, or between pigmeat produced in this country to high animal health and welfare standards and that produced in countries where standards are much lower.
      Not only do the public need to know, they have a right to know where their food was produced. While I am sure that the Government will try to tighten the present labelling regulations, if they stop short of showing the country of origin on the product, they will not be serving the public interest properly. In the same earlier debate, the Government said that on issues of animal welfare, Parliament had listened and legislated and reflected what public opinion wanted in the legislation. That was democracy at work—the people told us what they wanted; Parliament reacted accordingly and legislation followed.
      At present, because there is heightened interest in food, the British people want to know the country of origin of the food that they eat. In other words, the same conditions apply. The same people who wanted meat to be produced from animals bred under higher welfare standards now want products to be labelled with the country of origin. Unless the Government intend to suspend the rules of democracy, they should accept the amendment.
      Mr. Peter Bradley: Interesting though it is to know the country of origin of the food on the shelves of our stores, what the consumer wants is an assurance that the food is fit to consume—whatever the country of origin. What assurances can my right hon. Friend the Minister of State give the House that any food—whether in the supermarkets or in the corner shop—meets those standards? That is the best way to give the consumer confidence that the food is fit to eat; it is also the best way to ensure that British farmers are competing on a level playing field.
      Ms Quin: I am not surprised that amendment (a) and amendment No. 25 have provoked a lively debate. I know full well that Members on both sides of the House take a keen interest in the issue of labelling. I understand and sympathise with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) when she introduced amendment (a). She and I are anxious to examine labels when we shop. Since taking on my present portfolio, I have become most concerned not only about labelling but about its accuracy, and about the problems caused by misleading labelling.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: If the right hon. Lady has been into supermarkets, she will be aware that, before the small packs are put on to the shelf, the product usually arrives in a large pack. There is much scope for someone in the back of the shop to decide what label to put on the packs. I hope that the Food Standards Agency will examine exactly what is put on the labels after the main pack has come into the supermarket.
      Ms Quin: It is extremely clear from our debates on the matter that the Food Standards Agency is able to consider

      847
      labelling generally and its importance to the consumer, both in terms of freedom of choice—a matter mentioned by several hon. Members—and to avoid consumers being misled by labels. During the passage of the Bill, many examples of the problems of misleading labelling were given by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by Members in the other place. Arguments about the dangers of inadequate labelling—especially of substances that could provoke allergies—were well and strongly made during the debate in the other place.
      I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Meriden did not give the Government more credit for accepting the amendment tabled in the other place by the Baroness Byford, the Opposition spokesperson. To her credit, she was extremely active in promoting the labelling issue.
      Mr. Paice: It was the Government's amendment.
      Ms Quin: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) says that it is the Government's amendment, but the amendment to which I referred was tabled by the Opposition in the other place. The amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Meriden is a further amendment to that amendment. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not welcome it more enthusiastically. I am grateful that hon. Members of other parties recognise how active the Government have been in respect of labelling.
      12.45 am
      Mr. Paice: For the record, the amendment was tabled by Baroness Hayman, whose speech appears at column 909—I do not have the exact date—of that part of the House of Lords' consideration of the Bill. It might have been tabled in response to pressure from Conservatives, but the wording is the Government's, which is why we want to amend it.
      Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the amendment was the initiative of Baroness Byford, to whom I give credit. It is true that she agreed it with the Government, but for the Opposition now to stand back from the amendment strikes me as incredible. The least that the hon. Member for Meriden could do is give more generous recognition to the way in which the Government bowed before the concern expressed in the other place.
      The Conservatives have only discovered an enthusiasm for labelling in opposition. The Labour party has been enthusiastic and active on the issue both in opposition and in government. That is the clear difference between us. Ministers have explained on numerous occasions that the Food Standards Agency will be responsible for policy and advice on labelling matters to Ministers and the public. We are entirely satisfied that the Bill provides the necessary powers for the agency to take a full and active role in that matter, through its role in protecting the interests of consumers in relation to food.
      When we accepted the ideas advanced by Baroness Byford in another place, we did so in a way that was consistent with the wording of the regulation-making power in section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990. That is important if we are not to create confusion or uncertainty about the scope of the agency's role in that matter. The Opposition amendment to which the hon. Member for
      848
      Meriden spoke would expand our amendment and create inconsistency within the legislation in respect of the main regulation power relating to labelling. Therefore, we believe that it is inappropriate.
      I understand the concern expressed by various hon. Members about improved country-of-origin labelling on foods. The Government, too, are concerned and we are active at European level in that respect. That answers in part the points raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). However, labelling is not an area in which we have a free hand, as the hon. Gentleman hinted and as the Opposition Front Benchers have not been prepared to recognise in their approach to the amendment. We need to get agreement at European level on various aspects of labelling, although voluntary labelling is possible.
      Given the vigilance of the hon. Member for Meriden in looking for labels in shops, she will know that country-of-origin labelling is becoming increasingly common, especially on meat and meat products. I welcome that. The snag is that the labelling is not always accurate, which is why the arguments on misleading labelling are so important.
      We have to be careful not to impose on the agency duties that it is unable to perform—a point raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. We have to recognise the limitations prevailing within the single market on unilateral changes to labelling, while taking every opportunity to give consumers the information that they need, including information on country of origin.
      The effect of the Opposition amendment would be wider than simply inserting in the Bill a requirement for country-of-origin rules. Under it, the agency would be given a remit encompassing general issues of sourcing—the hon. Member for Meriden appears to agree with that. However, some issues may be outwith the agency's responsibility. The agency cannot have overall responsibility for sourcing because that is often based on commercial decisions, such as availability and seasonality, and has nothing to do with food safety and quality. They are the issues for which the agency is responsible.
      Although I understand and sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, for the technical reason that I have given and in light of its wider definition of sourcing, it is not appropriate to include the amendment in the Bill in its present form. The amendment has been introduced at a very late stage. We conceded generously to the concerns about labelling that were expressed in the other place—a fact that I hope the hon. Lady will recognise and welcome.
      Mr. Peter Bradley: The Minister is correct to point out that we are debating a Food Standards Bill and a Food Standards Agency, not a food sourcing agency. Can she assure the House that imported food in our shops will meet the same standards of animal welfare and food hygiene as home-grown and home-produced food? That is the best way both to give consumers information on which they can base an informed choice and to ensure that domestic farmers operate on a level playing field.
      Ms Quin: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, to which he made a slightly different allusion earlier.
      We are governed by both national and European requirements in this area. There are European standards for food quality and safety, which we apply. In certain

      849
      cases, we also apply higher national standards, which is permissible. However, we cannot block imports from other European Union countries when there are agreed European standards. That refers to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East.
      There are recognised safety standards within the European Commission that countries outside the European Union are required to meet before they can import to the EU. The EU is becoming increasingly interested in food safety, and European Commission President Prodi has advanced ideas for a European food standards agency, authority or some kind of mechanism to ensure that European consumers' general concerns for both safety and quality within the internal market are satisfied properly in future. We want to contribute constructively to that debate.
      We believe that the Government's record on labelling is second to none, and vastly superior to the woeful record of the Conservatives during 18 years in office. We do not need to take advice from the Opposition, and I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on the fact that, both technically and in substance, the amendment is not appropriate to the Bill.
      Mrs. Spelman: The Opposition regret that, like her predecessors, the Minister is unwilling to incorporate in the Food Standards Bill this important amendment about the labelling part of sourcing. For that reason, we shall press the matter to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 266.

      Division No. 308]

      [12.54 am

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Amess, David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Baldry, Tony

      Duncan, Alan

      Bercow, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Faber, David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Flight, Howard

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Brady, Graham

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Fraser, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Garnier, Edward

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gibb, Nick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gill, Christopher

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Burnett, John

      Gray, James

      Burns, Simon

      Green, Damian

      Burstow, Paul

      Greenway, John

      Butterfill, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hammond, Philip

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chidgey, David

      Hayes, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Clappison, James

      Horam, John

      Collins, Tim

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Aidershot)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      850

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Ruffley, David

      Key, Robert

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lansley, Andrew

      Shepherd, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lidington, David

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Spring, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Loughton, Tim

      Streeter, Gary

      Luff, Peter

      Stunell, Andrew

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Swayne, Desmond

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Syms, Robert

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Madel, Sir David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Malins, Humfrey

      Townend, John

      Mates, Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Trend, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Wardle, Charles

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waterson, Nigel

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wells, Bowen

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Ottaway, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Page, Richard

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Paice, James

      Willetts, David

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Pickles, Eric

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Prior, David

      Woodward, Shaun

      Randall, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Rendel, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robertson, Laurence

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne
      )

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Dane

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ainger, Nick

      Casale, Roger

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caton, Martin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Chaytor, David

      Allen, Graham

      Clapham, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Austin, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clwyd, Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cohen, Harry

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Connarty, Michael

      Benton, Joe

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Berry, Roger

      Cooper, Yvette

      Betts, Clive

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Corston, Jean

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cousins, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Cox, Tom

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Cummings, John

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Browne, Desmond

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Burden, Richard

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Burgon, Colin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Darvill, Keith

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      851

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Linton, Martin

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Doran, Frank

      Love, Andrew

      Drew, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Efford, Clive

      McCabe, Steve

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Etherington, Bill

      Macdonald, Calum

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McDonnell, John

      Fisher, Mark

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Flint Caroline

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Flynn, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Follett, Barbara

      McNulty, Tony

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mactaggart fiona

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McWalter, Tony

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McWilliam, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gapes, Mike

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Martlew, Eric

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Maxton, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      Meale, Alan

      Goggins, Paul

      Merron, Gillian

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Miller, Andrew

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Grogan, John

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mountford, Kali

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mudie, George

      Healey, John

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hepburn, Stephen

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hesford, Stephen

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hill, Keith

      Olner, Bill

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hope, Phil

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pearson, Ian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hurst, Alan

      Pike, Peter L

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Illsley, Eric

      Pond, Chris

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pope, Greg

      Jamieson, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Purchase, Ken

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Rammell, Bill

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rapson, Syd

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Raynsford, Nick

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rowlands, Ted

      Khabra, Piara S

      Roy, Frank

      Kidney, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Sawford, Phil

      Laxton, Bob

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Leslie, Christopher

      Sheerman, Barry

      Levitt, Tom

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      852

      Singh, Marsha

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Snape, Peter

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Tynan, Bill

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      watts, David

      White, Brian

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Stringer, Graham

      Williams Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wise, Audrey

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wood, Mike

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Woolas, Phil

      Tipping, Paddy

      Worthington, Tony

      Todd, Mark

      Touhig, Don

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Truswell, Paul

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mr. Mike Hall.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the supplemental allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Ms Quin.]
      The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 9.

      Division No. 309]

      [1.8 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Allan, Richard

      Caplin, Ivor

      Allen, Graham

      Casale, Roger

      Ashton, Joe

      Caton, Martin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Chaytor, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clapham, Michael

      Austin, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Clelland, David

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Benton, Joe

      Cohen, Harry

      Berry, Roger

      Coleman, Iain

      Betts, Clive

      Connarty, Michael

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cooper, Yvette

      Borrow, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Corston, Jean

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cotter, Brian

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Cox, Tom

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Browne, Desmond

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Burden, Richard

      Cummings, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Burnett, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Burstow, Paul

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      853

      Darvill, Keith

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Laxton, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dobbin, Jim

      Levitt, Tom

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Doran, Frank

      Linton, Martin

      Drew, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Efford, Clive

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Love, Andrew

      Etherington, Bill

      McAvoy, Thomas.

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McCabe, Steve

      Fisher, Mark

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Macdonald, Calum

      Flint, Caroline

      McDonnell, John

      Flynn, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Follett, Barbara

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McNulty, Tony

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gapes, Mike

      McWalter, Tony

      Gardiner, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Goggins, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Maxton, John

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Meale, Alan

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Grogan, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Healey, John

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mountford, Kali

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hesford, Stephen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hill, Keith

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hinchliffe, David

      Olner, Bill

      Hope, Phil

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hurst, Alan

      Pike, Peter L

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Illsley, Eric

      Pond, Chris

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pope, Greg

      Jamieson, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Purchase, Ken

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Rammell, Bill

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rapson, Syd

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Raynsford, Nick

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rendel, David

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kidney, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Roy, Frank

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ruane, Chris

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Ruddock, Joan

      854

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Todd, Mark

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Touhig, Don

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Truswell, Paul

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Singh, Marsha

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tynan, Bill

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Snape, Peter

      Wareing, Robert N

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Watts, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      White, Brian

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Winnick, David

      Stringer, Graham

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wise, Audrey

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wood, Mike

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Woolas, Phil

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Worthington, Tony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Mike Hall.

      NOES

      Fabricant, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Fallon, Michael

      Paterson, Owen

      Wilshire, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Gray, James

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments:—
      The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 11.

      Division No. 310]

      [1.20 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ainger, Nick

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Allan, Richard

      Browne, Desmond

      Allen, Graham

      Burden, Richard

      Ashton, Joe

      Burgon, Colin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Burnett, John

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burstow, Paul

      Austin, John

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Casale, Roger

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Caton, Martin

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Chaytor, David

      Benton, Joe

      Clapham, Michael

      Berry, Roger

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Borrow, David

      Clelland, David

      855

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hill, Keith

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hope, Phil

      Cohen, Harry

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coleman, Iain

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hurst, Alan

      Corston, Jean

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cotter, Brian

      Illsley, Eric

      Cousins, Jim

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cox, Tom

      Jamieson, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchunch)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Khabra, Piara S

      Doran, Frank

      Kidney, David

      Drew, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Efford, Clive

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Etherington, Bill

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Reid, Rt Hon Frank

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fisher, Mark

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Laxton, Bob

      Flint, Caroline

      Leslie, Christopher

      Flynn, Paul

      Levitt, Tom

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Fit Hon Derek

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Fyfe, Maria

      Love, Andrew

      Gapes, Mike

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gardiner, Barry

      McCabe, Steve

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gerrard, Neil

      Macdonald, Calum

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McDonnell, John

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McIsaac, Shona

      Godsiff, Roger

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Goggins, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McNulty, Tony

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McWilliam, John

      Grogan, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Healey, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Maxton, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Merron, Gillian

      Heppell, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Miller, Andrew

      856

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Snape, Peter

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mountford, Kali

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Olner, Bill

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stringer, Graham

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stunell, Andrew

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pearson, Ian:

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pike, Peter L

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pond, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pope, Greg

      Todd, Mark

      Pound, Stephen

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rammell, Bill

      Tynan, Bill

      Rapson, Syd

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Raynsford, Nick

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rendel, David

      Watts, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      White, Brian

      Rowlands, Ted

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Roy, Frank

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Winnick, David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wise, Audrey

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wood, Mike

      Sawford, Phil

      Woolas, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Singh, Marsha

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Mike Hall.

      NOES

      Chope, Christopher

      Leigh, Edward

      Fallon, Michael

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Paterson, Owen

      Tredinnick, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Gray, James

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

  London Bridge Rail Crash
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  1.32 am
  Sir John Stanley: I suppose that it is inevitable that the seriousness with which rail accidents are treated depends partly on whether there has been serious injury or loss of life. In some rail accidents, mercifully, there is no loss of life or serious injury, but those accidents nevertheless deserve to be treated every bit as seriously as those in which there have been casualties.
  The London Bridge rail accident, on 8 January 1999, falls into the latter category. Although, miraculously, no one was killed or injured, the accident was, by any yardstick, extremely serious. It exposed—not for the first time—the serious flaws still present in our rail safety system.
  The accident involved two commuter trains—a Thameslink train and a Connex train—that converged, in the evening rush hour, on the same line on a viaduct, as a consequence of the Connex train going through a red light. Nine of the 16 coaches were derailed, and almost 300 passengers were put at risk.
  There is little doubt that, with a slightly different point of impact, at slightly higher speed, with the possibility of one or more of the coaches being toppled over the viaduct down into Spa road, we could have had on our hands a human catastrophe every bit as serious as the appalling Paddington rail crash of a few weeks ago. Yet, despite the immense seriousness of the accident, the response both of the rail companies and of the Health and Safety Executive in putting information into the public domain has been lamentably inadequate.
  The three rail companies, Railtrack, Connex and Thameslink, have conducted what they describe as an "internal industry investigation". On 14 January, six days after the accident, I wrote to the then chairman of Railtrack, Sir Robert Horton, asking for a copy of the report when it was available. Today, exactly 10 months after the accident, I am still waiting for that report. Worse still, Railtrack has now told me that it does not intend to publish the full report, and may not publish anything at all.
  Last Thursday, 4 November, Railtrack wrote to me as follows:
  "Railtrack will be producing a summary of our internal investigation report and this should be available by the end of the year, subject to legal scrutiny and the agreement of the other parties concerned."
  The railway companies seem to have been more concerned about protecting themselves from litigation than with making themselves accountable to the travelling public. The report should have been published in full months ago. There has been a reprehensible failure of public accountability by the railway companies concerned.
  The performance of the Health and Safety Executive has been no better. I have been pressing Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for months to ensure that the full HSE account
  858
  of the accident was put into the public domain. Yet, on 5 October, I received a letter from the Minister for Transport, Lord Macdonald, which said:
  "HSE will not be publishing a separate accident investigation report".
  Apparently, all that would be made available was a press notice.
  The House will appreciate from the date of that letter that it could not have been more appallingly timed. On the very day that Lord Macdonald was sending it to me, the Paddington rail disaster, as a result of which 31 people so far have lost their lives, took place.
  Following receipt of that letter, I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; I believe that it was the most vehement letter that I have written to any Minister on any subject in my 25 years in the House. I said that Lord Macdonald's reply was unacceptable, and that the Secretary of State must reverse the decision of his junior Minister and of the Health and Safety Executive not to publish a separate report into the London Bridge rail accident.
  The Secretary of State, to his credit, did precisely as I asked and reversed the decision. As a result, on 27 October, the HSE finally published a pretty thin three-and-a-half-page accident report. The Secretary of State's reply to me read:
  "It is not the practice of the Health and Safety Executive to issue a separate public report except in the most serious of accidents."
  If that is the HSE's policy, it should be radically changed. It is simply not acceptable that the HSE should publish separate accident reports only when there is, effectively, loss of life in rail accidents. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions must now instruct the HSE to bring about a basic change in policy so that, after any rail accident involving a serious risk to members of the public, a separate accident report is published.
  I said that the three-and-a-half page report published by the HSE was thin, and one critical piece of information has yet to be disclosed. We were told that the cause of the London Bridge accident was that the driver of the Connex train went through a red light at nearly 40 mph. It turns out that the same driver had previously taken another train through a red light six months earlier. We have been told that the reason why the train went through the red light was "human error", but that is not an adequate explanation. The travelling public are entitled to know what explanation was given by the driver of the Connex train as to why he went through the red light. Was he unsighted? If so, why? Was he distracted in some way? If so, how? Was he suffering from some lack of concentration? If so, why? The travelling public are entitled to know what explanation the driver gave for going through the red light, having previously gone through both a double yellow light and a single yellow light. I have given the Minister prior notice of that question, among others, and I hope that he will answer it when he replies to the debate.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the accident to which he refers was in my constituency. Has he asked the HSE to answer the following questions? Has it in the past had occasion to report on similar accidents with a similar breach of the rules—the passing of red

  859
  lights—and, if so, what recommendations has it made and what sanctions has it imposed under its powers? What view does the HSE take of the fact that, as of this moment, it will be four years before the safety system is in place for the junction in question and others?
  Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those two points. They are pertinent and I shall address the latter question in a moment.
  I shall now deal with the issue of prosecutions for the London Bridge crash. There are two potential prosecuting authorities—the Crown Prosecution Service and the railway inspectorate, which is part of the HSE. I have been in correspondence with both bodies and I have been staggered by the replies that I have received. The reply that I received from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. David Calvert-Smith, read:
  "You ask whether papers have been submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to this accident and whether a prosecution is under consideration. To date we have received no papers from the police."
  The reply I received from the chief executive of the HSE, Miss Jenny Bacon, was similar:
  "You also ask whether we have received relevant papers from the police. Railway Inspectorate took charge of the investigation a few hours after the accident. The police involvement was limited and to our knowledge they did not produce a detailed report."
  So here we have a very serious accident, in which 300 people were put at risk, but in respect of which police reports were not submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service or to the railway inspectorate. That leads me to the matter of prosecution policy in relation to rail accidents. Frankly, I am baffled. It is apparent that one prosecution policy applies to the road system, and that a completely different policy applies to the railways.
  As the House knows, motorists get prosecuted every day of the week for going through red lights. However, it seems that going through a red light on the railway system confers almost complete immunity from prosecution in almost any circumstance, even though the risk of large-scale loss of life is substantially greater.
  An extremely interesting article on prosecution policy by the Health and Safety Executive appeared in The Independent on 16 October. It began by stating:
  "The Health and Safety Executive brought prosecutions over just one train accident last year, during which the number of 'significant' accidents increased to 104, a jump of nearly 15 per cent."
  In the wake of the Paddington disaster, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions said that he was considering removing safety responsibilities from Railtrack. In the light of the HSE' s approach to prosecutions, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman should consider removing prosecution responsibilities for rail accidents from the HSE and transferring them to the Crown Prosecution Service. That would at least ensure a far greater degree of consistency between prosecutions on the road system and prosecutions on the rail system.
  Finally, I shall deal with future train safety measures in the light of the London Bridge crash. The rail safety regulations introduced in August this year require Railtrack and the rail operating companies to introduce a train protection system throughout the rail network by the end of 2003. That is more than four years from now—far too slow and leisurely a time scale to bring about the critically important improvements needed in the rail safety system.
  860
  The vulnerability of the present system to driver error is all too clear. The crashes at Southall, London Bridge and Paddington were all occasioned by trains going through red lights. Indeed, the travelling public might reasonably conclude that the present system is frighteningly fallible in terms of human error. Too many people have already paid for that fallibility with their lives.
  I believe that the four years to the end of 2003 is far too long to wait for the improvements that will come when a train protection system is installed throughout the network. I urge the Secretary of State to review that date and hope that he will take steps, as a matter of urgency, to shorten the time scale and ensure that such a system is in place in the shortest possible time.
  1.49 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Let me begin, as is usual, by congratulating the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on securing the debate. I also thank him for raising this important subject and for letting me know in advance the key questions that he intended to raise, the answers to which I shall endeavour to provide.
  Before I deal with the right hon. Gentleman's questions, and go on to summarise the Government's approach to rail safety in the light of the more recent appalling tragedy at Ladbroke Grove, it will benefit the House if I briefly describe the main aspects of the London Bridge rail crash of 8 January 1999. The accident occurred at about 17.25 at the Spa Road junction, near London Bridge station. The 15.51 Connex South Eastern service from Dover Priory to London Charing Cross collided side on with the 16.22 Thameslink Brighton to Bedford train. Four Connex train coaches and five coaches of the Thameslink train were derailed.
  The accident caused severe disruption to rail services from London Bridge, Charing Cross and Cannon Street stations. Thankfully, there were no fatalities and only minor injuries to a small number of people: four were taken to hospital, but were not detained. Immediately after the accident, the electric current was cut off from all lines around the scene and the emergency services were called. Two hundred and eighty-two people were evacuated from the Connex and Thameslink trains.
  However, another train—the 17.25 from London Bridge to Guildford—was trapped between London Bridge station and the accident site, from which about 100 people were also evacuated. The Health and Safety Executive report concluded that the evacuation of passengers from that train was not well organised. Some passengers were left to find their own way about half a mile along the track to London Bridge, and were fortunate to escape injury despite the electric current having been cut off.
  In response to certain deficiencies in the training and experience of staff dealing with emergency situations, which became apparent during the HSE investigation, Her Majesty's inspectorate of railways has taken steps to ensure that those are fully addressed by the companies concerned. In particular, the Connex train operating companies have changed their emergency procedures to ensure that a responsible person is appointed to deal with each train affected by a major incident, and to arrange the evacuation of passengers where necessary.

  861
  Those, then, are the main features of the accident, and one practical upshot of the investigation of the circumstances surrounding the crash. Let me now turn to the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which seem to me to fall into three groups.
  First, the right hon. Gentleman asked specifically what explanation was given by the driver of the Connex train for going through the red light. The answer is that the driver continues to believe that he had a green signal and that he heard the bell for the automatic warning system associated with the signal. However, technical evidence and testing carried out as part of the inquiry proved that that could not have been the case. Weather conditions at the time were poor, with poor visibility. It is possible that that had an influence on what happened, but that is only speculation.
  I should add that there is no record of any previous signals passed at danger—SPADs, as they have become known—at the Spa Road junction in question. The driver has been permanently removed from driving duties following the accident.
  The second group of questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman relate to possible prosecution following the accident and to the publication of reports of investigations into it. The right hon. Gentleman asked why no papers in relation to the accident have been submitted by the police to the CPS, and also why no prosecution has been initiated by the HSE. The explanation is that the investigation of the accident was undertaken by an inspector from HMIR, which used its enforcement powers under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The police have not investigated the accident. It was HSE's assessment that there was no justification for a prosecution.
  I should add that successful prosecution of individuals under section 7 of the 1974 Act requires evidence of a degree of negligence amounting to recklessness. A momentary lapse of concentration in an otherwise attentive individual does not normally satisfy that test. It was felt in this case that there was such a momentary lapse, and that other factors may have had an influence. There was, therefore, no justification for a prosecution. I should also remind the right hon. Gentleman of the failure of the attempted criminal prosecution of the driver in the Watford crash.
  On the broader issue of publication, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the initial decision of the HSE not to publish a separate accident report. I am in no way seeking to minimise the seriousness of the accident near London Bridge but, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is not the practice of the HSE to issue a separate public report except in the cases of the most serious accidents. In normal circumstances, therefore, the details of accident investigations such as that undertaken at London Bridge are published in Her Majesty's railway inspectorate's annual report. The report covering 1998–99 is to be published on 1 December. However, in the light of the understandable public concern aroused by the tragedy of Ladbroke Grove, it was decided that it was in the public interest to publish the full report on the London Bridge accident immediately, and it was published on 27 October.
  862
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the publication of the full report of the Railtrack internal investigation. That is essentially a matter for Railtrack, but he knows from earlier correspondence with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport that Railtrack has said that it is producing a summary report for publication, subject to legal scrutiny and the agreement of the other parties concerned. I received confirmation today that it remains Railtrack's intention to publish that summary report.
  Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman asked connected questions about the installation of train protection systems. In particular, he asked why the train protection warning system, TPWS, would not be installed until the end of 2003. This is absolutely not the occasion to seek to score party political points, but it is perhaps a pity that the previous Government were not more proactive on the matter. This Government have worked as quickly as possible to find a practical solution, and the Railway Safety Regulations 1999, laid before Parliament on 10 August, require TPWS to be introduced and operational across the railway network by the end of 2003 at the latest. That date was chosen as a challenging but realistic target. Significantly, the industry has now agreed to investigate measures for accelerating that process. No alternative method of train protection could be installed in anything like that time scale.
  On the installation of automatic train protection—ATP—on that part of the network operated by Connex, let me say this. ATP is currently installed on the Chiltern line, Heathrow Express and Great Western as a pilot scheme. In addition, it will be fitted to all the high-speed lines as they are upgraded: the west coast main line, the east coast main line, and Midland Mainline. The channel tunnel rail link will also get full ATP.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked Sir David Davies to report before the end of the year with his initial assessment of the effectiveness, practicability and cost of train protection systems. That information will be available to Lord Cullen, who is conducting the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, and Professor Uff, who is conducting the Southall inquiry, and they will jointly consider train protection systems. The Health and Safety Commission will advise the Government on any recommendations that they make.
  The Deputy Prime Minister also agreed with rail industry leaders at the rail safety summit on 25 October an immediate programme of improvements designed to drive up safety standards in the wake of the Paddington rail crash. There was agreement in principle on a range of practical steps to rebuild confidence in the rail industry.
  There will be a review of consistent standards of driver training by train operating companies. A nationwide independent confidential reporting system will allow all staff to phone in safety concerns. Implementation of TPWS on track and trains will be accelerated. The means to accelerate the development programme for ATP systems will be identified. There will be immediate investigation of all incidents involving SPADs to a common standard. There will be urgent action on the 22 steps required by the Health and Safety Executive for reducing SPADs. Finally, a consistent approach to safety

  863
  management, embracing best practice, across the network will be established. A further rail safety summit will report on progress on 30 November.
  In summary, therefore, the decision to introduce TPWS, the Cullen and Davies inquiries, the work being undertaken on SPADs and the rail safety summit held on 25 October, to be resumed on 30 November, all demonstrate this Government's overwhelming commitment to safety on our railways. We are now at a critical point, at which all those responsible for running our railways must endeavour to
  864
  create a new national safety culture that will enable all parts of the industry to work together to improve safety. Only then can we begin to rebuild the public's confidence in a safe and efficient rail industry.
  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate, which has permitted the House to return to these vital issues.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employee Consultation
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current status of the draft Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees; and if a blocking minority currently shares the Government's position. [97565]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The draft directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees has not been discussed in the Council of Ministers since it was first proposed by the Commission in December 1998.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to extend the Working Time Directive to the transport industry. [97355]

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to propose amendments to the Working Time Regulations to specify working hours for the occupations of mobile workers, including roundsmen. [97252]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Proposals to extend the working time directive to workers (mobile and non-mobile) in the transport sector are currently being negotiated in Brussels. It is not expected that the Directive will be formally adopted before next year. After that, there will be consultation on implementation in the United Kingdom.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of the people who have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. [97579]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 700,000 more people were earning above national minimum wage rates in March-May 1999 than in the same period last year and almost two million who were earning below the national minimum wage will benefit when its full effects can be measured.

  Defence and Security Goods (Exports)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the defence and security goods that are currently prohibited from(a) use by UK security services, (b) sale within the UK and (c) sale abroad under export licence. [97481]
  378
  Dr. Howells
  I understand that specified weapons are prohibited from manufacture, sale, hire or importation by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. Section 141 of the 1988 Act includes an exemption for the supply of such items to the Crown and visiting forces, but not the police service. I also understand that, under the Firearms Act 1968, weapons whose possession is prohibited without the express authority of the Secretary of State include fully automatic weapons, self-loading and pump action rifles, handguns, mortars, rocket launchers, weapons designed to discharge noxious substances and firearms disguised as something else. Ammunition regarded as particularly dangerous (such as that designed to explode or expand on impact, pierce armour or have an incendiary effect at the target) is also subject to prohibition.

  The export of certain defence and security goods has been banned, and details are set out in the Summary of additional UK Restrictions on the Export of Strategic Goods, compiled by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; a copy of this document is in the Library of the House.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he proposes to ensure that(a) retailers and (b) packer and fillers take an increased share of the recovery and recycling obligation contained in the UK Packaging Waste Regulations 1997. [97472]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Advisory Committee on Packaging has proposed that the percentage obligation of packaging manufacturers should be reduced by two percentage points and that of packer/fillers and retailers be increased by one percentage point each. I expect to make a further announcement on this matter shortly.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the increased cost to United Kingdom packaging manufacturers following implementation of the UK Packaging Waste Regulations in 1997. [97471]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The recovery and recycling obligations under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 took effect in 1998. My Department estimates that the costs of complying with these obligations in 1998 was some £78,000,000 for the 4,011 obligated parties registered with the Environment Agency or Scottish Environment Protection Agency. We do not have a breakdown of figures specifically for packaging manufacturers, but these made up some 8 per cent. of the 4,011 registrations in 1998.

  Energy Efficiency
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to provide direct support to manufacturing industry to improve energy efficiency; and if he will make a statement. [97632]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.
  379
  Since 1989, the Government have been providing impartial advice to business and commerce through the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme. This provides information, energy efficiency studies and research and development support to manufacturers and others in the non-domestic sector. The Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme has helped industry to save over £650 million per annum, to reduce emissions by over 3 million tonnes of carbon per annum and to improve energy efficiency.

  In his Budget statement on 9 March 1999, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, as a part of the Government's proposal to introduce the Climate Change Levy, he intended to recycle the revenue from the levy, in full, to business. He indicated that the Government intended that some £50 million of revenue from the levy would be used to assist with funding of schemes to promote energy efficiency, including additional support for renewable sources of energy. The Government are considering how best to make use of the proposed additional funding to maximise the benefit to the non-domestic sector.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the extent to which the industrial sectors already with high energy efficiency will assist in achieving Kyoto targets; and if he will make a statement. [97641]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department commissions research which estimates the potential for cost-effective energy efficiency improvements in industry, commerce, the public sector and housing. This is done at a disaggregated level so that the scope in individual industrial sub-sectors is known. The information is being used in discussions with energy intensive sectors as a starting point for energy efficiency targets for negotiated agreements on the Climate Change Levy.

  Integrated Tariff
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many types of duty there are on imported goods and services under the Integrated Tariff of the United Kingdom. [96202]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Integrated Tariff of the United Kingdom (The Tariff) provides for ten types of duty or other charges on imported goods.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Expenditure
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes will be made to his Department's departmental expenditure limit/running cost limit for 1999–2000. [98013]

  Mr. Rooker
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XII Vote 2 and Class XII Vote 3, the Department of Social Security Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be 380
  reduced by £111,836,000 from £3,377,638,000 to £3,265,802,000. This is the net effect of increased Voted provision of £130,974,000 and reduced non-Voted provision of £242,810,000.

  The increase on Class XII Vote 3 is the net effect of additional Comprehensive Spending Review funding of £37,000,000 (running costs), a take up of £8,000,000 (running costs) from the Departmental Unallocated Provision (which will not change the gross running costs limit), an increase of £3,137,000 (running costs) in respect of the reform of all work test and active case management, an increase of £120,407,000 (running costs) under the end year flexibility scheme as announced by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393, and an increase of £8,520,000 and £9,769,000 under the capital and other discretionary end year flexibility schemes respectively.

  Other changes result from a reduction of £6,631,000 (running costs) arising from a number of small transfers offset by a corresponding increase on Class I Vote 3 (Employment Services), a reduction of £24,351,000 (running costs) arising from the continuing effects of the transfer of responsibility for Contributions Agency and Working Family Tax Credit to Inland Revenue, offset by a corresponding increase on Class XVI Vote 4, Inland Revenue: administration, a reduction of £1,670,000 (running costs) arising from the transfer of responsibility for the Womens Unit to the Cabinet Office, offset by a corresponding increase in Class XVII, Vote 1, a net reduction of £261,000 (running costs) and £998,000 (capital) arising from the continuing implications to DSS of the Scotland Bill, offset by a corresponding increase in the Scottish Executive and a reduction of £486,000 (running costs) towards increased Administration costs of Motability, offset by a corresponding increase on Class XII Vote 2. There is also an increase of £11,972,000 (running costs) associated with services provided to other Government Departments on a repayment basis, an increase of £160,000 to meet the costs of overseas medical examinations of War Pensioners, an increase of £37,997,000 (running costs) arising from increased payments of Value Added Tax on contracted out services. Also an increase of £13,814,000 resulting from the virement from capital expenditure to running costs. Appropriations in aid increase by £86,427,000.

  Changes in the Welfare to Work provision arise from an increase of £755,000 in the administrative costs of measures to help people with a disability or long term illness move into or remain in work, an increase of £3,378,000 under the end year flexibility scheme as announced by the then the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393, an increase of £18,000 in costs associated with the unemployed project team offset by a corresponding reduction on Class I, Vote 1 Education and Employment, a reduction of £55,000 for costs associated with innovative schemes relating to the programme of measures to help people with a disability or long term illness move into or remain in work, offset by a corresponding increase on Class I Vote 3 Employment Service and a reduction of £80,000 in the Child Care disregard provision.
  381
  As a result of these changes the running cost limit of this Department will be increased by £141,119,000 from £2,868,735,000 to £3,009,854,000 and the running cost limit of the Welfare to Work programme will be increased by £4,016,000 from £6,952,000 to £10,968,000.

  Changes to Class XII Vote 2 arise from the transfer of £486,000 for increased administrative costs of Motability offset by a corresponding reduction on Class XII, Vote 3 and an increase of £14,350,000 under the end year flexibility scheme as announced by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393.

  The net change in non-Voted provision of £242,810,000 arises from a reduction in payments from the National Insurance Fund to other Government Departments and Department of Social Security following the transfer of responsibility for the Contributions Agency to Inland Revenue (£281,027,000) and also a switch from non-Voted to Voted from the Departmental Unallocated Provision (£8,000,000) offset by an increase in National Insurance Fund payments to Department of Social Security (£46,217,000).

  Increases will be offset by transfers or a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the total number of absent parents who are liable for child maintenance payments and (b) of this total the numbers who have an assessment made by the Child Support Agency, for the latest available date. [97143]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not available on which to estimate the number of non-resident parents who may be liable for child maintenance as part of a private arrangement.

  However, as at May 1999, 942,3001 non-resident parents had an assessment made by the Child Support Agency.

  Source:
  CSA Quarterly Summary of Statistics.

  Social Security Agreement (Australia)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what notice Australia gave of its decision to terminate the social security agreement between Australia and the UK; and what the ramifications will be for British pensioners covered by the existing agreement. [97399]

  Table 1: Numbers of IVB/IB short-term higher and long-term rate recipients, and average weekly amounts in payment at April 1998 prices

  Recipients all ages

  Average weekly amount (£)

  Recipients under pension age

  Average weekly amount (£)

  31 March 1984

  797,000

  88.70

  729,800

  88.75

  30 March 1985

  848,948

  88.95

  764,648

  89.20

  5 April 1986

  899,200

  90.35

  798,200

  90.75

  4 April 1987

  967,900

  88.75

  841,600

  89.05

  2 April 1988

  1,047,500

  87.15

  897,400

  87.65

  1 April 1989

  1,126,000

  85.90

  951,600

  86.65

  31 March 1990

  1,208,900

  91.65

  1,003,200

  86.10

  382
  Mr. Rooker
  The Australian Government announced in July that they intended to terminate the Social Security agreement with the UK. We have not received formal notice of termination. The agreement would terminate 12 months after the UK received formal notification.

  The agreement helps UK pensioners who have lived in Australia for less than 10 years to meet the residence test for Australia's Age Pension. It can also help former residents of Australia now living in the UK to qualify for UK State Pension. People who had already become entitled to benefit through the agreement when it terminated would remain covered by its terms, so there would be no effect on them.

  Pensions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what inflation assumption and what financial provision was made in the Comprehensive Spending Review for 2000–01 for the uprating of the basic state pension. [97480]

  Mr. Darling
  Financial provision for the costs of uprating is set by reference to the most recent inflation assumption. Inflation assumptions for 2000–01 underpinning forecasts for expenditure for the Comprehensive Spending Review are set out at page 108 table B1 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1998 (HC620). These forecasts were updated in November 1998 and for the Budget in March 1999. The inflation assumptions underlying the Department's latest expenditure forecasts are set out on page 89 of the Social Security Departmental Report (Cm 4214).

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide, for (i) invalidity benefit and (ii) incapacity benefit for each of the last 15 financial years,(a) the average number of recipients, (b) the average number of successful new claims, (c) the average total expenditure in current prices and (d) the average weekly amount received in current prices; and if he will provide separate estimates for those under state pension age. [96300]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Table 1 gives figures for recipients and average payments for Invalidity Benefit and for short-term (higher) and long-term Incapacity Benefit (IB) which like Invalidity Benefit (IVB) apply from the twenty ninth week of incapacity. The table excludes short-term (lower) IB which is the equivalent of the old Sickness Benefit for the first twenty eight weeks.
  383

  Table 1: Numbers of IVB/1B short-term higher, and long-term rate recipients and average weekly amounts in payment at April 1998 prices

  Recipients all ages

  Average weekly amount (£)

  Recipients under pension age

  Average weekly amount (£)

  30 March 1991

  1,306,000

  92.15

  1,068,100

  84.35

  4 April 1992

  1,438,900

  89.30

  1,174,800

  90.90

  3 April 1993

  1,580,000

  90.70

  1,298,500

  92.45

  2 April 1994

  1,681,200

  92.75

  1,383,900

  94.75

  12 April 1995

  1,766,900

  93.20

  1,467,600

  95.10

  29 February 1996

  1,692,400

  91.85

  1,447,320

  92.85

  28 February 1997

  1,632,060

  88.45

  1,444,860

  88.80

  28 February 1998

  1,561,740

  85.95

  1,440,120

  86.80

  However, it should be noted that the great majority of IB recipients are on the long term rate of benefit. Table 2 shows the average amount payable to these recipients as

  Table 2: Numbers of IB long term recipients, and average weekly amounts in payment at April 1998 prices

  Recipients all ages

  Average weekly amount (£)

  Recipients under pension age

  Average weekly amount (£)

  29 February 1996

  1,593,300

  93.80

  1,348,260

  95.20

  28 February 1997

  1,526,780

  90.40

  1,339,620

  91.00

  28 February 1998

  1,458,740

  87.75

  1,337,120

  87.95

  Notes:

  1. From 1984 to 1995, figures are taken from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants. From 1996, figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5 pence.

  3. Since April 1995 IB has not been paid to people who are over State Pension age. However, people who transferred to IB from IVB were permitted to continue to receive it beyond State Pension age.

  Table 3 gives the required information for new claims. People do not make a fresh claim when moving from short-term (lower) to short-term (higher) IB.

  Table 3: Commencements of IVB/IB short-term higher rate and long-term rate including progression from sickness benefit or IB short-term lower rate

  All ages

  Under pension age

  4 April 1998 to 31 March 1984

  277,700

  272,900

  2 April 1994 to 30 March 1985

  272,000

  264,101

  1 April 1985 to 5 April 1986

  284,500

  276,300

  7 April 1986 to 4 April 1987

  284,400

  277,700

  6 April 1987 to 2 April 1988

  281,800

  275,500

  4 April 1998 to 1 April 1989

  280,000

  273,100

  3 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  283,700

  275,800

  2 April 1990 to 30 March 1991

  287,700

  278,000

  1 April 1991 to 4 April 1992

  323,300

  313,400

  6 April 1992 to 3 April 1993

  337,100

  329,700

  Table 4: Estimated expenditure on invalidity benefit/sickness benefit, and on incapacity benefit (all rates)

  £ billion 1998–99 prices

  Over pension age

  Under pension age

  Total

  1983–84

  0.3

  3.8

  4.1

  1984–85

  0.3

  4.0

  4.4

  1985–86

  0.4

  4.1

  4.5

  1986–87

  0.5

  4.2

  4.7

  1987–88

  0.6

  4.4

  5.0

  1988–89

  0.7

  4.6

  5.2

  1989–90

  0.8

  4.8

  5.6

  1990–91

  0.9

  5.0

  5.9

  1991–92

  1.1

  5.8

  6.9

  1992–93

  1.2

  6.4

  7.7

  1993–94

  1.3

  7.1

  8.4

  1994–95

  1.4

  7.6

  9.0

  384
  this is the most accurate reflection of benefit levels for long term sick and disabled people on IB, and the most appropriate comparison with Invalidity Benefit rates.

  Table 3: Commencements of IVB/IB short-term higher rate and long-term rate including progression from sickness benefit or IB short-term lower rate

  All ages

  Under pension age

  5 April 1993 to 2 April 1994

  348,500

  340,300

  4 April 1994 to 12 April 1995

  340,800

  333,900

  13 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  271,200

  266,900

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997

  283,500

  280,100

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  285,600

  281,800

  Note:

  Figures are taken from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants.

  Table 4 gives estimate expenditure figures. It is not possible to provide figures for short-term (higher) and long-term rates of IB only. The figures are therefore for the whole of IB including short-term (lower) rate. For consistency, expenditure on Sickness Benefit (the equivalent of short-term (lower) rate IB) has been included for the years up to 1994–95.
  385

  Table 4: Estimated expenditure on invalidity benefit/sickness benefit, and on incapacity benefit (all rates)

  £ billion 1998–99 prices

  Over pension age

  Under pension age

  Total

  1995–96

  1.2

  7.4

  8.6

  1996–97

  0.9

  7.2

  8.1

  1997–98

  0.7

  6.9

  7.6

  Note:

  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have claimed the higher rate of disability living allowance(a) this year and (b) in each of the last three years. [97267]

  Number of people receiving the highest rates of DLA at 31 May each year.

  DLA recipients

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Highest rate of care component (alone or with lower rate of mobility component)

  85,300

  98,500

  107,000

  109,200

  Higher rate of mobility Component (alone or with middle or lowest rate of care component)

  974,800

  1,032,400

  1,061,500

  1,069,600

  Highest rate of care component and higher rate of mobility component

  235,900

  260,900

  274,900

  282,700

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division; 5 per cent. data.

  Personal Service Companies
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals trading as personal service companies are currently under contract to(a) his Department, (b) the Information Technology Services Agency and (c) the Benefits Agency. [97294]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department uses the services of professional contractors chiefly in the areas of accountancy and IT services. We have no information on the numbers of accountancy contractors who may have established personal service companies.

  A Framework Agreement for the provision of Computer and Related Services to the Department has been in place since June 1996. Within this Framework are 7 companies that are contracted to provide the Department with IT Contractor staff. The Department's contractual arrangements are with the Framework suppliers and not the individual IT Contractors.

  New Deal (Costs)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the administrative staff costs, (b) the costs of employer subsidies and (c) the amount spent on training recruits under the New Deal scheme during the last year. [96266]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1998–99, total expenditure for the New Deal for Young People (18–24 year olds) for administrative staff costs was £95m. This includes the cost of New Deal Personal Advisers who are at the core of the successful delivery of New Deal.

  The spend on employer subsides was £18.6m.

  Within New Deal for Young People, participants benefit from a wide variety of advice, guidance, training, work experience and other specialist provision. The
  386
  Mr. Bayley
  Disability Living Allowance has a care component with three rates and a mobility component with two. People may be awarded either component or both, depending on their care and mobility needs.

  amount spent on New Deal provision was £82.4m. (This figure excludes administration costs, employer subsidies, options allowance payments, marketing and initial set-up costs). A significant further volume of provision will be paid for in this financial year. The national launch of New Deal took place in April 1998 and as a result young people did not move into Options provision until later in the year and secondly that there was some late billing by providers. Expenditure on training provision is also affected by the higher than expected, and welcome, movement from the Gateway into unsubsidised jobs.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  McKenzie Friends
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to put McKenzie friends on a statutory footing; and if he will make a statement. [97250]

  Mr. Lock
  The Government have no plans at present to place the role of McKenzie friends on a statutory footing. Judges have developed common law rules so that litigants in person are permitted a McKenzie friend in proceedings in open court, and in chambers, unless the court is satisfied that fairness and justice does not require that assistance or where the court has grounds for believing that a McKenzie friend has acted inappropriately.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the
  387
  communications addressed to local authorities from his Department on the administration of housing benefit since 1 January. [96529]

  Ms Armstrong
  The administration of housing benefit is primarily the responsibility of the Department of Social Security. However, the Department did write to the Chief Executives of local authorities in England on 30 July concerning the implementation work on the 'Supporting People' initiative which will impact on the implementation of the Transitional Housing Benefit scheme in April 2000.

  Walton Group Plc
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much public sector funding the Walton Group Plc received in the last 10 years for re-generating properties in Liverpool; when this funding was approved; for what purpose the moneys were made available; when the expenditure was audited by the relevant authorities; and if he will make a statement. [96469]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Walton Commercial Group Ltd. (now Walton Group plc) was awarded a grant of £4.5 million in July 1992 towards the refurbishment of the Exchange Flags Building in Liverpool City Centre to provide 400,000 sq. ft. of refurbished office space and a museum. Total grant payments of £4,444,782 were made over the period November 1992 to May 1994 against claimed qualifying expenditure of £23,705,511.

  The Urban Regeneration Agency (English Partnerships), acting as agents for the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, are currently reviewing the project and the use to which the grant has been put.

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies into the incidence of repeat offending by motorists and ways to reduce such repeat offending his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) received the results of in the last five years. [96640]

  Mr. Hill
  Research is currently in progress to study the effect of the Road Traffic Act 1991 on prosecutions for dangerous driving. Among other topics, this includes a comparison of sentencing trends before and since the 1991 Act and monitoring of the behaviour of persons convicted of serious driving offences. The aim is to improve understanding so as to deter poor driving more effectively. The project began in May 1998 and is due to be completed in October 2000.

  A project has recently been completed for the Department to monitor the effectiveness of the experimental drink-drive rehabilitation scheme. The research carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory and published as "Drink/driver rehabilitation courses in England and Wales" (TRL report 426) suggests that offenders who have attended an approved rehabilitation course are three times less likely to re-offend. The scheme is to be made permanent throughout Great Britain from 1 January 2000. Consideration is currently being given to further research and monitoring.
  388
  A research project has also recently been published on "The High Risk Offenders Scheme for drink-drivers" (TRL report 394). This covers, among other categories, drivers who have been convicted more than once of driving over the limit within a 10 year period. The research has shown that reoffenders have different characteristics to the other High Risk categories.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the contribution that the planting of trees could make to meeting the United Kingdom's Kyoto targets on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. [97034]

  Mr. Mullin
  New planting of trees has taken place at a rate of 15,000 to 20,000 hectares per year since 1990 as a result of Government policy on woodland expansion. The present rate of increase in tree cover is likely to contribute about 0.25 per cent. towards the commitment under the Kyoto protocol.

  It would be possible to increase this proportion by accelerating the rate of new planting. Policies and initiative schemes whereby this might be achieved are under consideration by the Government Departments responsible. The first priority, however, must be to reduce emission levels as the most effective and secure way of delivering the UK's targets.

  The Government aim to publish their Draft Climate Change Programme around the turn of the year. It will set out how the Government plan to meet their Kyoto target and move towards their domestic goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 20 per cent.

  Housing
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many housing starts and completions by(a) local authorities and (b) social housing providers there were in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–1999. [96932]

  Mr. Mullin
  Figures are given in the table for the estimated number of new dwellings started and completed in England by local authorities and registered social landlords, in the latest three financial years:

  Housebuilding

  Financial year

  Local authority

  Registered social landlords

  Starts

  1996–97

  395

  22,916

  1997–98

  259

  19,629

  1998–99

  149

  17,602

  Completions

  1996–97

  451

  24,535

  1997–98

  323

  21,397

  1998–99

  194

  18,920

  Motorways and Trunk Roads
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion
  389
  of (a) motorways and (b) trunk roads are expected to have a residual life of (i) less than zero and (ii) zero to four years at the end of the current financial year. [97067]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 8 November 1999:
  You recently wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions concerning the expected residual life of motorways and trunk roads.
  The Highways Agency has a target to ensure that the percentage of the trunk road network having zero residual life at the end of financial year 1999/2000 is less than the figure published in the 1998 report of the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey (NRMCS). This gives the proportion of Motorways and All-purpose trunk roads as 4.6 percent and 8.2 percent respectively. The Agency expects to achieve this target with the proportions being lower than the 1998 figures at the end of the current financial year.
  There is no specific target for the residual life band zero to four years in the Agency's Business Plan but the information will be published in the 1999 edition of the NRMCS report. The Agency expects that the proportions will not be significantly different to those quoted in the 1998 report. These state that 8.2 percent of Motorways and 7.2 percent of All-purpose trunk roads had a residual life of zero to four years.
  It is important to emphasise that residual life is only one of several indicators of road condition. A zero residual life indicates the onset of a less predictable deterioration pattern and the need for investigation. It does not necessarily indicate that the road is about to fail. I trust that this information is helpful.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received(a) on train cancellations and delays that are due to leaves on the track, (b) on the arrangements made by Railtrack and train operating companies to clear leaves from the track, (c) on the level of resources spent each year since privatisation on such activities and (d) on train cancellations and delays on Connex North Kent lines due to leaves on the track. [97225]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State and the Franchising Director have received few representations about train cancellations and delays relating to leaves on the track or the level of resources devoted to leaf clearance. None of these has concerned the Connex North Kent lines specifically. Railtrack and train operating companies have set aside £50 million to combat leaves on the lines.

  Train Drivers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the circumstances surrounding the suspension and subsequently continued employment of train drivers who are caught driving without due care or attention. [97776]

  Mr. Hill
  In the first instance, it is for the employer to decide on appropriate disciplinary action to be taken with staff who contravene proper working practices. In addition there are duties on employees and employers under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and under specific regulations to ensure that work is done safely. For instance, the Railways (Safety Critical Work)390
  Regulations 1994 require that employees are fit and competent to undertake activities (such as train driving) which are safety critical. The Health and Safety Executive could prosecute employers or employees who have contravened these duties and requirements.

  Among the immediate measures agreed at the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister held with rail industry leaders on 25 October were a review of consistent standards of driver training and establishing a consistent approach to safety management, embracing best practice across the network.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what means the Government will define energy-intensive operations when deciding which firms will receive significant discounts on the climate change levy. [97378]

  Mr. Meacher
  For the purpose of the climate change levy, energy intensive operations have been defined as those listed in Annex Ito the European Union's Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive. Sites which undertake operations of this type may join an appropriate sectoral energy efficiency agreement. Sectors which are able to negotiate satisfactory agreements will be eligible for reduced rates of levy.

  We have received suggestions from industry for alternative definitions and are giving these consideration as part of overall consideration of industry representations on the design of the levy.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions with which less energy-intensive sectors the Government have started preliminary discussions on energy efficiency agreements; and to what extent those discussions have included the possibility of linking in with such agreements a mechanism for varying rates of climate change levy. [97380]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are not discussing energy efficiency agreements with less energy-intensive sectors. The Government invited the ten largest energy intensive industry sectors to participate in negotiations for energy efficiency agreements in March this year. Subsequently, we have initiated negotiations for agreements with a number of smaller energy intensive sectors.

  In both cases, the Government are offering the prospect of significantly lower rates of levy for those sectors that can agree targets for improving their energy efficiency which meet the Government's criteria.

  We have received representations from some non-intensive sectors. For non-intensive sectors, it may be worthwhile for them to explore the possibility of voluntary energy efficiency agreements under the Government's energy efficiency best practice programme. Though voluntary agreements would not entitle participants to discounts from the levy, they would facilitate the sharing of best practice, benchmarking, and other information between companies. They would also help them cut out waste, save money and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

  Lackenby to Shipton Pylon Line
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost of road improvement works in connection with the line of pylons from Lackenby to Shipton; and if he will make a statement. [97375]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I understand that the National Grid Company, in consultation with appropriate parties, is making various road improvements in the process of constructing the North Yorkshire electricity line. The cost of these roads improvements is being met by the company and the details are a matter for it.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation on leasehold reform. [97434]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have almost completed our analysis of the responses received to our consultation paper on residential leasehold reform, and will announce our conclusions shortly.

  Rural Rail Services
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to set targets for(a) investment in railways serving rural areas and (b) improvement in rail services in rural areas. [97433]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no plans to set targets for this investment. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 1 November 1999,Official Report, column 10, concerning funding of improvements in rail services in rural areas.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his timetable for dealing with the report of the panel on Regional Planning Guidance for the south-east of England; and what opportunities there will be for the public to have their views on the panel report taken into account. [97288]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 November 1999]: There will be an opportunity for the public to make their views known when the Government's proposed changes to the draft Regional Planning Guidance are published for consultation. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning indicated in the Opposition Day debate on Planning on 2 November 1999, Official Report, column 1221, we hope this will happen early in the new year.

  Auditing Procedures
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what investigations are currently under way into the auditing procedures for town and parish councils; [97284]

  (2) what recent discussions have been held between officials of his Department and representatives of the National Association of Local Councils the auditing procedures faced by town and parish councils. [97285]
  392
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 November 1999]: Audit procedures are a matter for the independent Audit Commission. Their officials have been discussing with the National Association of Local Councils a pilot exercise to investigate whether the cost of audits of town and parish councils can be reduced whilst maintaining the necessary level of assurance.

  Government Office for the North West
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been spent on publications by the Government Office for the North West since its establishment. [97608]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information and place a copy in the Library.

  Environment Protection Act 1990
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to bring into force the contaminated land regime in Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act 1990. [97755]

  Mr. Mullin
  Subject to the outcome of the current consultation, and necessary Parliamentary procedures, we expect to bring the regime into force on 1 April 2000.

  Mopeds
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the removal of full moped licence entitlement from new car licences; and if he will make a statement. [97672]

  Mr. Hill
  In July, we consulted on a proposal to issue successful car driving test candidates with a provisional, rather than a full moped licence, as part of a package of measures to improve rider safety. This would mean that newly qualified drivers wanting to ride a moped would be required to take a basic training course like other persons who wish to ride powered two-wheelers. These drivers are generally young, and they have high accident rates. Our reason for proposing this change is that the skills for riding safely a powered two-wheeler are different from those for driving a car and that these riders would be safer on the road after basic training. The proposed change would not affect anyone who already held a full moped licence. We are currently considering the responses that we have received and, when we have taken decisions, they will be announced.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) moped riders and (b) cyclists were (i) killed and (ii) seriously injured in the years 1993 to 1998; what were the annual rates per 100,000 in each case; and if he will make a statement. [97673]
  393
  Mr. Hill
  The number of killed and seriously injured pedal cyclists and moped riders in Great Britain and rates of casualty per 100,000 population are given in the table.

  Pedal cyclists

  Moped riders

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Casualties

  1993

  186

  3,611

  22

  660

  1994

  172

  3,829

  17

  545

  1995

  213

  3,754

  19

  541

  1996

  203

  3,586

  11

  431

  1997

  183

  3,409

  17

  402

  1998

  158

  3,154

  10

  393

  Casualty rate per 100,000 population

  1993

  0.33

  6.38

  0.04

  1.17

  1994

  0.30

  6.75

  0.03

  0.96

  1995

  0.37

  6.59

  0.03

  0.95

  1996

  0.36

  6.28

  0.02

  0.75

  1997

  0.32

  5.95

  0.03

  0.70

  1998

  0.27

  5.48

  0.02

  0.68

  Road Fatalities
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of road fatalities that are caused by(a) excessive speed, (b) failure to observe traffic regulations, (c) failure to observe traffic signs and (d) failure to observe maximum speed limits in the most recent year for which figures are available. [97777]

  Mr. Hill
  Research suggests that vehicle speeds in excess of the speed limit, or which are inappropriate for prevailing conditions, are a major contributory factor in around one third of collisions on our roads. No estimate has been made of the total number caused by failure to observe traffic signs, or other traffic regulations.

  London-Tilbury-Southend Line
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information his Department holds and what discussions have taken place with(a) Railtrack and (b) train operators in relation to (i) the funding of signalling on the LTS line and (ii) the punctuality and safety implications of the introduction of a new station at West Ham on this line; and if he will make a statement. [97406]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has not held discussions with either Railtrack or train operators about the funding of signalling on the LTS line or the punctuality and safety implications of the new station at West Ham. The Rail Regulator has discussed a new signalling system for the LTS line with Railtrack. The Franchising Director is aware that the new station at Wet Ham has resulted in some loss of punctuality on the line. He is monitoring the situation and will be meeting the train operator within the next two weeks to discuss this matter. I am not aware of any safety implications associated with the opening of this station.

  Bursting Stone Quarry
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had on the application to extend Bursting Stone Quarry in Cumbria. [97670]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Lake District National Park Authority resolved to grant planning permission for a proposed extension to Bursting Stone Quarry but referred the matter to Secretary of State because, in its view, the proposal constituted a departure from the development plan. After carefully considering all the documents and representations before him, the Secretary of State informed the Authority on 7 May that he had decided to call in the application for his own decision as, in his view, it raises planning issues of wider than local importance which he considers he ought to decide himself. The Secretary of State's legal duty of impartiality prevents him for having any discussions with any party concerning it.

  I understand that the applicants have been discussing with the Authority the scope for agreeing a modern scheme of planning conditions for the quarry under the minerals review provisions of the Environment Act 1995 and based upon its existing planning permissions. Further action on the called in planning application is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of those discussions.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from non-Governmental organisations concerned with development issues regarding the UK Government's position on the Biosafety Protocol; and if he will make a statement. [97658]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has received no representations to date. Development issues would be a matter for the Department for International Development.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will report on the progress of the Docklands Light Railway. [97901]

  Mr. Hill
  I have placed in the Library of the House the Docklands Light Railway Ltd.'s Annual Report and accounts for 1998–99.

  The Railway continues to make excellent progress. The extension under the River Thames to Lewisham is set to open in November, in time for the Millennium and some two months ahead of schedule. Passenger numbers increased from 23 million to 30 million during the year. DLR Ltd. is currently owned by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and will transfer to Transport for London on 3 July 2000.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the methods of depreciation
  395
  his Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [96921]

  Mr. Ingram
  Straight line depreciation is the principal method which NI Departments and the Northern Ireland Office intend to apply to fixed assets in the current financial year in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. In addition the Department of the Environment (NI) also intend to apply the following methods—renewals accounting, reducing balance and accelerated depreciation. As part of the dry run audit, depreciation policies will be subject to review by the Northern Ireland Audit Office.

  Use of these methods of depreciation is in accordance with the Department of Finance and Personnel's Northern Ireland Resource Accounting Manual, which follows private sector accounting practice as far as is appropriate. The requirements in the Manual, regarding depreciation policy, are underpinned by Financial Reporting Standard 15 "Tangible Fixed Assets" issued by the Accounting Standards Board.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  "News at Ten"
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with the ITC in respect of News at Ten and its successor programmes; and if he will make a statement. [97597]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Programme scheduling and content are of course matters for the broadcasters and the Independent Television Commission. I have however expressed the hope that, when the ITC reviews next Spring the conditions laid down as part of its approval of the ending of "News at Ten", it will be robust in its analysis of whether those conditions are being met.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the practicality of compiling an analysis of National Lottery ticket sales on a constituency basis based on sales in postal districts. [97098]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department holds information only on gross ticket sales. Neither the National Lottery Commission nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State require an analysis of sales by constituency to fulfil their statutory objectives under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (as amended). There is, therefore, no requirement for the National Lottery operator, Camelot Group plc, to provide the information in this format, and they have not done so.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the acquisition budgets in each of the last five years of the museums and galleries funded by his Department. [95145]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: Since 1992, the grant in aid allocation to each of the museums and galleries supported by DCMS has not
  396
  included a separate acquisition budget. Decisions concerning the amount set aside for acquisitions are for the Trustees of each institution. Except for the Wallace Collection, which is a closed collection, details of the acquisition budgets of the other national museums and galleries for the last five years are given in their annual accounts which are available in the House of Commons Library. Regarding information for the other sponsored museums and galleries, I will write to the hon. Member and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Arts Council (Annual Report)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects the Arts Council of England to publish its 1998–99 Annual report. [97712]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  We expect that the Arts Council of England's Annual Report will be published in December.

  Football Spectators
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in eliminating racist behaviour among spectators at football matches. [97435]

  Kate Hoey
  I have been assured by the bodies identified in the Football Task Force Report "Eliminating Racism from Football", that they have implemented the Task Force's recommendations and I am monitoring the success of these initiatives.

  National Arts Day
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 755, on the National Arts Day, if the proposal for a National Arts Day meets his criteria. [97477]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 5 November 1999]: I have not to date been presented with any proposal for a national arts day that meets those criteria.

DEFENCE

  European Security and Defence Identity
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the European Security and Defence Identity. [96131]

  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the European security and defence identity. [96146]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government are committed to strengthening the European Security and Defence Identity within NATO. We want European nations to improve their combined military capabilities and to develop the means to act in support of their foreign and security policy objectives. We are making good progress with our Allies and Partners both in the European Union and in NATO.

  Marine Forces
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on collaboration between the Royal Marines and the Royal Netherlands Marine Force. [96132]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Marines and the Royal Netherlands Marine Force have worked closely together for 26 years. This relationship was formalised in a Memorandum of Understanding signed in March 1997. Most recently, the UK Royal Marines and the Netherlands Royal Marines worked closely on Exercise BRIGHT STAR, an amphibious multinational exercise in Egypt last month.

  Heavy-lift Aircraft
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the RAF's requirement for heavy-lift transport aircraft. [96133]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Strategic Defence Review concluded that we needed to improve our strategic airlift, to allow us to move forces quickly to an overseas theatre. We are considering solutions to both our short and long-term requirements. In the short term, we expect to do this through acquiring four C-17 aircraft or their equivalents. In the longer term, we would need a suitable replacement for our remaining transport aircraft. We expect to make an announcement early next year.

  Multi-role Armoured Vehicle Project
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in concluding the multi-national agreement on the Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle project; and if he will make a statement. [96134]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  As announced on 5 November, the UK and Germany have signed a Memorandum of Understanding, and have placed a contract with ARTEC GmbH, a consortium including Alvis Vehicles Ltd. from the UK, for the development of a family of armoured utility vehicles, known in the UK as the Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle.

  Smart Procurement Initiative
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Smart procurement initiative. [96135]

  Mr. Hoon
  Smart Procurement is at the heart of our effort to reform radically the way we acquire equipment capability. The programme to roll out Integrated Project Teams is on track with 33 now fully operational. 39 further teams formed up in September and 141 will be fully operational by April 2000.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the strength of the Territorial Army; and if he will make a statement. [96136]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Defence Review made a number of changes to the Territorial Army, including increases in support functions such as medical services and signallers. The new structure was implemented on 398
  1 July this year, and is making the TA more relevant and useful. There are therefore no plans to change the conclusions reached on the size of the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding his plans for the mobilisation of TA units. [96137]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are examining the feasibility of deploying a formed TA unit or sub-units to sustain peace support operations in the Balkans. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently enlisted with the Territorial Army; how many there were five years ago; and what his projection is for the figures in 12 months' time. [96143]

  Mr. Spellar
  The strength of the Territorial Army as at 1 September, the latest date for which figures are available, was 45,047. The strength of the Territorial Army on 1 September 1994 was 61,047. These figures exclude Non Regular Permanent Staff.

  The estimated strength of the Territorial Army in 12 months' time will be our target establishment of 41,200.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact mobilisation of the Territorial Army would have upon the National Health Service. [97246]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department and the Department of Health currently have work in hand to assess the implications for the National Health Service of deploying substantial numbers of Territorial Army and other medical Reservists on military operations.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many more doctors he plans to recruit into the Territorial Army or reserve forces; and in what time span. [97244]

  Mr. Spellar
  At present, the three Services are seeking to recruit some 545 doctors into the Volunteer Reserve Forces to meet current shortfalls. There is no specific timescale for achieving this figure but the aim is to recruit the doctors as soon as possible.

  Bosnia
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on troop levels in Bosnia. [96138]

  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on troop levels in Bosnia. [96141]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK remains fully committed to supporting NATO operations in Bosnia. In conjunction with Allies, we have recently completed a careful assessment of the current security situation in Bosnia. This has improved sufficiently in the four years since the deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) for NATO to be able to move safely to a restructured force of some 20,000 members. The implication for UK forces is that 900 personnel will now return to the UK, without replacement, before Christmas. The UK contribution to the Stabilisation Force (SFOR) will then stand at some 3,300.

  Kosovo and Serbia
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the environmental consequences of the conflict in Kosovo and Serbia. [96139]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UN's Balkans Task Force issued its report on the environmental consequences of the Kosovo conflict on 5 October. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House. This Government have not conducted a separate assessment of the environmental consequences of the conflict in Kosovo and Serbia.

  Depleted Uranium
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of depleted uranium munitions. [96140]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has conducted extensive monitoring programmes of the environmental effects of depleted uranium munitions at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's firing ranges at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright. The monitoring programme has confirmed that there are only low levels of DU contamination, which are well below anything that could be considered a health hazard. The results of this monitoring are published annually.

  Army Northern Headquarters
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the decision was made to transfer the Army's northern headquarters from York to Edinburgh. [96147]

  Mr. Spellar
  The decision to transfer the Army's northern HQ from York to Edinburgh was made on 4 March.

  Learning Forces Initiative
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the learning forces initiative. [96148]

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the learning forces initiative. [96149]

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the learning forces initiative. [96154]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) on 8 November 1999,Official Report, columns 683-84.

  East Timor
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current security situation in East Timor. [96150]

  Mr. Hoon
  The security situation in East Timor is much improved. The Australian-led International Force in East Timor (INTERFET) has now reached a total strength of 8,100 personnel, and includes significant contributions from Canada, Fiji, South Korea, New Zealand,400
  Philippines, Thailand, UK and the US. INTERFET has a firm base in Dili and is operating patrols along the border with West Timor. Remaining militia on the eastern side of the island, together with those based in West Timor, are still a cause for concern. The Indonesian Armed Forces have been co-operative. Some refugees have returned as peace is being restored. British Army Gurkhas have played an important role from the start of INTERFET operations in East Timor, and most recently in the Ambeno enclave. Gurkhas have been involved in conducting security patrols, facilitating the delivery of humanitarian assistance and providing medical relief.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on staff amenities and support services on board Royal Navy ships. [96151]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The staff amenities and support services on board Royal Naval ships vary widely according to their size, age and role. Typically, all ships are provided with mess and galley facilities together with recreational facilities such as TVs, video recorders, books and fitness equipment. As part of our policy for people, measures to improve the amenities on ships, including the extension of satellite TV, welfare communications and internet facilities where possible, are being progressed.

  Front Line Logistics
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to improve support to the front line in respect of logistics. [96152]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following the Strategic Defence Review, we have established the post of Chief of Logistics, to command a unified Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO), to replace the Single Service logistics commands. The DLO will be fully operational by April 2000, and has already begun to rationalise logistics and spread best practice across the Services. The DLO is involved in implementing the Smart Procurement Initiative, which aims to make the initial procurement of equipment and subsequent provision of spares, repairs and overhaul more efficient and responsive to the needs of the Services.

  As part of the reorganisation of the management of logistics in my Department, we are creating two new Joint Force Logistic Component headquarters. The first is due to become operational in 2001 and the second in 2003. In addition, a number of new support units have been created to strengthen lines of communication, including two combat service support squadrons, a local resource section, a petroleum troop and a rations troop. In addition, our plans following SDR to create a fifth engineer logistic squadron have been brought forward from 2002 to late 2000.

  Kosovo
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future commitments in Kosovo. [96153]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Ms Follett) on 8 November 1999,Official Report, column 678.

  Welfare Telephone Allowances
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to improve service welfare telephone allowances. [96155]

  Mr. Spellar
  We recognise the importance of personnel deployed on operations being able to telephone home. We increased the free telephone allowance from 3 to 10 minutes in the Strategic Defence Review last year. The previous Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson, announced on 28 September 1999 a further increase, doubling the allowance to 20 minutes a week. This was to take immediate effect and demonstrated our commitment to the welfare of Service personnel.

  Iraq
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on UK forces' involvement in patrolling the no-fly zone in northern and southern Iraq. [96156]

  Mr. Hoon
  Coalition patrols of the no fly zones remain an essential humanitarian task in support of UN Security Council Resolution 688 as they prevent Saddam Hussein from using his airforce against the Iraqi people in the north and south. Since the end of Operation Desert Fox last December, Saddam has waged a systematic campaign against coalition aircraft carrying out these patrols. Some 215 Iraqi aircraft have violated the No Fly Zones, and there have been over 500 other direct threats against our aircrew, including missile attacks and heavy anti-aircraft fire. Coalition responses are limited strictly to proportionate action in self-defence against Iraqi weapons and facilities which pose a direct threat to our forces.

  Overstretch
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to reduce the problem of overstretch. [96142]

  Mr. Spellar
  We remain firmly committed to tackling overstretch in the Armed Forces. Recruitment is improving and measures are under way to improve retention. These include improvements to the operational welfare package, for example: free telephone calls home, and a guaranteed period of post operational tour leave, as well as measures in support of families put in place through the role of the Service Families Task Force. We believe that measures such as these, combined with improved recruiting, and retention initiatives already in place, will help to reduce overstretch.

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the helmet pointing system being delivered with the Apache helicopters; how long he expects the helmet pointing system for the helicopters to be in service before being upgraded; and what the cost of the upgrade will be. [95346]
  402
  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Howe to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 8 November 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the helmet pointing system being delivered with the UK Apache helicopters. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The cost of the helmet pointing system being delivered with the Apache helicopter is not separately identified within the package deal contract which was signed with GKN Westland Helicopter Ltd in March 1996, at a value of some £2Bn. There are no current plans to upgrade the system, but we continue to monitor developments in this field and are exploring opportunities to collaborate with the US Army in providing a longer term upgrade.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many orders for aircraft carriers he expects to place in the next year; and when tenders will be invited for such orders. [95512]

  Mr. Hoon
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Howe to Mr. Frank Field, dated 8 November 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many orders for aircraft carriers he expects to place in the next year and when tenders will be invited. This matter falls to me for answer within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The Strategic Defence Review set out our plans to replace our existing aircraft carriers from 2012 with two larger and more capable vessels. Tenders for the Assessment Phase of the programme, which will develop overall design proposals for the carriers, were released to industry in January 1999. Bids were received from two industry teams in May and, subject to the outcome of commercial negotiations, it is planned to place up to two contracts by the end of the year. Bids for the Demonstration and Manufacture Phase are expected in 2003 and contract placement is scheduled for 2004.

  European Joint Procurement Structures
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programmes are subject to European joint procurement structures. [96228]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Howe to Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, dated 8 November 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what programmes are subject to European joint procurement structures. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

  403
  The Counter Battery Radar (COBRA) is currently the only fully integrated programme involving the UK managed by a "European Joint Procurement Structure", the Organisme Conjoint de Cooperation en Matiere d'Armement (OCCAR). In addition, the Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV), Medium Range TRIGAT and Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS) programmes have been nominated to move to OCCAR management, subject to agreeing satisfactory arrangements with the participating countries.
  In addition, two programmes involving the UK are managed by NETMA, an organisation founded under the auspices of NATO but with European partners.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the European joint procurement structures which have been set up and those which are due to be set up over the next year. [96225]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Howe to Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, dated 8 November 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will list the European joint procurement structures which have been set up and those which are due to be set up over the next year. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The Organisme Conjoint de Cooperation en Matiere d'Armement (OCCAR) is currently the only European joint defence procurement structure involving the UK. It was established by Treaty in September 1998. In addition, the Eurofighter and Tornado programmes are managed by NETMA, an organisation founded under the auspices of NATO but with European partners.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what measures are to be implemented in building A12N at Aldermaston to ensure its continued safe operation until building A91 enters into service; [96425]

  (2) what progress has been made in commissioning building A91 at Aldermaston; and if he will make a statement. [96423]

  Mr. Spellar
  Technical problems with A91 have delayed its active commissioning. A decision on the most appropriate way forward for the facility will not now be made until the new term operating contractor has been appointed and they have had the opportunity to consider the situation.

  The existing A12N plant will be maintained to ensure the continued safe processing of radioactive material while options for A91 are being evaluated. A review has been carried out and some minor engineering improvements have been included in the current engineering work programme. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Environment Agency have been consulted on both A12N and the difficulties with A91.

  Strategic Airlift
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will break down the five bids for the abandoned strategic airlift competition indicating the capability and cost in each case; and what alternative approaches to the strategic airlift capability the Defence Procurement Agency is seeking and from which companies. [96746]

  Mr. Hoon
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Howe to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 8 November 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence in which you asked if he will provide a breakdown of the five bids received in response to the Short Term Strategic Airlift competition and what alternative approaches the Defence Procurement Agency is seeking to fulfil this requirement. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  In answer to the first part of your question, I provide below details of the bidders and the aircraft they proposed for the terminated competition:

  Airbus Transport International (ATI) offering a beluga and conventional freighters.

  An Air Foyle Ltd-led consortium offering a yet-to-be developed version of the Antonov An-124.

  Boeing/BAe offering the C-17.

  IBP Ltd offering the current standard Antonov An-124.

  Rolls Royce offering a managed service provision.

  I am withholding details of costs and capabilities offered under Exemption 13 (third party's commercial confidences) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  In answer to the second part of your question, the Defence Procurement Agency is exploring other possible options for meeting our Airlift requirement, with the intention of reaching a decision in early 2000. This includes discussions with Boeing and the USAF on acquiring a C-17 capability through commercial lease or alternative arrangements and discussions with Air Foyle Ltd and Heavy Lift Cargo Airlines Ltd on more assured short-term chartering. A third company has now withdrawn its interest. The companies were requested to submit proposals by 29 October.

  Soldiers (Service Extension)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of soldiers serving for three years extended their service beyond three years by(a) three, (b) six, and (c) nine years in each of the last five years. [97518]

  Mr. Spellar
  Soldiers enlisting into the Regular Army since 1991 have done so on the Open Engagement (up to 22 years), which commits them to a minimum of three years service (four years for those enlisting after 2 November 1999). Continuation of service beyond that point is subject to the wishes of the individual and the needs of the Army. There is no requirement for soldiers to specify the length of any further commitment, but they are normally required to give 12 months notice of their wish to leave.

  The information is not, therefore, available in the form requested. The table, however, identify the average soldier trained strength in each of the last five financial years, by length of reckonable service, and as a percentage of the total trained soldier strength.
  405

  Length of reckonable service (years)1

  Average trained strength2

  Percentage of total strength

  (a) 1998–99

  Less than 3 years

  17,932

  21

  3-5 years

  13,570

  16

  6-8 years

  13,216

  16

  9-11 years

  13,510

  16

  12+ years

  25,949

  31

  Total

  84,177

  100

  (b) 1997–98

  Less than 3 years

  16,107

  19

  3-5 years

  14,821

  17

  6-8 years

  15,745

  19

  9-11 years

  13,332

  16

  12+ years

  24,882

  29

  Total

  84,887

  100

  (c) 1996–97

  Less than 3 years

  14,604

  17

  3-5 years

  17,094

  20

  6-8 years

  17,588

  20

  9-11 years

  12,935

  15

  12+ years

  23,676

  28

  Total

  85,897

  100

  (d) 1995–96

  Less than 3 years

  15,406

  17

  3-5 years

  20,310

  23

  6-8 years

  18,106

  20

  9-11 years

  12,637

  14

  12+ years

  22,656

  26

  Total

  89,115

  100

  (e) 1994–95

  Less than 3 years

  18,330

  19

  3-5 years

  23,662

  24

  6-8 years

  18,171

  19

  9-11 years

  12,669

  13

  12+ years

  23,977

  25

  Total

  96,809

  100

  1 UK Trained Army Personnel (soldiers) only.

  2 The Strengths are calculated by adding together the start and end strengths of each financial year, and dividing by two.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the extension of the minimum commitment for soldiers from three to four years will have on pay differentials for those signing on for an extended three, six or nine years. [97519]

  Mr. Spellar
  The extension of the minimum commitment for soldiers from three to four years will have no effect on pay differentials. Soldiers have been enlisted on open engagements since 1 January 1991 and pay differentials for initial engagements of three, six or nine years have not applied since that date.

  Patten Commission
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the armed forces made to the Patten Commission on policing in Northern Ireland. [97558]
  406
  Mr. Spellar
  The Patten Commission on Policing received a briefing on the role of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland and the support they provide to the Royal Ulster Constabulary on 2 October 1998.

  Service Personnel (Turnover)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the inflow and outflow rates for(a) the Territorial Army, (b) the Royal Naval Reserve and (c) the Royal Auxiliary Airforce for (i) officers and (ii) other ranks, for each of the years from 1994–95 to date. [97661]

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

  Sexual Discrimination Cases
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sexual discrimination cases involving his Department are pending before(a) the European Court of Justice and (b) the European Court of Human Rights. [97666]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no cases pending before either Court.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sexual discrimination cases have been brought against his Department in industrial tribunals since 1 February 1995; in how many such cases rulings were made against his Department; how much financial compensation was paid in each case; and how many cases are awaiting decision. [97668]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested relating to Industrial (now Employment) Tribunal applications together with details of compensation paid is available only for applications made by serving members, or former members, of the Armed Forces, since 1996–1997 when complete records began to be kept. The information provided does not include those applications submitted by MOD civilian and former civilian staff to Employment Tribunals, for which information is not held centrally.

  Legal advice is taken on all cases and where a thorough and objective assessment of the case proves that there is a legal liability to pay compensation we do so. In such cases, the Ministry of Defence would hope to avoid cases proceeding to a full Tribunal hearing. My Department is currently handling 35 Employment Tribunal cases for sexual discrimination, two of which have been listed for full hearings.

  The following figures exclude Employment Tribunal applications from those Servicewomen who were obliged to leave the Services on grounds of pregnancy. All 5,038 of these claims received have been settled in full at a cost of £60,279,782.
  407

  Number of Employment Tribunal applications received in period

  Number of Employment Tribunal cases settled/ repudiated in period

  Compensation paid in period (£)

  1996–97

  58

  15 settled 15 repudiated

  260,000

  1997–98

  57

  16 settled 25 repudiated

  271,000

  1998–99

  25

  14 settled 20 repudiated

  425,000

  1999–20001

  12

  1 settled 7 repudiated

  1,000

  1 To 4 November 1999

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sexual discrimination complaints against his Department since 1 February 1995(a) have been made under service redress procedures, (b) were upheld by his Department at that stage, (c) came before industrial tribunals, (d) came before the European Court of Justice and (e) came before the European Court of Human Rights. [97664]

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

  Service Personnel (Employment Protection)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has paid in employment protection to employers of members of(a) the Territorial Army, (b) the Royal Navy Reserve, (c) the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and (d) sponsored reservists mobilised in each year for which figures are available since 1989–90; and if he will make a statement. [97663]

  Mr. Spellar
  No payments are made to employers of members of the reserve forces for the purposes of employment protection. Under the terms of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and the Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall) (Financial Assistance) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997/309), employers may claim financial assistance for the loss of a member of staff who is mobilised for reserve service, and to cover any necessary retraining for that staff member on return. No financial assistance was provided to employers before 1 April 1997.

  No awards of financial assistance have been made to employers of Royal Naval Reserve personnel as a result of called-out service since 1 April 1997.

  It has not been possible to distinguish payments made to employers of TA personnel from those made to the employers of ex-Regular Army reserves. However, since 1 April 1997, the following totals have been paid to the employers of Army reservists:

  Financial Year

  Amount paid to employers (£)

  1997–98

  11,939

  1998–99

  64,762

  1999–2000

  126,654

  1 As at end October 1999

  408
  Figures relating to employers' claims are available only for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force since June 1999. Since June 1999, payments totalling £7,158.27 have been made to employers of Royal Auxiliary Air Force reservists.

  There are no Sponsored Reserves in service.

  "Welfare in the Army"
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Major-General Spacie's report, "Welfare in the Army"; and when he intends to make the report public. [97660]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of the development of an overarching Human Resources Strategy, the Army's approach to welfare has been subjected to a fundamental and comprehensive review. In 1998, Major-General (Retired) Spacie was commissioned to undertake a study into welfare provision across the Army. This work was completed in September 1999 and is currently being assessed. The study was commissioned to inform the Army's personnel management policies and there are currently no plans to publish the findings externally.

  RAF Neatishead
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement about the future of RAF Neatishead, Norfolk. [97665]

  Mr. Spellar
  I expect to make an announcement shortly about the outcome of consultation relating to all of the rationalisation proposals affecting the RAF stations which make up the UK Air Surveillance and Control System (ASACS). This will of course include RAF Neatishead.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hawk Aircraft
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Hawk aircraft have arrived in Indonesia since the 16 September common position of the European Council; how many have been halted in transit; and what discussions he has held with representatives of(a) British industry, (b) overseas posts and (c) foreign agencies on the issue of halting Hawk transfers in transit. [97575]

  Mr. Battle
  Three Hawk aircraft were exported from the UK on 31 August, before the adoption of the Common Position. Once the aircraft left UK shores, we had no power to prevent delivery of these aircraft. No further Hawks have been exported from the UK while the embargo has been in place since 16 September.

  Departmental Staff (Working Week)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average length of the working week in hours, broken down by grade, of staff in his Department(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas. [97532]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not available. The conditioned hours of the Department's staff in the United Kingdom and overseas are 41 or 42 hours per week. However staff posted overseas have a 24 hour on-call liability.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had concerning the implications for future British involvement in peacekeeping operations of ratification of the International Criminal Court. [97516]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office have worked closely together throughout the negotiations on the establishment of the International Criminal Court. The Government believe ratification of the Rome Statute will have no implications for future British involvement in peacekeeping operations.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the Middle East peace process. [97580]

  Mr. Hain
  The Sharm el-Sheikh agreement has created a real prospect of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. The parties are committed to making a determined effort to conclude a Framework Agreement on Permanent Status issues by February, and to reaching a Permanent Status Agreement by September. We are confident that the permanent status negotiations, which have been formally resumed, will deliver substantive results.

  Implementation of the Sharm el-Sheikh commitments is proceeding, albeit with some short delays. A southern safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank was opened during my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's recent visit.

  We do not underestimate the difficulties faced by both sides. Real vision will be needed to deliver a peace settlement which offers lasting security for Israel, and a real prospect of hope and prosperity for Palestinians.

  Peace between Israel, Syria and Lebanon is an essential component of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. We remain hopeful of a resumption of negotiations on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks.

  We stand ready to help in any way we can in the pursuit of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to extend full British citizenship to cover the population of St. Helena; and if he will make a statement. [97466]

  Mr. Battle
  The White Paper on Overseas Territories, published in March this year, sets out the Government's offer of British citizenship to those citizens of the Overseas Territories, including those of St. Helena, who do not already enjoy it and who meet certain conditions. This will require primary legislation. The issues are complex and the Government are working on the preparation of the necessary legislation.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government are taking to assist the civil prison service in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [97404]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Department for International Development (DfID) arranged for a visit to Kosovo for Her Majesty's Prison Service experts in August to consider what assistance we could provide for prison administration. DfID is providing $1 million in repair assistance and has made available the DfID Emergency Engineering Unit to the United Nations and to the NATO-led international force in Kosovo (KFOR) to help repair prison facilities before winter sets in.

  Two British prisons experts also went to Kosovo at the start of October for a two month visit to provide technical advice to the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) on the transfer of responsibility for prisons from KFOR to UNMIK, and the re-opening of prison facilities. DfID are also funding the secondment of four prison technical monitors to supervise local staff until February 2000.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many houses of the minorities have been burnt in Kosovo since the KFOR occupation. [96101]

  Mr. Vaz
  Between KFOR's arrival in Kosovo on 12 June 1999 and mid-October there have been 1,157 reported cases of arson. Figures disaggregated by ethnic group or property type are not available.

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people accompanied the Chinese President on his state visit,(a) arriving with him and (b) in advance; into which categories these people fell; and how many of them were known to his Department to be from the Chinese police or other security services. [97756]

  Mr. Battle
  The Chinese President was accompanied by 140 people froM China: 14 members of his official suite, 70 staff, 29 media correspondents and a plane crew of 27, all of whom arrived with the President. Thirty-five people had security responsibilities.

  European Union Programme
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for November and (b) the major European Union events for the next six months. [96950]
  411
  Mr. Vaz
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 October 1999, c. 1038-44]: An administrative error led to an omission in my answer of 29 October to my hon. Friend. The correct answer should read as follows:

  Monthly forecast of EU Business: November 1999

  November 1999

  2 November—Dubai—EU-Gulf Co-operation Council (EU-GCC 9th Joint Council)
  Opening Statement by the President of the Meeting (United Arab Emirates) and reply by the EU Presidency

  Adoption by the Agenda

  Implementation of the Co-operation Agreement

  Free trade agreement negotiations

  Exchange of views on developments in the two regions:

  European Union; Gulf Co-operation Council

  Exchange of views on political questions of common interest

  Approval of the Joint Communique and agreed minutes

  Any other business

  3-4 November—Brussels—European Parliamentary Plenary
  Consultation Procedure

  (possible) Proposal for a Council Decision concluding the Agreement for scientific and technological co-operation between the European Community and the People's Republic of China

  (possible) Proposal for a Council Decision concluding the Agreement on co-operation for science and technology between the European Community and the government of the Russia Federation

  (possible) Proposal for a Council Decision concluding the Agreement for scientific and technological co-operation between the European Community and the Argentine Republic

  Codecision Procedure
  Second Reading

  (possible) Common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Directive concerning the enforcement of seafarers' hours of work on board ships using Community ports

  (possible) Common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive

  (possible) Common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars.

  8 November—Brussels—ECOFIN Council
  Adoption of the provisional agenda
  Approval of the list of "A" items
  The Tax Package

  (a) Taxation of Savings

  Key issues; reports on Dependent or Associated Territories

  (b) Code of Conduct on business taxation

  state of play

  (c) Interests and Royalties

  (possible) Energy Taxation
  Economic policy co-ordination

  Draft Council report to European Council

  EIB lending: Renewal of Community guarantee for projects in third countries
  (possible) HIPC-initiative
  The introduction of euro notes and coins

  Common statement

  Risk capital: Implementation of the Action Plan—Communication by the Commission
  (possible) Own Resources Decision
  The Employment package

  Revised Joint Employment Report

  Joint opinion of the EPC/ELC on the Employment Guidelines and Recommendations

  AOB (p. m.—Euro 11; Macroeconomic dialogue)
  412
  8 November—Brussels—Consumer Affairs Council
  Adoption of the agenda
  (possible) Approval of the list of "A" items
  Amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and modifying Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (Legal basis proposed by Commission: Articles 47[2], 55 and 95) (Item on which a vote may be called for)

  Common position

  13097/98 CONSOM 76 ECOFIN 239 CODEC 622

  10505/99 CONSOM 46 ECOFIN 136 CODEC 456

  Implementation and application of consumer protection legislation
  Information from the Commission on the implementation and application in the member states of certain Directives, in particular Directives on time-sharing and package holidays
  Consumer access to justice

  (a) Information from the Commission on the follow-up to its recommendation on the principles applicable to the mechanisms responsible for out-of-court settlements of consumer disputes

  (b) Information from the Presidency on the European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 as regards the item on citizen's access to justice

  Food security

  (a) Information campaign on food security in the member states Progress report from the Commission

  (b) "European Food 2000" seminar

  (Helsinki, 23 and 24 September 1999)

  Presidency briefing on the outcome

  (c) Discussion

  (15.00-16.00: open debate)

  Consumer protection and services of general interest—Discussion 11682/99 CONSOM 49 MI 93
  Other business

  Transparency for the consumer in regard to civil liability for motor vehicles (automobile insurance)

  contribution by the Italian delegation

  9 November—Brussels—Industry Council
  Adoption of the agenda
  (possible) Approval of the list of "A" items
  Competitiveness and entrepreneurial policy of the European Union

  Debate and Council conclusions

  (a) Commission communication entitled "Structural change and adjustment in European manufacturing"

  11552/99 ECO 309

  11706/99 ECO 317

  (b) Competitiveness in the Information Society

  (c) Medium-term programme for the organisation of an ongoing debate on industrial competitiveness

  (d) SME

  SME forum: Rapid growth and competitiveness through technology

  Commission report on concerted action with the member states Integration of sustainable development into EU industrial policy
  Report to the Helsinki European Council
  State of the competitiveness of the EU forest-based and related industries

  Commission communication

  Council conclusions 1 1707/99 ECO 318

  Steel industry

  (a) State of the competitiveness of the steel industry in the EU

  Commission communication

  Commission presentation

  413
  11708/99 SID 32 SOC 332 FIN 374 ECO 319

  (b) Commission report to the Council on the monitoring of aid for steel covered by Article 95 of the Treaty

  Information from the Commission

  Shipbuilding

  (a) Commission report on the international shipbuilding situation

  Council conclusions 11919/99 RC 24

  (b) Fourth Commission report to the Council on the monitoring of aid to certain shipyards currently being restructured in Germany and Spain

  Commission presentation 11921/99 RC 26

  White Paper on the modernisation of the rules laid down by Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty—Commission briefing
  Other business—State aids

  Note from the Danish delegation

  11855/99 ECO 323 FIN 379 RC 23 EEE 99

  11 November—Brussels—Development Council
  No agenda yet available

  11 November—Brussels—Standing Committee on Employment
  Rules of procedure

  Confirmation of the Council's position

  Co-ordinated strategy for employment

  Commission Communication on Employment Guidelines for 2000

  Draft Joint Report on Employment for 1999

  Commission Recommendation for a Council Recommendation on the implementation of member states' employment policies

  The discussion will take account of the Community's economic and social objectives (i.e. the Broad Economic Guidelines).

  11-12 November—Helsinki—Ministerial Conference on the Northern Dimension
  No formal agenda

  12 November—Brussels—Accession Conference
  No formal agenda

  12 November—Brussels—Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Adoption of the provisional agenda
  (possible) Approval of the list of "A" items
  Employment

  Proposal for Guidelines for Member States' Employment Policies 2000

  doc. 10992/99/ SOC 302 ECOFIN 159

  Draft Joint Employment Report 1999

  doc. 10993/99 SOC 303 ECOFIN 160 + COR1 (f)

  Commission Recommendation for Council Recommendations on the Implementation of Member States' Employment Policies

  doc. 10994/99 SOC 304 ECOFIN 161

  Any other business

  15-16 November—Brussels—Agriculture Council
  Adoption of the agenda
  Approval of the list of "A" items
  Strategy on environmental integration and sustainable development in the common agricultural policy (in preparation for the Helsinki European Council on 11 and 12 December 1999) 12082/99 AGRI 165 ENV 360
  Beef labelling

  (a) Report by the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the situation regarding the implementation of beef-labelling systems in the different Member States (Art. 19(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97) 12031/99 AGRILEG 163

  414

  (b) Proposals for Regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council

  establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97
  amending Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products 12030/99 AGRILEG 162 CODEC 583
  Progress report
  Proposal for a Council Regulation on measures to promote and provide information on agricultural products in third countries (Item on which a vote may be requested)
  (Legal basis: Art. 37 of the Treaty)
  5386/99 AGRI 7 AGRIFIN 7
  (possible) Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (non-food) (Item on which a vote may be requested)
  (Legal basis: Art. 36 and 37 of the Treaty)
  11375/95 AGRIORG 249 AGRIFIN 220
  (possible) Cotton: Proposals for Council Regulations

  adjusting, for the sixth time, the system of aid for cotton introduced by Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece

  relating to the production aid for cotton

  (possible) Commission information on the banana dossier
  Extension of State aid for small producers

  Austrian delegation's request for authorisation

  Items Within the Competence of the Permanent Representatives Committee
  Dioxin: Progress report
  (possible) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine
  Other business

  Use of hormones as growth promoters (request by the Danish delegation)

  Equal opportunities for men and women and rural development (request by the Swedish delegation)

  Organisation of future work

  415
  15-16 November—Brussels—General Affairs Council
  Adoption of the provisional agenda
  Approval of the list of "A" items
  Horizontal Issues
  Resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament at its part-sessions in Strasbourg on 417 and 25129 October 1999
  Electoral procedure
  European Security and Defence Policy: elements for the Presidency report on military and non-military aspects of crisis management
  Common Strategies
  External Relations
  Negotiations for a development partnership agreement with the ACP states

  preparation for the next Ministerial Conference

  Follow-up of the EU-Russia Summit
  Pakistan; Western Balkans; Indonesia
  Bananas
  WTO: Ministerial Conference in Seattle
  AOB
  Items Likely to Become "A" Points
  Adoption of the EU position for the 12th meeting of the EEA Council
  Adoption of the EU position for the Association Council with Tunisia (16 November 1999)
  Adoption of the EU position for the 5th Association Council with Bulgaria (16 November 1999)
  Adoption of the EU position for the second Co-operation Council with Moldova on 16 November 1999
  (possible) European armaments policy: adoption of the common position

  15-19 November—Strasbourg—European Parliament Plenary
  No agenda yet available

  16 November—Brussels—EEA Council
  No agenda yet available

  18 November—Brussels—Health Council
  No agenda yet available

  22 November—Brussels—Fisheries Council (possible)
  No agenda yet available

  23 November—Brussels—Culture/Audiovisual Council
  No agenda yet available

  23 November—Brussels—Youth Council
  No agenda yet available

  25-26 November—Brussels—Budget Council
  No agenda yet available

  26 November—Brussels—Education Council
  No agenda yet available

  29 November—Brussels—Labour and Social Affairs Council
  No agenda yet available
  416
  29 November—Brussels—ECOFIN Council
  Preparation of the European Council in Helsinki

  Economic policy cooperation, report by the Council Employment

  Joint annual employment report of Council and Commission Employment Guidelines 2000

  Report on reinforced tax policy co-operation

  Effective fight against fraud

  Report by the Council

  Tax Package

  Code of Conduct (Business Taxation)

  Final report

  Taxation of Savings—Political agreement on Draft Directive

  Interest and Royalties—Political agreement on Draft Directive

  Implementation of Stability and Growth Pact
  Financial Services Policy Group

  Report by the Commission

  Amendment of the UCITS Directive

  Political agreement

  Annual Report of the Court of Auditors concerning financial year 1998
  EURO 11—Joint meeting with Labour and Social Affairs Council (Employment Guidelines 2000 and joint annual employment report)

  30 November—Brussels—Telecommunications Council
  No agenda yet available

  30 November-3 December—Seattle—WTO Ministerial Conference
  No formal agenda.

  European Calendar: November 1999—April 2000
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  November 1999

  2

  Dubai

  EU-Gulf Co-operation Council (EU-GCC 9th Joint Council)

  3-4

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  8

  Brussels

  Consumer Affairs Council

  9

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  11

  Brussels

  Development Council

  11

  Brussels

  Standing Committee on Employment

  11-12

  Helsinki

  Ministerial Conference on the Northern Dimension

  12

  Brussels

  Accession Conference

  12

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  15-16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  15-16

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  15-19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  EEA Council

  18

  Brussels

  Health Council

  22

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  23

  Brussels

  Culture/Audiovisual Council

  23

  Brussels

  Youth Council

  25-26

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  26

  Brussels

  Education Council

  29

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  29

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  30

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  30 November-3 December

  Seattle

  WTO Ministerial Conference

  December 1999

  30 November-3 December

  Seattle

  WTO Ministerial Conference

  1-2 December

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  2

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  417

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  2

  Brussels

  Research Council

  2-3

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  6-7

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  7

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  7

  Brussels

  Accession Conference

  7-8

  Brussels

  EU-ACP Ministerial Meeting (probable)

  9-10

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  10-11

  Helsinki

  European Council

  13

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  13-14

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  13-17

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  14-15

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  14-16

  Brussels

  Ministerial Conference on Follow-up of Progress on UN Beijing Platform for Action

  16-17

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  January 2000

  14

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  17-21

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  18

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  24-25

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24-25

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  28-29

  Lisbon

  Development Council (Informal)

  31

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  February 2000

  2-3

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  11-12

  Lisbon

  Social Affairs Council (Informal)

  14-15

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  14-18

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  21-22

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  21-23

  Vilamoura

  San Jose Meeting

  23-25

  Vilamoura

  Rio Group Meeting

  28

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  March 2000

  1-2

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  3-4

  Lisbon

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  9

  Brussels

  European Conference

  13

  Brussels

  Social Affairs/ECOFIN Council

  13-17

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  20-21

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20-21

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23-24

  Lisbon

  European Council

  27

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  28

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  29-30

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  30

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  April 2000

  3

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  4

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  4

  Cairo

  EU-Africa Summit

  7-8

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council (Informal)

  10-11

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  10-14

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  13

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  15-16

  Oporto

  Environment Council (Informal)

  17-18

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

HOME DEPARTMENT

  "Picking up the Pieces"
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Picking up the Pieces III report from local authorities dated 11 to 13 January. [97273]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office broadly supports the work this group is undertaking to develop better post-disaster psycho-social care arrangements.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what range of national initiatives Her Majesty's Government have employed to reduce drug-related crime since 1997.A [94523]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 October 1999, c.436]: One of the four Key Aims of the Government's drugs strategy is to protect communities from drug related crime. National initiatives introduced since 1997 include the piloting of the new Drug Treatment and Testing Order, for which around £60 million has been earmarked for national roll-out from next year; the Prison Service has been given £76 million over the next three years for tackling drug misuse in prisons, of which in the region of £60 million has been allocated to drug treatment programmes, and up to £20 million over the next three years is being made available to assist in the development of arrest referral schemes to get drug misusing offenders into treatment.

  Travellers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the results of his examination of guidance on the exercise of powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 by the DETR and his Department relating to travellers. [97384]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked for the good practice document "Managing Unauthorised Camping", published jointly by the Home Office and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) in 1998, to be reviewed. This is being carried forward with the DETR and the results will be announced in due course.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what options are available to visitors to the UK who are refused entry and who have no right of appeal against the decision; what steps are taken to make such visitors and their sponsors in the UK aware of those options before they are required to leave the country; and if it is the practice to stamp passports with a symbol indicating that entry has been refused before the visitor has had the opportunity to exercise such options. [97446]

  Mrs. Roche
  A person seeking entry as a visitor, but refused leave to enter is informed in writing that they may contact their High Commission or Consul or anyone else they think may be able to help them. A chief immigration officer will consider any representations made before a
  419
  person's departure. It is normal practice to endorse the passport of a person refused leave to enter at the time the decision is made.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to police forces about sharing information with local housing authorities about persons with previous convictions for burglary who are applying for local authority housing so that those authorities can consider whether to make an offer of accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [97036]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996, local housing authorities are required to have an allocation scheme which sets out their procedures and priorities for allocating social housing. There are a number of classes of household or person who must be given "reasonable preference" under an allocation scheme. This framework is designed to ensure that priority for subsidised housing is given to those with the greatest need.

  Authorities have the power to define which classes of people are eligible for local authority housing. When deciding which classes of people should be non-qualifying, they are entitled to decide on the basis of objective criteria and evidence, whether granting a tenancy to a person is likely to result in disruption to the stability of the community.

  The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions' "Code of Guidance for Local Authorities on the Allocation of Accommodation and Homelessness", which will be published shortly, will recommend that any decision to exclude classes of persons on the grounds of the need to protect the community or reduce levels of crime on an estate should be taken in consultation with relevant organisations in the criminal justice system, in particular the police and probation services.

  We shall consider the need for further guidance on the disclosure of information by the police if necessary.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the draft Freedom of Information Bill to accommodate commitments on environmental information disclosure contained in EU directives and the Aarhus Convention on Access to Environmental Information. [97364]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The consultation paper on the draft Freedom of Information Bill (published 24 May 1999) set out the Government's intention to modify as necessary the general right of access in the Freedom of Information Bill in order to implement the Aarhus Convention (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters) insofar as it relates to access to environmental information.

  The Bill will now contain a provision giving power to the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to the Aarhus Convention as it relates to access to environmental information. Ministers have agreed to this
  420
  change of approach. This will allow for the creation of a free-standing regime for environmental information which will give effect to the Aarhus Convention and the existing European Community Directive on Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment. The current regulations will be revoked.

  Access to environmental information will, therefore, be given in the first instance under the regulations rather than the Bill itself. Freedom of Information legislation will continue to have an effect, however, by placing a duty on authorities to consider any discretion they may have to disclose information in the public interest where it is otherwise exempt under the regulations.

  Firearms Compensation
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims made for compensation for the surrender of handguns and ammunition have(a) been settled and (b) remain outstanding; what has been the total compensation paid to date; and what the final figure is expected to be. [97545]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at the end of October, a total of 74,597 claims under the firearms compensation and exgratia payment schemes had been paid. There are currently 966 claims outstanding, of which 800 are ones where payment offers have been made to the claimants in question and are awaiting acceptance. A total of £88.96 million has been paid out and the final figure is expected to be approximately £90 million.

  Motoring Offences
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use has been made of restorative justice in response to motoring offences involving injury or loss to third parties. [96636]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Where it judges it appropriate and proportional, a court can make a probation order for a motoring offence. Probation service motoring programmes typically include sessions on raising offenders' awareness of the impact on victims. Such programmes often include police or hospital staff presenting information about the impact and injuries resulting from motoring offences and the consequences for victims.

  The Crime Reduction Programme announced last year, contains a restorative justice component. It is evaluating a number of existing restorative justice schemes in order to identify which elements or combination of elements are most effective in reducing crime and at what cost. Some of the schemes will include offenders who have committed motoring offences.

  Defence Exports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is on the manufacture for sale abroad by UK companies of defence and security goods that are illegal in the UK; what action is taken against such companies; and if he will make a statement. [97483]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The kinds of weapons used by military and security forces are prohibited under the provisions of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. This
  421
  means that no company may manufacture such weapons without the written authority of the Secretary of State. In order to obtain such an authority, an applicant must show that there is a compelling reason for possessing prohibited weapons, that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with prohibited weapons and that they will be stored under conditions of security commensurate with the danger to the public posed by such weapons.

  Authorities are carefully conditioned to restrict to the minimum genuinely needed, the numbers and types of prohibited weapons the authority holder is allowed to possess. They are also specifically conditioned to restrict the purposes for which the holder may possess prohibited weapons and how the weapons may be disposed of.

  It is an offence punishable by up to six months' imprisonment, a fine of up to £5,000 or both for a person to breach any of the conditions of an authority. Unauthorised possession of prohibited weapons is punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment, a fine or both. Where it is believed that an offence may have been committed, the information would be passed to the police for investigation. Any decision on whether or not to prosecute in an individual case is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Export sales of such weapons are subject to the export licensing regime. Applications for export licences for prohibited weapons are considered carefully by the Department of Trade and Industry in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence.

  Cross-examination
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement sections 40 and 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. [97408]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Sections 34-40 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provide protection for witnesses from cross-examination by the accused in person. Sections 41-43 provide restrictions on evidence or questions about the complainant's sexual history in proceedings for sexual offences. Rules of Court will be required to govern procedures relating to applications made under both these sets of provisions, and these are currently being prepared with a view to implementation in Spring 2000.

  Police Firearms
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the past five years a Metropolitan Police vehicle has been damaged consequent to the firing of police small arms during an operation; and if he will make a statement. [97407]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that the information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the past five years a firearm held by a Metropolitan Police officer has been fired accidentally in an operational situation; and if he will make a statement. [97398]
  422
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that since 1994, there have been six occasions when a firearm has been discharged accidentally by a Metropolitan Police officer, when employed on an operation.

  Corporate Manslaughter
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to consult on proposals for a new criminal offence of corporate manslaughter; and if he will make a statement. [97217]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are considering what action to take in the light of the Law Commission's report on Involuntary Manslaughter which includes proposals in relation to corporate manslaughter. We will make our proposals known shortly.

  West Midlands Police Authority
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on plans for an upper age limit for lay visitors within the area of the West Midlands Police Authority. [97216]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Lay visiting is the responsibility of individual police authorities and each scheme must evolve to suit local circumstances. The West Midlands Police Authority began introducing an upper age limit of 70 for lay visitors from October 1998.

  Current Home Office guidance to police authorities on lay visiting makes no reference to age limits. However, the separate guidance issued for the Metropolitan Police area states that persons who are under the age of 18 or over the age of 70 will not normally be appointed. All this Home Office guidance, which is advisory, is shortly to be reviewed and the arguments for and against age limits will be considered as part of that process.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans for publishing on the Internet further draft statutory instruments to be made under the Data Protection Act 1998. [97886]

  Mr. Straw
  Drafts of a further six statutory instruments will be published on the Internet at www.homeoffice.gov.uk on Tuesday 9 November. I am also placing copies in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Internal Histories
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those internal histories(a) commissioned under his Government and (b) currently in progress. [95307]

  The Prime Minister
  No central record is required for histories commissioned by Departments for their own purposes. Two internal histories have been commissioned since the General Election and work on them is under way. It is the established practice under section 10 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to a planned or
  423
  potential publication. After completion, consideration will be given on an individual basis under the Public Records Acts for their release to the Public Record Office.

  Bilderberg Meetings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what official records are kept of attendance by Government Ministers at Bilderberg meetings. [95784]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him of 20 May 1999,Official Report, column 402. Records of meetings attended by Government Ministers are not held centrally.

  Pensions
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 20 October 1999,Official Report, column 435, what the basis was for his statement that the average pensioner is currently receiving more than if pensions had been indexed to earnings. [96031]

  The Prime Minister
  In the first three years of this Parliament, pensioners will have received an extra £1.6 billion through the new Winter Fuel Payments and the introduction of the Minimum Income Guarantee. This is more than twice the amount that pensioners would have received from uprating the basic state pension in line with earnings rather than prices.

  As well as being worth more than uprating, our policies for pensioners strike a better balance between benefiting all pensioners and getting more help to those in greatest need. The £100 Winter Fuel Payment goes to every pensioner household, regardless of their income. The Minimum Guarantee means even more help for pensioners on low incomes.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the annual salary of each special adviser employed at 10 Downing Street for each year since 1 May 1997. [96875]

  The Prime Minister
  Special Advisers are paid individually negotiated salaries within a published pay range as follows:

  Salaries

  1997–1998

  £24,349 to £73,484

  1998–1999

  £26,000 to £76,056

  1999–2000

  £26,728 to £78,186

  In line with the practice of previous Administrations, the salaries of individual Special Advisers are not disclosed as this would breach the privacy of the individuals concerned. The exceptions are two of my Advisers—Jonathan Powell and Alastair Campbell—who have additional executive responsibilities and are paid outside this range. Their salaries are each as follows:

  Salaries

  1997–1998

  £87,936

  1998–1999

  £91,014

  1999–2000

  £93,562

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 July 1999,Official Report, column 29, on animal welfare, if the inter-departmental minister group on animal welfare has now been established; if he will list its membership; and if he will set out its terms of reference. [96496]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: Work is under way and continuing on the establishment of inter-departmental ministerial group on animal welfare and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Media Briefings
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister under what circumstances Permanent Secretaries are permitted to brief the media personally. [96712]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: Permanent Secretaries may brief the media on their official responsibilities and they have often done so in relation to their management roles.

  Press Secretary
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister can issue instructions to departmental heads of information. [96339]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: My Chief Press Secretary is appointed under Article 3(3) of the Civil Service (Amendment) Order in Council 1997, which provides him with the necessary executive powers to direct civil servants as appropriate.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates on which the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister has met departmental heads of information since 1 May 1997. [96337]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: My Chief Press Secretary has set up a system of weekly co-ordination meetings between No. 10 and heads of departmental planning units and in addition holds strategy meetings periodically with heads of information to ensure effective co-ordination and presentation of Government policy.

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason Rupert Murdoch was invited to lunch at 10 Downing Street on the occasion of the visit there of President Jiang Zemin; if Tibet was discussed at that meeting; and if he will make a statement. [96340]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: Mr. Murdoch was one of a number of business people with interests in China invited to the lunch. On my discussions with President Jiang Zemin about Tibet, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on 1 November 1999, Official Report, column 4.

  Departmental Leak Investigations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the departmental leak investigations in progress, specifying in each case the nature of material leaked. [96343]
  425
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: I am aware of seven leak investigations that are in progress in Government Departments. They involve various types of material including internal departmental policy documents, operational information and legal advice to a Department. Each Department is responsible for its own security arrangements, including leak investigations.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many leak investigations have been instigated since 1 May 1997; how many have identified the culprit; and what action has been taken in each case. [96344]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: Government Departments have notified the Cabinet Office of a total of 58 leak investigations since 1 May 1997. It has been the normal practice of successive Governments not to disclose information on the outcome of investigations.

  Deaths in Custody
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to the recent petition presented to him about deaths in custody; and if he will make a statement. [97148]

  The Prime Minister
  It is customary when petitions are delivered to my Office for the relevant Government Department to be informed and where appropriate passed to them for consideration. In this case my Office passed the petition to the Home Office in order to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whom I understand met representatives of the United Families and Friends Campaign earlier this year.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister further to his reply to the hon. Member for Buckingham of 26 October 1999,Official Report, column 772, on the intergovernmental conference, if it is his Government's policy to seek a review of the Common Fisheries Policy prior to 2002. [97564]

  The Prime Minister
  The preparatory stage of the review of the Common Fisheries Policy which is due to conclude by the end of 2002 has already started.

  Infant Deaths
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet representatives of the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths to discuss ways in which there could be a more coherent public service response to the causes of unexpected infant deaths. [97716]

  The Prime Minister
  I am aware of the Foundation's excellent work in improving our understanding of the causes of unexpected infant deaths and in prompting an appropriate public response. I understand that the Foundation has developed a strong working relationship with officials at the Department of Health. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health would be happy to meet with representatives of the Foundation should they wish to do so.
  426
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to combine the responsibilities of the Home Office and Department of Health with those of other departments in order(a) to institute infant death response teams of trained police and specialist nurses to visit and support families within 24 hours, (b) to provide for inquests held by specialist pathologists and (c) to institute case conferences to consider and agree the cause of death. [97715]

  The Prime Minister
  The tragedy of death in infancy calls upon the expertise of a number of agencies with shared responsibility for supporting parents who have suffered bereavement. It is already accepted good practice for bereaved families to be visited by a police officer attached to the Coroner's Office and a nurse experienced in bereavement counselling. The benefit of a specialist pathology service for inquests into infant deaths has been recognised and I understand that closer working relationships between paediatric and forensic pathologists are being developed to this end. It is the duty of the Coroner to consider and identify the cause of death.

  Official Engagements
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what his official engagements were between 3.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. on Wednesday 3 November. [97748]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) in the House on 3 November 1999,Official Report, column 285. At 7 p.m. I voted in the division following the debate on Lords Amendment 42 to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.

  Foudry Court Elderly Persons Home
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister which department will answer the letter from the hon. Member for North Essex to him of 29 July concerning the threatened closure of Foudry Court Elderly Persons Home; when it will do so; and which department has responsibility for care of the elderly. [97746]

  The Prime Minister
  The Minister of State, Department of Health, has replied to the hon. Member today. The Department of Health has responsibility for the health and social care of the elderly.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Belize
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development to what projects and in what proportions the United Kingdom's overseas aid to Belize was allocated in each of the years 1990 to 1997. [96178]

  Clare Short
  The requested information is shown:

  Year

  UK assistance to Belize (£000)

  Percentage of total UK bilateral assistance

  1990–91

  6,016

  0.508

  1991–92

  3,674

  0.312

  1992–93

  4,498

  0.332

  1993–94

  6,233

  0.473

  427

  Year

  UK assistance to Belize (£000)

  Percentage of total UK bilateral assistance

  1994–95

  116,886

  1.223

  1995–96

  6,335

  0.446

  1996–97

  7,666

  0.595

  1997–98

  2,383

  0.176

  1 This figure reflects a large CDC investment of £11,487,000—the bulk of which went on hydro-electric power

  Note:

  This expenditure was predominantly in the following sectors: Agriculture and Livestock, Forestry, Fishing, Roads, Energy, Public Administration and Education.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list assets sold by her Department and their value item by item in each year from 1991–92 to 1998–99; and if she will estimate the value of asset sales planned to be made in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [97723]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures she proposes to(a) increase the standard of living of the residents of St. Helena and (b) improve access to St. Helena; and if she will make a statement. [97385]

  Clare Short
  The framework for St. Helena's development over the period 1997/98–1999/2000, and the level and scope of HMG development assistance, is set out in the Country Policy Plan agreed by HMG and the St. Helena Government in 1997 (a copy of which is in the Library). A new Country Policy Plan (CPP), for the period 2000/01–2003/04, is scheduled to be agreed by the end of 1999. Discussions on the new CPP and on access issues will take place on St. Helena between 2-10 December 1999.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Historic Churches
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations he has made to Ministers on the reduction of VAT on conversion schemes for historic churches. [96163]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for the Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). I have raised the Church's concerns directly with my colleagues at the Treasury responsible for the oversight of the ongoing review of charity taxation. Following the latest submission of evidence and the overwhelming support given by General Synod to changes in the VAT regime as it affects the Church, we have written to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seeking a meeting to expand on the thrust of the Church's case.
  428
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations he has made to Ministers on the reduction of VAT on conversion projects for historic churches. [96165]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I refer to my answer given to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). As the representative of the Church Commissioners, I am in frequent touch with colleagues in Government and have raised the Church's concerns in connection with VAT and listed buildings in support of the various submissions made by the Church to the ongoing charity tax review.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on his policy on the use of land for which the Church Commissioners are responsible for the cultivation of GM crops. [96157]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The issue of whether Commissioners' land should be leased to allow trials of genetically modified crops to take place is being initially considered by the Church's Ethical Investment Working Group (EIWG), which develops a co-ordinated investment policy for the Church. The EIWG has been studying and consulting widely on the potential impact genetically modified technology could have on current farming practices, biodiversity and the environment. It has not yet concluded its research.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Young People)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by unit of delivery the number of jobs lasting less than 13 weeks gained by 18-24 year olds from the New Deal since January 1998. [95088]

  Ms Jowell
  The information showing the number of young people who had gained a job from New Deal and returned to claim the Jobseekers Allowance or returned to a New Deal Option within 13 weeks, by Unit of Delivery, is given in the following table. The figures include both subsidised and unsubsidised jobs. Also shown are the numbers gaining jobs that were sustained, lasting for 13 weeks or more. Job turnover is normal in a healthy labour market, especially among young people who need to try different jobs and accumulate experience to establish themselves successfully in the labour market. It is vital that those young people returning to unemployment after a short spell in work are given the support and encouragement they need to build on that experience and use it to find another job quickly. It is this kind of sustained help that sets New Deal above previous labour market policies.
  429

  From January 1998 to the end of July 1999

  Unit of delivery

  Young people into jobs lasting less than 13 weeks

  Young people into jobs lasting 13 weeks or more

  Scotland

  Tayside

  439

  1,247

  Ayrshire

  400

  1,087

  Borders

  71

  204

  Dumfries & Galloway

  96

  319

  Dunbarton

  185

  511

  Edinburgh, East & Mid Lothian

  321

  885

  Fife

  309

  803

  Forth Valley

  230

  654

  Glasgow

  687

  1,606

  Grampian

  149

  355

  Moray, Strathspay & Badenoch

  66

  128

  Lanarkshire

  638

  1,708

  Renfrewshire

  311

  643

  West Lothian

  133

  311

  Argyll & The Islands

  42

  148

  Caithness & Sutherland

  16

  56

  Inverness & Nairn

  38

  116

  Lochaber

  8

  37

  Western Isles

  13

  65

  Orkney

  5

  26

  Ross & Cromarty

  26

  115

  Shetland

  5

  18

  Skye & Lochalsh

  5

  26

  Northern Region

  Newcastle, Gateshead & South Tyneside

  657

  2,077

  Northumberland

  174

  617

  Tyneside North

  148

  456

  Durham North & Durham South

  582

  1,593

  City of Sunderland formerly Wearside

  330

  865

  Tees North & Tees South

  657

  1,437

  North West Region

  Cumbria

  371

  1,305

  Wirral

  432

  1,194

  Blackpool, Fylde & Wyre

  134

  349

  Bolton

  168

  376

  Bury

  93

  216

  Central Lancashire

  208

  456

  Cheshire

  276

  678

  City Pride Manchester

  873

  2,167

  East Lancashire

  312

  786

  Halton & Warrington

  223

  557

  Knowsley

  237

  725

  Liverpool

  614

  1,886

  North Lancashire

  104

  322

  Oldham

  158

  366

  Rochdale

  175

  509

  Sefton

  202

  789

  St. Helens

  155

  419

  Stockport

  123

  383

  W. Lancashire

  94

  198

  Wigan

  193

  576

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Sheffield

  430

  1,346

  Rotherham

  348

  1,030

  South Humber

  500

  1,002

  Calderdale & Kirklees

  498

  1,163

  Barnsley & The Dearne

  331

  894

  Bradford

  445

  1,250

  Hull & East Coast formerly Hull

  651

  1,571

  430

  From January 1998 to the end of July 1999

  Unit of delivery

  Young people into jobs lasting less than 13 weeks

  Young people into jobs lasting lem13 weeks or more

  Leeds

  482

  1,070

  North Yorkshire

  267

  802

  Wakefield & Doncaster

  626

  1,626

  Wales

  West Wales

  258

  902

  Swansea

  329

  1,170

  North West Wales

  162

  676

  Powys

  39

  123

  Ceredigion

  28

  171

  North East Wales formerly Flintshire & Wrexham

  138

  436

  North Wales Coast

  81

  312

  Cardiff & Vale

  301

  775

  Bridgend & Glamorgan Valleys

  322

  892

  Heads of the Valley & Caerphilly

  356

  1,042

  Newport, Torfaen & Monmouth

  280

  625

  West Midlands

  Black Country

  1,116

  2,903

  Birmingham

  766

  2,090

  Solihull

  113

  274

  Staffordshire

  575

  1,416

  Hereford & Worcester

  260

  799

  Coventry

  212

  671

  Warwickshire

  129

  352

  Shropshire

  225

  487

  East Midlands

  Southern Derbyshire

  380

  1,076

  Cambridge TTWA

  133

  391

  North Derbyshire

  226

  683

  Leicestershire

  330

  919

  Lincolnshire

  246

  759

  Norfolk

  326

  967

  West Norfolk

  61

  201

  Northamptonshire

  205

  564

  Greater Nottingham

  430

  1,122

  North Nottinghamshire

  302

  742

  Peterborough

  186

  439

  Suffolk

  177

  498

  Waveney

  100

  243

  South West Region

  Cornwall

  408

  1,690

  Bath & NE Somerset and N. Somerset

  128

  383

  Bristol & South Gloucestershire formerly Central Bristol

  310

  822

  Dorset

  228

  760

  Exeter & East Devon

  149

  403

  Torbay & South Devon formerly South Devon

  156

  548

  North Devon

  96

  289

  Gloucesterhisre

  189

  581

  Plymouth

  272

  823

  Somerset

  197

  569

  Wiltshire & Swindon formerly Wiltshire

  185

  525

  London and South East Region

  Eastbourne & Hastings formerly Eastbourne

  209

  547

  Lambeth

  271

  796

  Harlow

  43

  123

  431

  From January 1998 to the end of July 1999

  Unit of delivery

  Young people into jobs lasting less than 13 weeks

  Young people into jobs lasting 13 weeks or more

  Hackney & City

  311

  978

  Hertfordshire

  217

  837

  Brighton

  165

  528

  Canterbury

  180

  541

  Channel

  174

  474

  Chatham

  300

  889

  Crawley

  41

  130

  Croydon & Bromley

  337

  954

  Guildford

  78

  283

  Lewisham

  246

  718

  Maidstone, Dartford & West Kent

  160

  516

  Southwark

  221

  584

  Greenwich

  188

  575

  Bexley

  91

  262

  Sutton, Merton, Esher, Kingston, Epsom

  204

  604

  Wandsworth

  130

  331

  West Sussex Coastal Plain

  60

  238

  South Essex

  397

  1,249

  North Essex formerly North & Mid Essex

  241

  763

  Edgware & Leaside

  323

  1,165

  North East London

  268

  931

  Havering, Barking & Dagenham

  196

  564

  Newham

  230

  717

  Tower Hamlets

  170

  608

  Camden & North Islington

  195

  696

  Ealing & Hillingdon formerly Ealing

  185

  592

  Bedfordshire & Luton

  215

  562

  Milton Keynes & N. Buckinghamshire

  67

  202

  Mid Hants

  36

  167

  Oxfordshire

  90

  290

  Portsmouth & SE Hampshire

  254

  666

  Isle of Wight

  80

  329

  Reading

  110

  214

  Slough

  184

  459

  Southampton & SW Hampshire

  165

  497

  Wembley

  213

  707

  Westminster

  51

  191

  Hounslow & Richmond

  116

  345

  Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea

  114

  407

  Great Britain1

  35,100

  99,466

  1 Denotes a private sector led Unit of Delivery

  Note:

  Great Britain excludes those for whom no Unit of Delivery is recorded on the New Deal Evaluation Database

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  New Deal (Lone Parents)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many lone parents had been invited to join the New Deal for Lone Parents by the end of July. [95515]

  Ms Hodge
  The number of lone parents invited to join the New Deal for Lone Parents between the national roll-out of the programme on 26 October 1998 and the end of July was 406,440. The total number of invitations, including the earlier pilot phases of the programme which 432
  began on 21 July 1997, is 457,052. Letters inviting participation in the New Deal for Lone Parents programme are sent to lone parents who are in receipt of Income Support and whose youngest child is aged at least 5 years and 3 months. Some 80,130 lone parents have attended an initial interview (including those outside the target group and early starters who did not receive an invite) and some 89 per cent. of these agreed to join the caseload and 26 per cent. of these have found jobs.

  New Deal (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in Oxfordshire have moved into permanent jobs through the New Deal programme; and what is the average cost to public funds of each new permanent job created. [95996]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: In the Oxfordshire Unit of Delivery, 303 young people have gained sustained employment through the New Deal for Young People since it started in April 1998 to the end of August 1999. In addition, 70 people aged 25+ have gained sustained employment through the New Deal in the Oxfordshire Unit of Delivery.

  At the end of August 1999, 365 young people were participating in the New Deal. A further 255 people aged 25+ were participating in the New Deal for Long-term Unemployed People aged 25 and over.

  As at June 1999, for the group of people who entered New Deal in Oxfordshire in the period July to September 1998, the average cost to public funds of each job found was £2,088.

  New Deal (North-east)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 18 to 24 year olds have started New Deal in(a) the area covered by the Government Office for the North East and (b) Tynemouth broken down by (i) employer, (ii) full time education, (iii) the voluntary sector (iv) the environment task force and (v) other. [96859]

  Ms Jowell
  In the period ending August 1999, the table shows the number of young people who have jointed New Deal and the number who have gone on to join an option for(a) Employment Service Northern region, and (b) Tynemouth constituency.

  Northern region

  Tynemouth

  Starts to New Deal

  25,800

  640

  Starts to Employer option

  1,940

  28

  Starts to FTET

  6,020

  160

  Starts to VS

  1,580

  36

  Starts to ETF

  1,710

  14

  Leavers from Gateway to unsubsidisedjobs

  4,380

  136

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  GCSE Achievement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities have asked for a variation of the national target
  433
  for GCSE achievement in 2002; what variations have been agreed; and what reasons for variation have been accepted in each case. [95897]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: The national targets for GCSE achievement in 2002 cover all pupils in England. It is not open to local education authorities to seek to vary the national targets.

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of the Labour and Social Affairs Council held in Luxembourg on 22 October; and if he will make a statement. [96775]

  Ms Jowell
  I represented the UK at this meeting of the Council.

  The Council was dominated by discussion of the employment package. Discussion will continue during November, with a final version of the package due for submission to the Helsinki European Council on 11-12 December.

  The Council welcomed the Commission's proposals for amendments to the Employment Guidelines for 2000. On Commission proposals for Council recommendations on the implementation of member states' employment policies, the UK led a discussion which sought to ensure support for the principle of recommendations. The majority of the Council members endorsed this approach.

  The Council heard a progress report from the Presidency on a draft Council decision to establish the Employment Committee. The Presidency also reported on the negotiations for a Community programme to promote the social integration of refugees.

  The Council agreed conclusions welcoming a new action programme to promote equality between men and women and conclusions noting a Presidency report on member states' implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action.

  The Commission Communication on a strategy for modernising social protection was warmly welcomed by most member states.

  Mature Students
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the number of mature students at universities and other higher education establishments for the years(a) 1989, (b) 1994 and (c) 1999; and if he will make a statement. [97370]

  Mr. Wicks
  Information for 1999–2000 is not yet available. The most recent data are shown in the table.

  Mature1Home Domiciled Higher Education Students2 in Great Britain

  1989–90

  1994–95

  1998–99

  Full-time

  234,755

  441,011

  430,978

  Part-time

  338,823

  505,619

  630,603

  Total

  573,583

  946,630

  1,061,581

  1 Postgraduates aged 25 or over, and undergraduates aged 21 or over.

  2 Higher education and further education establishments including the Open University.

  Educational Maintenance Allowance Pilots
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total amount top-sliced from the SSA discretionary awards budget to pay for the Educational Maintenance Allowance Pilots in 1999–2000. [97548]

  Mr. Wicks
  None. The Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) Pilots have been funded entirely from new money provided for this purpose. The transfer from local education authority discretionary awards is being used to contribute to the costs of the access funds and specific help for residential students and for childcare. These new arrangements will mean more spending on students than would have been the case had the discretionary awards scheme continued.

  EMAs have the potential to make a real difference to young people's life chances. Early indications are that they are having a positive impact in the pilot areas.

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to make a decision concerning the application of Bolton Institute of Higher Education to become a university. [97362]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to be able to announce a decision before the end of the year.

  "Voices" Magazine
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many copies of "Voices" magazine have been published; how many have been distributed and to whom; and what was the cost of publishing this magazine. [97311]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 5 November 1999]: 20,000 copies of the "Voices" magazine were published. The publishing and production costs were £59,976.80. The cost of the publication was shared in part with other Government Departments.

  Every copy of "Voices" has been distributed. Copies were sent to approximately 2,000 women who attended the Listening to women roadshows, as promised to them, the Women's National Commission, all GP's surgeries and Primary Health Care Directors and NHS and Local Authority Chief Executives, Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, media contacts and individual requests from members of the public, universities, local authority services etc. Copies were sent to the Parliamentary Library, Cabinet Ministers, women MPs and Peers, The Welsh Assembly, The Scottish Executive and the Scottish Women's Forum, The Northern Ireland Executive, Women MEPs, three EU Commissioners, Civil Service Departments and appropriate branch heads. There is a significant demand for "Voices" from a wide range of sources, so a re-print of 10,000 copies has been ordered to meet these requests. This will cost a further £17,439. Copies of "Voices" will be distributed to all public libraries shortly. Copies have been sent to the UN, the European Commission and overseas contacts.
  435
  The Key points, Government actions and contact numbers in "Voices" were also published in a summary leaflet. Approximately 250,000 leaflets were printed at a cost of £12,927 and these are being distributed through retail outlets (Bhs and Mothercare) and GP surgeries to ensure we reached as many women as possible.

  Student Identification Numbers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in developing a unique student identification number. [97488]

  Mr. Wicks
  The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, chaired by Lord Dearing, recommended in July 1997 that works be undertaken over the medium term on the creation of a framework for data about lifelong learning, using a "unique student record number".

  Since then a number of important developments have taken place—notably the introduction this term of a national system of "unique pupil numbers" to facilitate the statistical tracking of pupils through the school system. The potential for extending the use of the unique pupil number (or some alternative) beyond school needs to be reviewed, not only in relation to the Dearing recommendation, but also in the light of developments in post 16 education and training policy as a whole.

  The contribution of a unique student record number to the creation of a framework of data on lifelong learning (the real aim of the Dearing recommendation rather than the unique student record number in itself) would however take a great many years to materialise, because the number could be used only to reference learning episodes occurring from that point on. As an interim measure, we are therefore carrying out a technical evaluation of the possibility of accumulating data on individuals' learning experience by means of so-called "fuzzy matching" based on (for example) names and dates of birth. This approach too has its limits, given the increasing incidence of name changes with age. The aim in the first instance is to cover learning up to age 21, with a view subsequently to extending that up to age 25.

  Careers Advice
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice he has circulated to local authorities and contractors about the relative priority in careers advice to be given to young people studying for qualifications(a) at Level 3, (b) at Level 2 and (c) at or below Foundation Level. [97486]

  Mr. Wicks
  Careers services are required by contract to ensure that all young people get the careers information and guidance at whatever level they study. They must do this in close partnership with schools and colleges in order to provide the right help at the right time for each individual student. The Secretary of State has asked careers services to focus their resources on those most at risk of dropping out or under-achieving, to ensure that they remain in learning after they have left school.

  Nurses
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance Her Majesty's436
  Government have given to universities which employ nurses on the relationship between pay awards for nurses employed by universities and those employed by the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [97671]

  Mr. Wicks
  Neither my Department nor the Higher Education Funding Council for England has issued guidance to higher education institutions on the pay of nurses. The terms and conditions of nurses employed by universities and colleges are matters for them as the employer.

  Educational Exchanges
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the development of educational and youth international exchanges. [97484]

  Mr. Wicks
  The UK fully participates in European Union education programmes including SOCRATES and LEONARDO which enable exchange opportunities for teachers, lecturers, pupils, students and young people in vocational training. Both programmes have recently been renegotiated and expanded.

  The European Commission has recently published proposals for a new youth programme to develop the exchange programmes currently funded under Youth for Europe and the European Voluntary Service for Young People.

  The Government fund the Central Bureau for International Education and Training and the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers to organise educational exchanges. Both organisations are modernising their programmes in the light of the Green Paper, "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change", which proposed a major new programme of international development opportunities for teachers. Pilots of the new programme are currently operating. We intend to announce plans for the new programmes next year.

  National Academic Recognition and Information Centre
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the(a) current operations and (b) use made of the National Academic Recognition and Information Centre. [97487]

  Mr. Wicks
  The UK National Academic Recognition and Information Centre (NARIC) is one of a number of such centres established under the SOCRATES EC education programme. It also forms part of a wider group of European Centres established through the Council of Europe. Both these networks promote the mobility of students by providing them and institutions with information and advice on the comparability of academic qualifications from other countries: UK NARIC handle over 26,500 such inquiries per year. The UK NARIC' s responsibilities also include researching and evaluating foreign qualifications, compiling a newsletter to universities and colleges and others, and organising and participating in meetings, seminars and conferences to disseminate information.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current net yield of tuition fees at higher education institutions in England. [97656]

  Mr. Wicks
  Figures for the current net yield of tuition fees at the higher education institutions in England are not yet available.

  The higher education funding plans assumed that institutions in England will receive private income from home and EU students starting full-time undergraduate courses for 1998–99 as follows: £130 million in 1998–99; an extra £105 million in 1999–2000; and, compared with 1998–99, an extra £203 million in 2000–01. Over this period, the higher education sector will retain all the income from student contributions to fees and receive extra public funding on top. Figures for 2001–02 will be announced later.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements his Department has made to ensure that higher education institutions do not breach the prohibition on top-up fees. [97657]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has imposed a condition on the grant to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) for 1999–2000 under section 26(4) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. Any institution which charges, or announces its intention to charge, top-up fees to students who have been assessed as eligible to be considered for fee support could incur financial penalties. With the assistance of HEFCE, the Department has been monitoring the charges made by individual institutions to ensure that top-up fees are not levied.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students are wholly or partly exempted from paying tuition fees; what proportion that represents of the student body; and what is the range of that proportion between the various higher education institutions. [97655]

  Mr. Wicks
  The first data on local education authority financial support, for the student tuition fees introduced in 1998–99, will be available in April 2000, from returns collected retrospectively from local education authorities in England and Wales.

  These data will show the number of locally-domiciled students who, are income assessment, have had their fees paid (i) in part; and (ii) in full by their local education authority, and the number of students who paid their own tuition fees in full. It will not be possible to identify payments made to individual institutions from these data.

  Student Support (Fraud)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on measures designed to curtail fraud in the student support system. [97489]

  Mr. Wicks
  There are a number of well established measures to combat fraud in the student support system. All applications for higher education places submitted through the Universities and Colleges Admissions 438
  Services (UCAS) are scrutinised by HUNTER, a specialist computer system which checks for suspect applications. The UCAS Verification Unit—which received £50,000 in grant aid from my Department this year—investigates individual cases arousing suspicion. It also shares information with local education authorities (LEAs), which assess eligibility for support; the Student Loans Company (SLC), which is responsible for most payments; and higher education institutions, which confirm student attendance on their courses. The LEAs and SLC make their own complementary checks including scrutiny of supporting documentary evidence, and the SLC carries out its own investigations using the HUNTER system.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies he has undertaken into the relative values of grades awarded at GCE A Level. [97490]

  Mr. Wicks
  No specific studies of the relative value of GCE A level grades have been carried out either by the Department or the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. However, QCA regularly monitors A levels to ensure consistency in grading standards across different syllabuses, subjects and awarding bodies, and over time, as part of its normal evaluation programme.

TREASURY

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish(a) a list of assets sold by his Department and their value, item by item, in each year from 1991–92 to 1998–99 and (b) an estimate of the value of asset sales planned to be made in the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [95092]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the cost of restoring the married couple's allowance to the pre-1992 Budget level at today's prices. [96865]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 1991–92 the married couple's allowance for couples under 65 was £1,720 and reduced the taxpayer's taxable income. If this allowance were increased in line with inflation to 1999–2000 and still given as a deduction from income, the cost would be around £4 billion. This estimate is based on the 1997–98 survey of personal incomes, projected to 1999–2000 consistent with the March 1999 Budget forecast.

  Climate Change Levy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has assessed the impact on the UK brick industry of the climate change levy; and if he will make a statement. [96893]
  439
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on the(a) food processing and manufacturing industry, (b) chemical industry and (c) aluminium industry. [96958]

  Mr. Timms
  It is not possible to say at this stage what the effect of the climate change levy will be on individual industries. That will depend on the final design of the levy, including the rates set for the energy intensive sectors covered by the current negotiations with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons electrolysis of aluminium is to be excluded from the climate change levy. [96965]

  Mr. Timms
  The exemption for electricity used for electrolysis in certain applications including primary smelting of aluminium, announced by the former Economic Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), is designed to mirror the exemption for gas and coal used in chemical reactions.

  Excise Duty (Beer)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with EU member states and the Commission regarding the harmonisation of excise duty on beer. [97543]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Item sold

  Year of sale

  Sale proceeds (£000)

  Cabinet Office

  Government Buildings, Leatherhead Road, Chessington

  1997–98

  13,670

  Crown Buildings, Alencon Link, Basingstoke

  1999–2000

  1,300

  Civil Service College

  Parcel of land—Sunningdale Park, Ascot

  1997–98

  22

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  Metropolitan Telephone Service related assets

  1996–97

  1 4,000

  1 Assets were transferred as part of a deal under the Private Finance Initiative, payment for the assets will be made over a period of 10 years from the date of sale.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what methods of depreciation her Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [97041]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  In the preparation of the 1999–2000 Cabinet Office resource account, depreciation will be provided on a straight line basis calculated to write off the valuation of fixed assets over their estimated useful lives. The method of depreciation is in accordance with the Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual, the requirements of which are underpinned by Financial Reporting Standard 15 'Tangible Fixed Assets', issued by the Accounting Standards Board.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is the current entitlement to severance pay for

  Energy Discounts
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research has been conducted into the impact on less energy-intensive firms and sectors of granting significant discounts to energy-intensive operations; and how this has affected the levels and extent of such discounts. [97379]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government aim to design the climate change levy in a way which maximises environmental effectiveness while safeguarding competitiveness. The Government have received a number of representations about the effects of the climate change levy and the rates that might apply to different sectors, which we will be considering carefully when finalising the design of the levy. The Chancellor has indicated that he intends to say more about the design of the climate change levy in the 9 November Pre-Budget Report.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the assets sold by her Department and their value, item by item, in each year from 1991–92 to 1998–99; and if she will estimate the value of asset sales planned to be made in 1999–00 and 2000–01. [96900]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 22 February 1999,Official Report, columns 39-40. In addition, the following information is also available for:

  Secretaries of State who have resigned; and what was the amount spent on such severance pay in the last 12 months, broken down by ministry. [97390]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Under the terms of section 4 of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, Ministers are entitled to receive a severance payment of one quarter of their final annual ministerial salary when they leave office. This applies as long as the individual is under the age of 65 and is not appointed to another relevant Ministerial or other paid office within three weeks of their leaving office. The Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor are not included in this scheme.

  The amounts spent on Ministerial severance pay by each department since 27 October 1998 are as follows:

  Department

  Amount (£)

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  13,907.75

  Cabinet Office

  11,787.25

  Culture, Media and Sport

  6,329.75

  Defence

  25,991.75

  441

  Department

  Amount (£)

  Education and Employment

  6,329.75

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  12,659.50

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  8,339.75

  Health

  11,787.25

  HM Treasury

  11,208

  Trade and Industry

  11,300.25

  Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland

  20,237.50

  Welsh Office

  17,630

  Total

  157,508.50

HEALTH

  Health Services (Merseyside and Sefton)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce health inequalities(a) on Merseyside and (b) in Sefton. [94651]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Merseyside Health Action Zone is already developing and implementing plans to reduce health inequalities across the whole of Merseyside, including Sefton.

  Health Action Zones are the main plank of the Government's strategy to reduce health inequalities by targeting resources at areas which have greatest health needs related to poverty and social exclusion. Extra resources are being made available to the Merseyside HAZ partnership to tackle this agenda.

  The Merseyside HAZ programme is designed to integrate with other Government initiatives to tackle social exclusion by focusing on marginalised and hard to reach groups. Major themes include employment and Merseyside wide healthy schools initiatives. In its first year the HAZ will fund work to assess the 'Health Impact' of the Merseyside Transport Plan and local Housing Investment Programmes.

  During 1999–2000 the HAZ is to make £1.6 million available as a match against European Objective 1 Urban Moneys, supporting regeneration initiatives in some of the most deprived areas of Merseyside.

  Blood
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the number of cord blood units held in each of the cord blood banks in the UK; [94420]

  (2) what is the target for the number of units of cord blood to be held by each cord blood bank; what progress is being made towards achieving the target; [94422]

  (3) what is the present level of stocks held by the cord blood service at Edgware; and if he will make a statement. [94820]
  442
  Mr. Denham
  The actual and target number of units of cord blood held in each of the National Blood Service banks is:

  Bank

  Donations

  Targets

  London

  3,159

  10,000

  Newcastle

  500

  1,000

  Bristol

  749

  1,500

  Total

  4,408

  12,500

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the percentage of cord blood stocks held at each cord blood bank, broken down by ethnic group. [94419]

  Mr. Denham
  The percentage of cord blood stocks by ethnic group held by the National Blood Service is as follows:

  European Caucasoid—67 per cent.

  Non-European Caucasoid—21 per cent.

  African and Afro-Caribbean—9 per cent.

  Oriental—1.5 per cent.

  Others—1.5 per cent.

  The majority of non-caucasoid donations are stored at the London cord blood bank based in Edgware.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health over the last three years, to which countries overseas cord blood has been made available from the UK. [94418]

  Mr. Denham
  Over the last three years, cord blood donations have been made available by the National Blood Service in England to Australia, Hong Kong, France, Spain, United States of America, Italy and Portugal.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in each of the last three years received cord blood donation; for what conditions; and with what survival rate. [94417]

  Mr. Denham
  Since 1996, six children have received cord blood transplants in the United Kingdom. One cord blood unit was supplied from the Newcastle Cord Blood Bank, three from the United States of America, one from Italy, and one from Germany. Five out of the six units were provided for malignant diseases, of which 4 were for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and one for myeloproliferative disease. One transplant was for a genetic disorder, Falconi's anaemia.

  Of the five children who received transplants for malignant disease, two died of infection, and one has relapsed. The fourth is too early to assess, but the fifth is doing well one year after transplantation. The patient with Falconi's anaemia is also doing well 11 months after the transplant.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available for each of the last three years, for the development of cord blood transplantation services(a) throughout the UK and (b) at Edgware. [94416]

  Mr. Denham
  Approximately £4 million has been spent by the National Blood Service on the development of cord blood banking in England. Approximately £3.5 million of this investment has been in the London cord blood bank.
  443
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy towards developing cord blood transplantation services. [94421]

  Mr. Denham
  The use of cord blood in the treatment of various diseases in children, including leukaemia, is a new development. This high technology treatment raises questions about clinical benefits, bioethics and availability within the National Health Service. We have therefore asked the four UK blood services to address these issues and to make joint recommendations for the future collection and storage of cord blood in the UK. We are currently considering their report.

  Bone Marrow Donor
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the percentage broken down by ethnic group of bone marrow donors. [94423]

  Mr. Denham
  There are two bone marrow donor registers: the British Bone Marrow Register and The Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust. Both are working actively to encourage donor recruitment from black and ethnic minority groups through publicity campaigns. The Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust has around 300,000 donors on its register and holds a breakdown of the percentage of donors by ethnic groups on its register which is shown in the table. The British Bone Marrow Register (BBMR) holds 100,000 donors but does not hold a similar breakdown by ethnic groups.

  Donor figures: ethnic minority groups on the Anthony Nolan register as of 30 September 1999 (by percentage)

  Group

  Percentage

  African

  0.4

  African-Caribbean

  2.2

  Asian

  1.2

  Eastern European

  0.1

  Hispanic

  0.02

  Jewish

  1.9

  Mediterranean

  0.7

  Middle eastern

  0.03

  Oriental

  0.1

  Other (usually mixed race)

  1.6

  Unknown1

  14.8

  N. European White

  77

  Total of Non-white

  8.8

  1 Mostly typed before ANBMT asked about ethnic origin

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the EU countries which fluoridise their water supplies; and if he will make a statement. [94687]

  Yvette Cooper
  Within the European Union, there are water fluoridation schemes where natural fluoride content has been artificially adjusted up to the optimum level of 1 part per million in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Spain.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) scientific and (b) laboratory studies which provide evidence that fluoridation of water supplies reduces tooth decay in humans. [94688]
  444
  Yvette Cooper
  The evidence for the safety and efficacy of fluoridation of water supplies is to be found in the very extensive, relevant published scientific literature. Recent reviews, which contain lists or references, include:WHO Technical Report Series 846: Fluorides and oral health (World Health Organisation, Geneva, 1994). ISBN 92 4 120846 5;
  One in a Million: water fluoridation and dental public health (Public Health Alliance and British Fluoridation Society, 1995). ISBN 1 873514 11 5;
  Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks (Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on fluoride of the committee to co-ordinate environmental health and related programs. Public Health Service. Department of Health and Social Services, USA. February 1991).

  We have commissioned a review which is being undertaken by the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination to assess the evidence on the efficacy and safety of population wide drinking water fluoridation strategies to prevent caries.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 1999,Official Report, column 361, on water fluoridation, how he will measure the significant risks referred to; and what proposals his Department has to monitor such risks post-fluoridation. [93916]

  Yvette Cooper
  The review will assess the scientific evidence from which it has been widely accepted that the fluoridation of water at one part per million is a safe and effective means of reducing tooth decay. We cannot pre-judge its outcome, but if significant risks were identified we would need to review our policy before any further fluoridation schemes were considered.

  Oncologists
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many clinical and medical oncologists there are in each EU country; and if he will make a statement. [94193]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information about the number of clinical and medical oncologists in each European Union country is not available centrally. Information about the number of clinical and medical oncologists in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. The latest available information about the number of clinical and medical oncologists in England is shown in the table.

  Hospital medical staff in clinical and medical oncology specialties in England on 30 September 1998

  Whole-time equivalent

  Clinical oncology (radiotheraphy)

  600

  medical oncology

  260

  Total

  860

  Notes

  Figures rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census, 30 September 1998

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93686]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Contaminated Polio Vaccine
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 21 July 1999,Official Report, column 548, what assessment he has made of the implications of contamination of polio vaccine in the United Kingdom with simian virus 40 between 1955 and 1963, for the development of cancers in humans. [93663]

  Yvette Cooper
  SV40 (simian vacuolating virus 40) is a virus found in some species of monkeys. The polio virus in inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) used in the 1950s and early 1960s was grown on monkey kidneys, some of which have been shown to be potentially contaminated with SV40 virus. Concern about the possible impact of SV40 on the human population was raised in the early 1960s and precautions to prevent contamination were introduced internationally in 1962, shortly after the virus was identified. SV40 has been shown to be oncogenic in certain animals and has been found in several human tumours. It is not known whether SV40 causes the human tumours or whether it is just coincidentally present in the tumours. However, research studies in people who received potentially SV40 contaminated IPV have found no increase in cancers when compared with people who did not receive potentially contaminated IPV.

  The National Institute of Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) has tested stored polio vaccine using the most sensitive available modern molecular biological techniques to check whether the precautions introduced in the 1960s were effective. All the polio vaccines used since 1980 have been shown to be free of SV40 and all vaccines used since 1962 for which samples could be located are also free. Samples of IPV from the 1950s to the 1960s were not available. Serological studies have been conducted with the Public Health Laboratory Service which showed no evidence of increased antibody to SV40 in people receiving polio vaccine. In all ages of the people tested, about 5 per cent. had SV40 virus antibodies, suggesting that the virus may have been present in humans for a very long time and hence these antibodies are unlikely to have come from SV40 contaminated polio vaccine.

  This issue has been considered by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the Government's independent expert advisory committee, which has expressed reassurance as a result of the NIBSC work. NIBSC' s study has been published (Biologicals (1999), vol. 27, pps 1–10) copies of which are available in the Library.

  National Cancer Forum
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the National Cancer Forum has met; at each 446
  meeting what new best practice and joint working projects were established; and if he will make a statement. [94065]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Cancer Forum (NCF) was established to support the implementation of the Calman/Hine cancer blueprint and to advise on specialised issues related to cancer. The Forum has met three times on 19 February 1998, 16 September 1998 and on 25 October 1999 at which I discussed the Government's priorities for cancer. The NCF has identified the need to secure quality and consistency in cancer services through ongoing implementation of Calman/Hine, the development of national standards and performance indicators and the publication of evidence-based guidance as key priorities. Members of the NCF have been working with the Department to take specific pieces of work forward. A number of NCF members were present at the Downing Street cancer summit held in May 1999 where these priorities were ratified and a work programme and action plan agreed. In view of the new agenda set for cancer it will be necessary to reconstitute the NCF to address a revised work programme.

  Cloning
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding the required qualifications and experience for membership of the Chief Medical Officer's expert advisory group on the HFEA/HGAG recommendations on cloning. [93879]

  Yvette Cooper
  Individuals were invited to serve on the expert group in the light of their personal expertise in appropriate areas of science and medicine including genetics, cell biology, reproductive biology, veterinary medicine, haematology, surgery and molecular biology. Three additional members were appointed for their expertise in ethics and law.

  Microwave Transmissions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department has commissioned into the non-thermal effects of microwave transmissions associated with(a) telecommunication masts, (b) mobile telephones and (c) cordless telephones; and if he will make a statement. [93913]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department's Radiation Protection Research Programme has funded a study of the effect of mobile phone frequency radiation (microwaves) on memory and reaction times in humans. The work was carried out at Bristol University and the results were published on 8 April in the International Journal of Radiation Biology. A further study on the effects of radiofrequency radiation on behaviour patterns is being carried out at Chemical and Biological Defence Porton Down. This work is not yet complete.

  In addition, the National Radiological Protection Board, which is sponsored by the Department, is carrying out biological investigations into possible behavioural effects of mobile phone radiation.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the Government have
  447
  (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into any correlation between cattle-associated occupations and bovine tuberculosis in people; and if the recent increase in bovine tuberculosis in cattle has caused an increase in bovine tuberculosis in the local human population. [94537]

  Yvette Cooper
  There is no evidence at present that the increase in bovine tuberculosis in cattle has led to an increase in bovine tuberculosis in the local human population.

  The number of isolates of M.bovis from human cases of bovine tuberculosis in England and Wales has varied from 22 to 37 per year between 1993 and 1998 with no trend to increase or decrease. The numbers of cases arising in those regions of England and Wales with the greatest increase in bovine tuberculosis in cattle (South West, Wales and West Midlands) have remained low and have also varied from year to year with no increasing or decreasing trend.

  If the risk of tuberculosis due to M.bovis infection was increasing in the population generally as a result of bovine tuberculosis in cattle, an increase in tuberculosis notifications in young children (the group least likely to have other explanations for tuberculous infection) might be expected in the part of the country most affected by bovine tuberculosis. The number of cases of tuberculosis notified in children (less than 15 years of age) in the South West Region has remained low between 1993 and 1998. At the request of the Department of Health, the Public Health Laboratory Service has looked at existing data to investigate whether there is a correlation between cattle-associated occupations and bovine tuberculosis. The Department has not commissioned additional research.

  Meningitis Vaccine
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students who had requested meningitis vaccine had not received it before returning to college this autumn; and what action is being taken to make it available to them as quickly as practicable. [94722]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: Meningococcal A + C vaccine was recommended for higher education students starting their first year at university or college. It was recommended that first year students receive the vaccine either before the start of term or when they begin at university/college. Around 550,000 doses of meningococcal A & C vaccine were issued from the end of August, throughout September and into October. This quantity is well in excess of the target population.

  The Department wrote direct to all universities and colleges asking them to ensure that arrangements were in place for the vaccine to be offered to all first year students who had not been immunised. The Department also contacted direct those health centres and general practitioner practices which serve universities and colleges to see how best the vaccine could be delivered to them. The Health Education Authority sent packs of information, including special leaflets, to all universities and colleges so that they could target those first year students who had not been immunised. Publicity was also
  448
  provided through student-focused media. Local implementation of the immunisation programme is managed by the local immunisation co-ordinator.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [94849]

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

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the numbers of patients who left the NHS waiting list for acute surgery because they opted to pay for an operation using private funds in each of the last three years. [95332]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Information requested is not available centrally.

  Fertility Treatment
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the issuing of national guidance for fertility treatment available on the NHS. [95165]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists intend to publish their third, and final, set of evidence based clinical guidelines on infertility in January 2000.

  Pathology Services
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for further allocation of resources to improve pathology services from the modernisation fund. [95708]

  Mr. Denham
  Ministers are considering the allocation process and amounts for future years. An announcement about 2000–2001 will be made in due course.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the process and what criteria are used to determine successful bids for resources to improve pathology services under the modernisation fund. [95694]

  Mr. Denham
  The process and criteria for the 1999–2000 Pathology Modernisation Fund are set out in Health Service Circular 1999–170. The criteria for judging the probity of bids for capital investment purposes were taken from the NHS Executive guidance issued in accordance with the Capital Investment Manual.

  MRSA
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of recorded MRSA patients in NHS hospitals in each of the last five years; how many and what proportion of NHS hospitals recorded MRSA outbreaks; and how many and what proportion of NHS hospitals have full-time staff dedicated to the prevention and control of MRSA and related infections. [95661]
  449
  Yvette Cooper
  MRSA infection is not a notifiable disease and therefore the total number of patients in National Health Service hospitals who have MRSA is not recorded centrally. The Public Health Laboratory Service compiles aggregate data on numbers of incidents of MRSA which are reported by trusts. The available data on the incidents of MRSA are given in the table. The number of NHS acute trusts recording MRSA outbreaks are not collected centrally. All NHS acute trusts should have an infection control team which has primary responsibility for, and reports to the chief executive on, all aspects of surveillance, prevention and control of infection, including MRSA. The structure of infection control teams is a matter for local management discretion. Details of the number of whole time equivalent staff dedicated to the prevention and control of MRSA and related infections are not available centrally.

  Incidents1 of MRSA in England and Wales 1994–1998

  Year

  Total

  1994

  1,064

  1995

  1,616

  1996

  2,107

  1997

  22,364

  1998

  31,597

  1 An incident is three or more patients infected or colonised by the same strain of MRSA in the same month from the same hospital

  2 The figures for 1997 and 1998 reflect the new NHS

  3 The criteria for submission of isolates for specialist tests were revised in December 1997

  Public Health White Paper
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have for the implementation of the proposals contained in the Public Health White Paper. [95706]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: We are working across Government and at regional and local levels to implement the wide range of initiatives in the White Paper "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" published on 6 July 1999. We are committed to the achievement of the targets for reducing deaths in the priority areas of cancer, coronary heart disease and stroke, accidents and mental illness and to the establishment of local targets for reducing health inequalities.

  With the White Paper, we issued a circular to health authorities and local authorities setting out the follow-up action they should take together. We shall be publishing at the end of the year a technical supplement which will identify key data sources and aid the local selection and monitoring of targets.

  Cancer Diagnosis
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions have taken place between his Department and representatives of general practitioners regarding guidelines on the levels of clinical suspicion in cancer diagnosis; and when those discussions took place. [95112]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: In May 1999, the Department brought together a Cancer Referral Steering Group, including cancer specialists and general practitioners, including representatives from the Royal College of General Practitioners to lead work to
  450
  develop cancer referral guidelines to help general practitioners identify more easily those patients with symptoms that could be cancer and require urgent investigation. There will be wide ranging consultation on the draft guidelines, nationally and locally, in which GPs and others will be invited to take part.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage employers to provide low-fat meals for employees in order to reduce heart disease. [94931]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: We have funded, through our food and nutrition contract with the Health Education Authority, a variety of projects aimed at providing healthy eating choices in the workplace. The Heartbeat Award for example, encourages workplace caterers to work with local health professionals to help reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease by providing people with access to healthier food choices. Furthermore, in July this year, a video resource called "Tipping the Balance" was launched to show workplace caterers how they can make small but significant changes to their customers' favourite dishes without affecting their popularity. We are also funding a workplace catering pack, which is currently being redeveloped and will become available after pre testing in spring next year. The aim of these measures is to improve the balance of the ingredients used in dishes, and to encourage people to eat less fat and more cereals, fruit and vegetables.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects that the working party set up to assess the state of research into the health implications of mobile telephone usage will report; and if he will make a statement. [95720]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS, FRSE, is expected to report in spring 2000. The group is currently considering the possible health effects from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters and is conducting a rigorous assessment of existing research. A call for evidence has recently been placed in national newspapers and scientific journals.

  Human Infant Organs
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what inquiries he is making into the retention of human infant organs by Alder Hey Hospital. [96255]

  Yvette Cooper
  In view of the concerns raised about the removal and retention of organs (at post-mortem), I have asked the Chief Medical Officer to conduct an investigation. This investigation will look at what has happened not only at the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital (Alder Hey) but in the country generally and at the implications for the National Health Service. Any recommendations relating to Coronial practice emerging from the Chief Medical Officer's investigation, the Bristol Inquiry, or other local reviews will receive full consideration.

  Nurse Recruitment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new nurses have been recruited during each of the past five years; what is the target of new nursing recruits for the next 12 months; what initiatives are being pursued to attract more young people into nursing; and what is the cost of these initiatives. [96251]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of pre-registration diploma and degree recruits into nursing and midwifery training in England over the last five years are:

  Year

  Number

  1994–95

  11,463

  1995–96

  12,364

  1996–97

  13,967

  1997–98

  15,522

  The latest estimate of outturn for 1998–99 is 17,221.

  The number of pre-registration diploma and degree nursing and midwifery recruits planned for 1999–2000 is 19,332.

  We are supporting a number of initiatives to attract more people into nursing, including a national competition run in secondary schools (£100,000), the national nurse recruitment campaign (£5 million), NHS Careers (£500,000), widening access to nurse training and the Positively Diverse initiative. In addition, the Government have implemented in full the Nurse Pay Review Body recommendations for a 12 percent. pay rise for newly qualified staff.

  Nut Allergies
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (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; [96442]

  (2) what information his Department issues concerning anaphylaxis and contact between young children and nut products. [96439]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department of Health asked the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT), an advisory committee comprised of independent experts, to make recommendations to help reduce the prevalence of peanut allergy. The report was published in June 1998 and includes advice to parents of children from atopic families and pregnant mothers from atopic families about sensitisation to peanut products. Copies are available in the Library. In addition, a leaflet "Peanut Allergy—the Facts" which summarises the Committee's advice was sent to all GP surgeries in England. Copies of it are also available in the Library.

  Medical Treatment
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the British Medical Association Guidelines and Code of Practice on Advance Statements about Medical Treatment; and if he will make a statement. [96517]
  452
  Yvette Cooper
  We have considered these Guidelines and Code of Practice carefully. They aim to promote clarity in the area of advance statements to enable their validity and applicability to be decided on a case by case basis.

  Clinical Priority
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he will take to ensure that access to hospital treatment is based on clinical priority. [96648]

  Mr. Denham
  We have made it clear that clinical priority must be the main determinant for when patients are seen in outpatient clinics or when they are admitted to hospital.

  Disabled Children
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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 in each of the last five years. [96443]

  Ms Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information required is not collected centrally.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list his Department's expenditure on cancer services for the last five years; [96239]

  (2) how much extra money he plans to allocate to cancer services; and if this will be provided solely from general taxation; [96241]

  (3) what plans he has to increase the extent of service provision for multi-disciplinary care for (a) breast, (b) ovarian, (c) lung, (d) prostate and (e) colorectal cancers throughout the UK. [96240]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: It is estimated that over 6 per cent. of total Government expenditure on the National Health Service is spent on cancer services. Since 1997, we have provided an additional £70 million into improving breast, colorectal, lung and outpatient cancer services. We will build on this record of achievement. An extra £80 million from the NHS modernisation fund will be invested in cancer services over the next two years. This will support the implementation of the two week outpatient wait for all urgent cancer referrals and work to further improve consistency and equity of access to cancer services through investment in workforce and equipment.

  £93 million is being spent on cancer equipment from the New Opportunities Fund from the National Lottery and a further £23 million is also being set aside from the New Opportunities Fund for palliative care and prevention initiatives.

  Professor Mike Richards will spearhead the drive on cancer within the Department and work with professional groups and the voluntary sector outside to modernise cancer services from prevention through to treatment and care.
  453
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the remit of Professor Michael Richards in relation to Government policy on cancer treatment; and to whom he reports. [96238]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: On 25 October, we announced a package of measures to up the pace of change and deliver faster and more wide ranging improvement to cancer services. This included, for the first time, the appointment of a National Cancer Director. Reporting to Ministers, Professor Mike Richards will spearhead our concerted drive on cancer. He will work in partnership with doctors, nurses, general practitioners, other health professionals and the voluntary sector to improve prevention and modernise cancer services to help ensure equitable access to high quality cancer care. He will work within the Department of Health with executive responsibility.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the figures on the incidence of smoking between 1996 and 1998. [96646]

  Yvette Cooper
  Figures on adult smoking prevalence in 1996 were published in "Living in Britain—results from the 1996 General Household Survey", in March 1998. Key figures from the 1998 General Household Survey, including smoking prevalence among adults aged 16 and over, are due to be published on 1 December 1999 by the Office for National Statistics.

  Figures on regular smoking by young people aged 11 to 15 years in England in 1998 were published by ONS on 14 October 1999 in "Smoking, drinking and drug use among young teenagers in 1998". This report also contained data from earlier surveys in the series, including the survey carried out in 1996.

  Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

  CJD
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with his Scottish counterparts about CJD victims. [96627]

  Yvette Cooper
  None. We remain committed to ensuring that all patients who are suffering from CJD are provided with appropriate and timely health and social care.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [94986]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: 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 published in March this year. A full list of the targets and target dates for Agencies can be found annually in the "Next Steps Report", and for executive
  454
  NDPBs in the "Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies Report", or in the appropriate annual report and accounts. The Departmental Annual Report contains further details of the Department's objectives and targets.

  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.

  Tube Feeding
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will issue guidance on the withholding or withdrawal of tube feeding and hydration from patients who are not terminally ill, following the BMA's own guidance on this issue. [97251]

  Ms Stuart
  We have no plans to publish specific guidance on withholding or withdrawing medical treatment from patients.

  NHS Hearing Tests (Worthing)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the action he proposes to take to cut the delays in providing NHS hearing tests to the over-85s in Worthing; and what the average delay is in non-emergency cases. [97222]

  Mr. Hutton
  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals National Health Service Trust has recently reviewed the skill mix within the Audiology Department to enable increased clinic availability and have recruited two additional qualified audiologists.

  These measures, plus £6,000 of additional funding, will enable the Trust to operate weekend clinics and bring down waiting times for all patients.

  Long-term Care
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many copies of the report of the Centre for Policy on Aging Standards for Care Homes he has made available to consultees; and if he will make a statement. [97155]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 November 1999]: 5,000 copies of the Department's consultation document "Fit for the Future?" were printed. About 1,500 were sent to a wide range of organisations and individuals, representing users, carers, regulators and providers and other interested bodies, for consultation nationally. The others were available for anyone who wished to have a copy. I understand that about 600 copies are still in stock. "Fit for the Future?" is available on the internet to anyone who wishes to see it.

  We will carefully consider all the comments we receive before finalising the standards and the timetable for their implementation.

  School Nurses
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans for the School Nursing Service. [97437]
  455
  Mr. Hutton
  School nurses are often ideally placed to help children, young people and their parents find the support and services they need to make the most of their time at school. This role is more fully described in "Saving Lives—Our Healthier Nation" and "Making a Difference: strengthening the nursing, midwifery and health visiting contribution to health and health care"—copies are available in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will give a substantive reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire dated 5 July regarding the outcome of his Department's review of direct payments for care. [97292]

  Mr. Hutton
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 3 November.

  Student Grants (Nurses)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on delays in the payment of grants to student nurses. [97492]

  Mr. Denham
  We accept that there have been delays in the payment of bursaries to some National Health Service funded student nurses and are aware that a minority of students have not yet received bursaries to which they are entitled.

  Around 24,000 bursary applications have now been processed and all students who are entitled will have received a payment by 10 November.

  Generic Drugs
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the(a) actual and (b) percentage increase in the price of generic drugs to the NHS over the last 12 months. [97293]

  Mr. Denham
  An index of Drug Tariff prices for the top 100 generic drugs dispensed in 1998 (by net ingredient cost) for this year is as follows:

  Month

  Index

  January

  100.0

  April

  103.4

  May

  106.5

  June

  112.0

  July

  117.0

  August

  124.4

  September

  126.2

  October

  130.7

  November

  132.9

  It has been possible to provide only 11 months' data.

  Thyroxin
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the change in the drug tariff to the NHS for 1,000 thyroxin 100 mcg in actual and percentage terms between November 1998 and November 1999. [97291]
  456
  Mr. Denham
  The price in the November 1998 Drug Tariff for a 1,000 pack of thyroxine 100 microgramme tablets was £8.85; the November 1999 Drug Tariff price was £60.16. This is an increase of £51.31 or 580 per cent.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to reduce deaths from prostate cancer. [97669]

  Ms Stuart
  The White Paper "Saving Lives—Our Healthier Nation"—published in July—proposed a target to reduce the death rate from cancer in those under 75 by 20 per cent. by 2010. The Government encourage early detection of prostate cancer and have already announced that, by December 2000, all urgent general practitioner referrals of suspected cases should be seen by a consultant within two weeks of referral. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will commission outcomes guidance on prostate cancer within the next two years.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk Prices
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial help he is giving to dairy farmers to compensate for the low price of milk; and if he will make a statement. [96608]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: The EU dairy regime provides substantial support to UK dairy farmers but EU rules do not allow member states to provide support to compensate for the low price of milk. However, as part of the aid package announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 20 September, the deferral of the proposed £7 per animal cattle passport charges until April 2002, at the earliest, will help dairy farmers.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which recommendations of the Kennedy report on quarantine the Government have not accepted. [97051]

  Ms Quin
  The Pet Travel Scheme pilot is essentially the scheme recommended by Professor Kennedy, except that cats and dogs originating in rabies-free islands (other than assistance dogs from Australasia) will only be allowed to enter the UK once the full scheme is in operation.

  The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens considered Professor Kennedy's recommendations on exotic diseases other than rabies. The Committee agreed that treatment should be given to all imported pet cats and dogs for a tapeworm (Echinococcus multilocularis) and ticks. The ACDP advised that treatment be given not less than 24 hours and not more than 48 hours before embarkation to the UK. Professor Kennedy recommended that treatment be given no more than 24 hours before embarkation. This would represent a modification of Professor Kennedy's Recommendations 1, 2, 35 and 36.
  457
  As regards microchips, animals will be allowed to enter the UK with any microchip fitted. Where a microchip is fitted that does not comply with the ISO standards recommended by Professor Kennedy, the owner of the animal will have to provide a reader. Thus Recommendations 11 and 22 have been accepted but with modification.

  In the Pet Travel Scheme, authorised transport operators will carry out pre-entry checks on pets. Thus, Professor Kennedy's Recommendations 16-18 and 28 will be implemented in a different way from that proposed.

  Professor Kennedy recommended that the Minister examine further the need for a database of health certificates (Recommendations 13 and 14). It has been concluded that a database is not necessary for the operation of the pilot scheme.

  The recommendations that Professor Kennedy made in respect of species other than pet cats and dogs will be considered later (Recommendations 30 to 33 inclusive). Consideration of Recommendations 9 and 38 (research projects) will also be taken forward in due course.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what date has been selected for the operation of the pilot scheme of quarantine reform. [97052]

  Ms Quin
  An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which countries are currently deemed rabies-free by his Department in respect of quarantine regulations. [95636]

  Ms Quin
  The present quarantine regulations apply to animals from all countries entering the UK, except those from the Irish Republic, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

  By April 2000, the Pet Travel Scheme pilot scheme will be introduced. Eligibility will be confined to cats and dogs entering the UK from western European countries (including UK and Irish animals returning from these countries) that meet the Scheme conditions. Assistance dogs from Australia and New Zealand that meet the Scheme conditions will also be eligible.

  Not all countries in western Europe are considered rabies free, but Professor Kennedy found that provided dogs and cats were microchipped, vaccinated and blood tested, the risk of importing rabies in animals from these countries was comparable to that under the existing policy of quarantine.

  The Office International des Epizooties (OIE), the international veterinary organisation sets down criteria for countries to be regarded as rabies free, but it does not publish a list of those countries.

  My Department is currently considering the status of other islands, whose authorities claim to meet the OIE criteria for rabies freedom, for participation in the full Pet Travel Scheme which will come into effect by April 2001. Australia and New Zealand are known to meet these criteria.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish his proposals for the future of the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme. [96920]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on 29 October 1999,Official Report, column 1044.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials and (b) external contractors were engaged in the execution of the bovine TB study area trials under Professor Bourne on (i) 1 October 1998, (ii) 1 January 1999, (iii) 1 June 1999 and (iv) 1 October 1999. [96066]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: The trials are being carried out by the Ministry's Wildlife Unit. Wildlife Unit staff numbers were (i) 74, (ii) 75, (iii) 80 and (iv) 126.

  The numbers of external contractors were (i) none, (ii) one, (iii) two and (iv) three.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress in developing a vaccine against TB for(a) cattle and (b) badgers. [96193]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are funding expenditure of about £1.4 million a year on vaccine development. The main thrust of the programme in its first five-year phase is to identify vaccine candidates. The work is being carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and the Institute of Animal Health, drawing on work carried out internationally and in related fields, such as human vaccines, as appropriate. Emerging findings will be published as and when appropriate. At this stage the main development work could apply equally to both a cattle or a badger vaccine.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government are taking to reform the CAP. [95759]

  Ms Quin
  The Government pressed for a radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy throughout the Agenda 2000 negotiations. While the final agreement reached at Berlin in March this year did not go as far as we would have liked, the reforms did achieve very significant changes, bringing closer the UK objective of securing a competitive and sustainable agricultural industry with a stronger market orientation.

  We will pursue opportunities created by anticipated market pressures, the reviews contained within the Agenda 2000 agreement and the existing commitment to reform the sugar regime by 2001 to push for the reform process started at Berlin to be completed.

  Cattle Movement Service
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the British Cattle Movement Service; and if he will make a statement. [95455]

  Ms Quin
  The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) has been in operation for just over a year. A review of the current arrangements for administering it, and alternatives, would be premature. The BCMS has recently published a Standards of Service Statement against which its performance will be continually assessed.

  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Government policy relating to consumer choice in the purchase of vitamin and mineral supplements. [95872]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: Consumers are currently able to choose from a wide variety of vitamin and mineral supplements sold under food law. The Government have no plans to limit access to supplements that are lawfully sold under food law unless this is necessary for the protection of public health.

  Pig Meat Imports
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from which countries the UK imports pig meat and pig meat products; what steps he has taken to ensure that the standards of welfare and traceability are comparable to those in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [95719]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The major overseas suppliers of pigmeat and pigmeat products to the UK market are Denmark, the Netherlands, the Irish Republic, Germany and France. While we have no legal authority to impose British standards of welfare and traceability on those suppliers, my right hon. Friend the Minister will be meeting a number of retail groups to assess progress in their commitment given to him that all their own label fresh pork and certain processed products such as bacon would come from stall and tether and MBM free production systems.

  Also, as part of the strategy to assist the pig production sector, a verification officer has been appointed. His remit is to work with industry bodies to identify cases where product is being sold at retail or catering level which misleads the consumer into believing it contains pork of British origin when in fact it is imported.

  BSE Inquiry
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the BSE inquiry report will be completed; and if the report will be made public. [95666]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 25 May 1999, Official Report, columns 110-11, that the Inquiry had requested an extension of the time needed to complete their task and the Government had agreed that the Report
  460
  should be delivered by 31 March 2000. I expect the Report to be delivered on that date. It will subsequently be published.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total value of food products, imported into the United Kingdom in 1998 from countries outside the EU, which were produced to hygiene standards less stringent that those required of British farmers. [96265]

  Ms Quin
  Imports of food products from third countries must meet the same, or equivalent, standards of hygiene as food products produced in the European Union.

  Meat Inspection
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives are being pursued by his Department to ensure that all EU member states implement the Community legislation on meat inspection to the same level. [96261]

  Ms Quin
  It is for the European Commission to ensure that member states fully implement European legislation, including meat inspection legislation. However, where we receive evidence that other member states are failing to comply with Community obligations, we will of course pass such evidence on to the Commission for investigation. In this connection, we have passed copies of our own survey of meat inspection charges in other member states, and of the recently published Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) report on meat inspection charges and other enforcement costs to the Commission. In so doing, we have urged the Commission to carry out a thorough investigation of the way in which the EU Charges Directive has been implemented in other member states and of the level of inspection charges in each country. We are, in particular, pressing the Commission to investigate the allegations of subsidy in Italy and non-collection of charges in Spain outlined in the MLC report.

  Nuts
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the labelling of produce containing(a) nuts and (b) nut oils. [96531]

  Ms Quin
  We have been pressing the European Commission to bring forward proposals to change EC food labelling legislation to make the labelling of nuts and nut products, and other substances recognised as causing hypersensitivity, compulsory in all cases when their presence is intentional. We will continue to press for action, and hope to see positive developments on this towards the end of the year.

  In the meantime, we will continue to encourage the voluntary provision of such information on food labels where this is appropriate.

  Shropshire Farmers
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much Government funding was given to Shropshire farmers in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [96476]

  Ms Quin
  Under the Common Agricultural Policy, a total of just over £43 million was paid to Shropshire farmers in 1997. This included both EU and nationally funded contributions. However, they will also have received a share of funding under market support measures, which benefit farming generally but which cannot be calculated at a county level.

  French Animal Feed
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what date officials in his Department were informed that human and animal waste, and meat and bonemeal were being used in French animal feed; and if he will make a statement; [96016]

  (2) on what date he was informed that human and animal waste, and meat and bonemeal were being used in French animal feed; and if he will make a statement. [96017]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: A Reuters article, reported by several newspapers, alleging contamination of French animal feed with waste was seen by officials in my Department on 10 June 1999. Subsequent contact between the UK and the Commission was pursued by officials in the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group, the Department of Health and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. MAFF officials also contacted their French counterparts and received assurances on 15 June that these were isolated incidents and remedial action had been taken.

  Following new media reports on 16 August, the Commission then raised the issue with the French Government and initiated an investigation. At the same time, Ministers were advised by the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group that there was no immediate risk to health and no special action necessary.

  Supermarket Prices
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for further discussions with supermarket chains on pricing policy; and what progress he has made. [96683]

  Ms Quin
  Pricing decisions in respect of produce at retail level are matters for the commercial judgment of the retailers involved. The Competition Commission are 462
  currently investigating competition in the grocery retailing sector which will include relationships with suppliers including farmers. However, some of the actions arising from the work of the Food Chain Group should help to increase understanding throughout the food chain of the competitive pressures faced by individual sectors and how decisions and actions by one part of the chain may impact upon another.

  Over-30-month Rule
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government expect to lift the over-30-month rule. [96749]

  Ms Quin
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has identified criteria against which the controls on beef over-30-months of age can be reviewed in the future, and began to address these at its meeting on 18 March 1999. The Committee recognised that the issue would require careful study and would almost certainly need to be considered over several meetings.

  At its meeting on 20 September the Committee noted that it was expected that updated epidemiological analyses of the BSE epidemic would be available for its meeting on 29 November. The Committee agreed to postpone further consideration of the over-30-month rule until that meeting so that it could take these analyses into account.

  In the light of the Committee's conclusions, and after consultation with all interested parties, the Government will consider what changes to the over-30-month rule, if any, could be made, consistent with the continued protection of public health. Any changes to the rule will need to be agreed with the European Commission and member states as it forms part of the Florence Agreement on the lifting of the beef export ban.

WALES

  Objective 1
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if Lottery moneys which are used as a constituent part of projects attracting Objective 1 European funding will be termed public or private expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [97534]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The National Assembly would not have to provide public expenditure cover for Lottery match funding. Lottery moneys are not Exchequer funding. Lottery funding counts as public expenditure within the Total Managed Expenditure of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

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

Lord Gavron
Robert Gavron, Esquire CBE, having been created Baron Gavron, of Highgate in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McIntosh of Haringey and the Baroness Blackstone, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Telephone Services: Use by Government Departments
2.42 p.m.
Lord Jacobsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they have taken to ensure that Government departments are taking advantage of the low prices available in the United Kingdom for internal and overseas telephone calls.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, each government department is responsible for ensuring that it achieves best value for money from all the goods and services which it procures, including telephone services. Advice and services to departments on achieving best value across the range of information technology and telephony services are available from CCTA—the Government's Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As the Government are leading a crusade for lower prices in Britain, will they insist that government departments, such as the Foreign Office, use an alternative supplier to British Telecom for overseas calls, thereby saving the taxpayer 60 per cent off the lowest BT prices? Furthermore, will the Minister inquire why, in the House, noble Lords pay the standard BT rate of 20p per minute for calls to the USA rather than 4p per minute, which is the rate offered by alternative suppliers?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, it is at present for each individual department to try to obtain the best deals available. The advice given by CCTA to the departments states that,
"The increased competitiveness of the UK telecommunications market offers the opportunity to drive down telecommunications costs by taking advantage of the various discount schemes offered. However, departments also need to be more creative in the way they negotiate with suppliers, challenging them to provide innovative solutions to the delivery and charging of the telecom service".
1148
In July this year we announced the setting up of the Office of Government Commerce, which is designed to have a central buying agency role for all of government. The CCTA will be transferred to that office on 1st April. Therefore, we are doing everything possible to try to ensure that the Government obtain the best value. The cost of telephone calls from this House is a matter for the authorities of this House rather than for the Government.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, have the Government investigated the use of Internet telephony, which would save the Foreign Office even more money than my noble friend's suggestion?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said, the advice given by CCTA to government departments is that they should investigate innovative solutions to the delivery and charging of those kinds of services.

EU Inter-Governmental Conference
2.44 p.m.
Lord Moynihanasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to publish a White Paper in advance of the forthcoming European Union Inter-Governmental Conference.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, yes.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I welcome that extremely helpful and succinct reply from the Minister. What important assurance can she give that, at the forthcoming IGC, the Government will agree to give up our second Commissioner only if we are compensated through vote reweighting in the Council of Ministers? Does the Minster accept that, far from emerging from Amsterdam with an agreement that will give Britain greater weight in the Council of Ministers as promised by the Foreign Secretary, the Government's position resulted instead in a situation where we are legally bound to give up our second Commissioner by 2003 in a treaty which only envisages a satisfactory vote reweighting formula?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not accept the noble Lord's suggestion that the Government have failed in that respect. Our position remains as it was at Amsterdam. We believe that it is in the interests of a more efficient Commission that large member states should be prepared to give up their second Commissioner when the EU expands, provided that a satisfactory agreement is achieved on the reweighting of votes in the Council.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on this tenth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, may I thank the Minister for her detailed and satisfactory reply to the noble Lord's Question? Does she not agree that, if we are to achieve the great project of making

1149
the European Union correlate to the whole of Europe—eastern and central Europe as well as western Europe—changes in institutions are absolutely necessary? Will she further agree that to follow a policy of what is called "national individual flexibility" would destroy the whole spirit and nature of the European Union? Does she accept that it would be far better to emphasise the importance of subsidiarity and of the significance that national parliaments can play in scrutinising and examining European legislation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that participation and co-operation is a better way forward. The IGC rightly concentrates on the institutional changes necessary for enlargement, which will be a challenging position. We are going to consider the size and composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes and the possible extension of qualified majority voting. We are looking at the mechanisms which will enable us to deliver well for ourselves and for Europe.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems vis à vis the European Union and the British public is that very little is known by so-called ordinary citizens about Europe? Will the Government therefore contemplate publishing a summary of the White Paper referred to in the Question in plain English and to make it accessible to ordinary people, thus enabling many more to relate to and understand what is going on in Europe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord is saying. Of course, we shall take those matters into consideration. Nevertheless, we hope that when the White Paper is issued it will be written in plain English so that we may all have the benefit of the information contained therein.

Young Offenders: Activity Courses
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Sharpiesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider activity courses for young offenders a success.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, recent Home Office evaluation of probation programmes that use demanding physical activities points to a range of positive outcomes. The best practice identified will help probation services to improve their work. However, we shall not know the full position until the results of reconviction studies are available. We do not consider that activity-based programmes should be either seen or used as a soft option. They must be part of a programme tailored specifically for
1150
individual needs from the Government's programme, which is designed to reduce reconviction and offending rates.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, whilst I thank the noble Lord for that reply, does he not agree that very many millions of pounds are spent on the various projects without definite results? Would he perhaps like to follow the example of the Simon Weston Spirit, based mostly in Liverpool, which has been extremely successful in its work to help young offenders to mend their ways?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the information that she provides. I am sure that that is an example which the rest of the country will seek to follow. We believe that our programmes are successful. Some three thousand plus people are placed on them annually and the indications are that the reconviction rates are on a parallel with other levels of reconviction rates for other forms of sentencing. Therefore, we believe that on evaluation those programmes have merit. Clearly, we need to keep them under review at all times.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the reoffending rates among unemployed youngsters are twice as high as among those with jobs? Will he consider the initiative taken by the Ministry of Defence to include ex-offenders in the services? Also will he consider whether a similar initiative can be taken by other government departments; and whether employers can be encouraged to ensure that targets are set in employing ex-offenders?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments on the activities of other departments. Clearly, in order to advise further in this area, we must wait to see how the two pilots being conducted in the youth offender institutions are working and, following from that, how effective they have been and what value and merit they have.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister said that the reoffending rates for the activity courses were in parallel with other forms of punishment. However, earlier he seemed to say that we do not know what the reoffending rates are. I became a little confused as to what is the exact position. When will a full evaluation of the courses become available?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, reconviction studies thus far show that prison and community sentences are roughly equal in terms of reconviction rates. Our What Works initiative will focus on every aspect of the probation service's work with offenders on those matters which have been proven to reduce reoffending. That programme aims to ensure that all probation practice is based on evidence of success. We are conducting careful research and evaluation as to what works and we believe that that pragmatic and sensible approach will provide us with the best way forward in that area. We are confident that over the

1151
next 12 months we shall continue to see dramatic progress. Clearly, it is in the interests of us all to ensure that those programmes work; that they are effective; and that we bring down the reconviction rates. That is very important.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I read in the Yorkshire Post today that the Army is to recruit in young offender institutions in Wetherby and Dover. Will the Government consider extending their courses to within the young offender institutions?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought I had answered that question when I responded to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I believe that it is something which we must keep carefully under review. It is obviously an important departure and we shall look to see how successful it is in the future.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is important that young people should be prevented from becoming offenders in the first place? Perhaps I may ask him whether the Government support such organisations as DIVERT—I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Elton who is its chairman is not in his place—which seek to provide sporting and other activities to children who may otherwise get into trouble?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness makes a very important point; that is, that we must ensure that young people do not get into the offending habit. Therefore, it is in the interests of us all to support those projects which carry out that important work.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what is the cost per annum?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, costs vary according to how one judges these matters. However, I shall try to give the noble Baroness a range of the unit costs. They vary considerably from £33 per participant who starts the programme. As far as we can identify it, the average cost of a place provided was £379. The average cost per participant who starts is £468. The average cost per completion is £730.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the Minister join me in condemning those Labour local authorities which over many years have refused to allow the military to recruit at schools, job fairs and the like? Does that not seem illogical in the light of the Government's decision on offenders?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the question seems somewhat wide of the subject with which we are dealing this afternoon. Clearly, that is a matter to which the Employment Service may wish to turn their attention.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister say whet her there has been any evaluation of the scheme at
1152
Applecross on the west coast of Scotland, which is a joint venture between his department and the Ministry of Defence?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is indeed tricky. We shall try to find the answer for the noble Baroness if we can. As far as I am aware, we have been looking closely at the Venture Trust project at Applecross in Scotland. Currently, we have agreed funding until 31st March next year. Obviously, funding beyond that date will be dependent on recent research and the reconviction study which has now been completed.

Powers of Entry to Private Premises
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Blatchasked Her Majesty's Government:
Which statutory instruments giving powers of entry to private premises have come into force since May 1997.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, no central record is kept and the research required to verify that information and provide a definitive list would be a disproportionate burden on resources. However, an initial survey has indicated that some 35 statutory instruments giving powers of entry to private premises may have come into force since May 1997. As an indication of the scale of the work involved in researching that area, the noble Baroness may be aware of the major and time-consuming inquiry into powers of entry conducted by Mr David Mitchell, formerly Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, between 1979 and 1980. It identified some 700 powers and led to new criteria for central scrutiny of proposals then being introduced.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that that is an astonishing Answer? The Question asks only for the number of statutory instruments since May 1997. The same question was asked of the Library in this House, which furnished the answer within 24 hours. Moreover, do the Government have any plans to take powers of entry for enforcement purposes to remove those people who take residence without permission in private property?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will phrase the second part of her point again so that I may be clear about the information she requires.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to take powers of entry for enforcement purposes to remove people who have taken up residence without permission in domestic private property?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, dealing with squatters, as I know from personal experience, is not

1153
an easy task. However, we believe that the law is entirely adequate in that regard and has been strengthened by successive governments.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, will the Minister agree that with the advent of modern technology, especially computers, much commercial activity is now carried on from private premises and that if powers of investigation are required in order to combat commercial fraud, illegal cartels, insider trading and the like, it is necessary that there should be adequate powers to enter private premises where more and more commercial activity is now carried on?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am advised that there was a recent decision by the Divisional Court, the implications of which the Government are considering very carefully for the future.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister and his officials have been able to conduct at least some research into the number of powers of entry taken since 1997. Will the Minister therefore undertake to publish in Hansard the list of such powers taken since 1997, both resulting from statutory instruments and primary legislation? It would be helpful to all of us to see the nature of such powers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am more than happy to assist the noble Lord as far as I possibly can. I have eight pages of lists of statutes and statutory instruments dating back to 1991. It might assist all of us if those were put into the Library. I undertake to do so at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is a serious matter to introduce legislation which is contrary to, and which limits, the rights of the individual? I refer to future legislation as well as to that recently passed. Statute 2170, for example, gives the right to any person who appears suitable to the Secretary of State to enter, at any time, premises, and so on. Does the Minister also not agree that the fact that the Government do not even think that it is worth keeping note of what they are doing is pretty disgraceful?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot possibly agree with the noble Lord. We do keep a note but not a running total. We have ensured that adequate checking measures are in place to look carefully at the extent of such powers, which are commonplace throughout statutes introduced by governments of both persuasions. I refer, for example, to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Food Safety Act of 1990, all of which contained extensive powers of entry. It is not just our Government who put such matters in place, but governments historically. They
1154
are there for a value and purpose—to ensure that we enforce and uphold statutes and enforce the law properly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not remarkable that the Opposition should be suffering from such acute amnesia about the practices of their own government?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am drawn to the conclusion that from time to time there is amnesia in this House.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
3.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO THE WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL BY THE COMMONS' DISAGREEMENT TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS AND AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 62 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("PART ZI

ADDITIONAL PENSION

  ADDITIONAL PENSION FOR WIDOWS OR WIDOWERS
  .—(1) The Secretary to State shall by regulations make provision for one or more of the following—

  (a) to substitute, in any provision of the Contributions and Benefits Act which relates to additional pension for widows or widowers, for any sum payable by way of such pension as is derived from the contributions of a deceased spouse, such higher sum as may be prescribed;

  (b) to substitute, in any such provision, for any prescribed reference to the year 2000, a reference to such later year as may be prescribed;

  (c) to establish a scheme to compensate persons who are widowed after 5th April 2000 and who suffered loss as a result of any action or failure to act in reliance on incorrect information received from a Government department with respect to the reduction in the additional pension payable to them as a result of the enactment of the former section 19 of the Social Security Act 1986.

  (2) If regulations under subsection (1) are not in force on 5th April 2000, then until such time as such regulations are in force, the provisions of the Contributions and Benefits Act to which paragraph (a) of that subsection apply shall continue to have effect as in force on that date.
  (3) No regulations shall be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—
  1A Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
  ("Additional Pensions

  PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL PENSIONS
  .—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as is authorised by one or more of subsections (2) to (4).
  (2) The regulations may provide for any prescribed provision of Part II of the Contributions and Benefits Act (contributory benefits) which relates to additional pension for widows or widowers to have effect, in relation to persons of any prescribed description, with such modifications as may be prescribed for securing—

  (a) that any such additional pension, or

  (b) in the case of any provision of Schedule 5 to that Act (increase of pension where entitlement is deferred), that any constituent element of an increase provided for by that Schedule,

  is increased by such percentage as may be prescribed (which may be 100 per cent.).
  (3) The regulations may amend (or further amend) any prescribed provision of Part II of the Contributions and Benefits Act falling within subsection (2) by substituting for any reference to the year 2000 (or any year previously substituted by virtue of this subsection) a reference to such later year as may be prescribed.
  (4) The regulations may make provision for and in connection with—

  (a) the establishment, for a prescribed period, of a scheme for dealing with claims made by persons on the grounds that, in reliance on any incorrect or incomplete information provided by a government department with respect to the SERPS reduction (however that information came to their knowledge), they

  (i) failed to take any, or any particular, relevant steps which they would have taken, or

  (ii) took any steps which they would not have taken,

  had they instead received correct and complete information with respect to that reduction; and

  (b) securing that, where persons have made successful claims under the scheme, surviving spouses of those persons (or, as the case may be, those persons themselves) will not be affected by the SERPS reduction.

  (5) In subsection (4) "relevant steps", in relation to a person, means steps towards safeguarding the financial position of that person's spouse in the event of the spouse becoming that person's surviving spouse or (as the case may be) towards safeguarding that person's own financial position in the event of that person becoming a surviving spouse (whether or not, in either case, that person was at any material time already married); and "the SERPS reduction" means—

  (a) (in the context of subsection (4)(a)) the operation of any of—

  (i) the provisions of section 19 of the Social Security Act 1986, or

  (ii) the provisions of Part II of the Contributions and Benefits Act reproducing the effect of those provisions.

  1156

  (b) (in the context of subsection (4)(b)) the operation of any of the provisions of the Contributions and Benefits Act mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii) above or of section 39C(4) or 48BB(7) of that Act.

  (6) Regulations under subsection (4) may, in particular, make provision—

  (a) with respect to the time within which, and the manner in which, claims under the scheme are to be made;

  (b) for requiring claimants—

  (i) to supply such information in connection with their claims as may be prescribed or reasonably requested by any person for the purpose of dealing with their claims,

  (ii) to attend interviews at such time and place as may be reasonably specified by any person for that purpose;

  (c) for a claim to be disallowed where the claimant fails to comply with a requirement imposed by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) above and does not show within the prescribed period that he had good cause for that failure;

  (d) prescribing—

  (i) matters which are or are not to he taken into account in determining whether a person does or does not have good cause for any failure to comply with any such requirement, or

  (ii) circumstances in which a person is or is not to be regarded as having or not having good cause for any such failure;

  (e) prescribing the conditions which must be satisfied in relation to any claim in order for it to be a successful claim under the scheme;

  (f) with respect to—

  (i) the manner in which decisions under the scheme are to be made (which may include authorising decisions of any prescribed description to be made by a computer), and

  (ii) the time within which, and the manner in which, such decisions are to be notified to claimants;

  (g) for provisions of Chapter II of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998 (social security decisions and appeals) to apply in relation to decisions under the scheme with such modifications as may be prescribed;

  (h) for provisions of Part II of the Contributions and Benefits Act to apply in relation to—

  (i) surviving spouses of persons who have made successful claims under the scheme, or

  (ii) persons who have themselves made such claims.

  with such modifications as may be prescribed.
  (7) If no regulations under this section are in force on 6th April 2000, then until such time as any such regulations come into force—

  (a) any provisions of Part II of the Contributions and Benefits Act which (whether alone or together with other provisions) would otherwise result in a reduction of one-half in the amount payable by way of additional pension in cases where a person's spouse dies after 5th April 2000 shall be taken—

  (i) as not applying, or

  (ii) as providing for the full amount to be payable by way of additional pension,

  as the case may require; and

  (b) in Schedule 5 to that Act—

  (i) any provision which is expressed to apply in relation to deaths occurring after that date shall not apply, and

  1157

  (ii) any provision which (with or without any other limitation) is expressed to apply in relation to deaths occurring before 6th April 2000 shall be taken as applying also in relation to deaths occurring on or after that date.

  (8) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (9) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under subsection (2), (3) or (4), as the case may be.").
  1B Clause 83, page 86, line 26, after ("sections") insert ("(Preservation of rights in respect of additional pensions),").
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1A and 1B which substitute a new clause in lieu of the clause which your Lordships inserted at Report. The new clause essentially builds on the clause introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I am sure that the entire House would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord for his amendment.
  As I said at Report when I accepted his proposal, the Government agree that this Bill must make some provision for dealing with the inherited problem of SERPS for widows and widowers. We simply needed to make some further amendments to the clause to ensure: first, a legislative base for the solution on which we finally decide, and secondly to provide protection in the meantime for all those who may be affected.
  The clause provides the power to introduce regulations which allow the Commons to do one or more, that is a "mix or match", of the following: to vary the percentage of inherited SERPS for some or all widows; to postpone the 50 per cent change to a specified later date, or to run a protected rights scheme—the new clause sets out, in effect, the ground rules for such a scheme.
  Noble Lords can rest assured that legislation will be securely in place to enable those problems to be addressed. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure so there will be opportunity to scrutinise and debate them in full.
  I emphasise once more that, whatever happens, no one will see their 100 per cent SERPS entitlement reduced before arrangements are in place to protect those who were misadvised. My right honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place that we will not leave people in a situation where regulations come in overnight; there will be reasonable warning of changes which will be phased in.
  As noble Lords are aware, I had hoped to be able to announce our decision as to our way forward on this matter before the Bill completed its passage through Parliament. However, I cannot yet do that. We are determined to get it right. We still need to do further work on this. We will make a further announcement soon. In the meantime, the clause as amended gives us all the powers the Government and the House might need to introduce a satisfactory solution to the problem based on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I beg to move.
  1158
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1A and 1B in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
  Lord Rix: My Lords, I am delighted that the other place has seen fit to approve of the amendment which I moved in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to the Minister for her kind words.
  I express only two regrets. I refer to the fact that the other place chose to turn my half page amendment into two-and-a-half pages, which perhaps shows verbosity. At the same time I am rather sad that I have been removed from star billing at Clause 1 to Clause 48. However, with those two regrets I am happy to accept the amendments from another place.
  I have a final word for the Secretary of State. I would ask that when reviewing the possibilities of compensation and probably taking into account the views of the Ombudsman, he will pay particular attention to the needs of those who paid into SERPS from 1978 to 1986 when it was the law of the land.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for his initiative in promoting the original amendment which, as he rightly points out, has been increased in size and verbosity by the Government.
  Earlier on, the Minister stated that she hoped to let us know the final decision before the matter passed into legislative form at the conclusion of our debates. She has now said that she is unable to do so. We understand; this is a highly complex matter. It is more important to get the matter right than for it to be done in a hurry.
  On the other hand, the original amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and that which we now have before us from the Government, effectively set a deadline on these deliberations. We hope that that deadline is not broken and that the many people who have problems in this area will know, at any rate by next April, what the Government now propose.
  I believe that the Minister, in a slip of the tongue, referred to the "inherited problem of SERPS" rather than "the problem of inherited SERPS". Both are perhaps true. We have inherited a problem due to the action of both Governments. However, there is also the problem of people who, as widows, inherit their SERPS. The Government have now made clear that they go along with the decision of the former Government—which they previously strongly opposed—to make changes in this respect.
  Perhaps I may pick up some of the points made in the debate in another place last week by Mr Rooker. I have great respect for him. he is clearly suffering considerably in dealing with these problems. However, from what he said it seems clear that the Government now accept that there is a legal liability to the extent that people were misled on the matter.

  1159
  In that context, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether she understands that that legal liability, or the ability of people to bring action against the Government, will be wholly superseded by the legislation now proposed by the Government or whether those who feel they should take legal action will still be able to do so, even after the Government's proposals are made.
  Could she also tell us the present state of play as to when she anticipates that the Ombudsman's report is likely to become available? This is not her immediate responsibility but presumably she has some information on the subject. In particular, could she tell us whether we are likely to have such report before the Government make a final decision on the matter or whether their decision may be made in advance of us knowing the view taken by the Ombudsman?
  The clauses now before us give the Government power to make regulations with regard to this problem. In another place, on 3rd November, at col. 367 of Commons Hansard, Mr Rooker set out various options. One was to vary the rate of inherited SERPS for some or all widows—I presume under the new legislation, now widowers also. A second was to postpone indefinitely the change to cut widows' benefits to 50 per cent. As has been pointed out, that would involve an extremely large sum of money—something over £5 billion.
  The third choice—the alternative now being considered— is a "protected rights scheme". The Minister referred to that and the clause is before us in that respect. But I must confess, looking at the amendment as it now stands, that I am not at all clear what form that protected rights scheme might take, and in particular whether there would be problems with regard to the standard of proof which might be required from those claiming such protected rights. In short, this was something that came up last week in the other place and we did not discuss the alternative.
  As your Lordships will eventually need to take a view on whatever the Government come up with, because the matters are to be under the affirmative resolution procedure, it would be helpful, by way of a trailer, if the Minister could tell us what kind of protected rights scheme the Government now envisage. In particular, could the Minister deal with the problem of proof as to whether someone was misled and as a result did not make provision for their widow which they might otherwise have done?
  Finally, I come to the question of who pays. The Minister in the other place seemed to indicate that whatever the costs of putting right this problem, none the less they would be borne by people in the SERPS scheme. One would have thought, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has pointed out previously, that as this was a failing by government, the cost would come from the general exchequer rather than from any alteration in the amount of money in the SERF'S scheme at the moment; for example, the surplus in the National Insurance Fund.
  Clearly before this Bill becomes law we will not know what the Government are going to do. But it would be extremely helpful, in anticipation of
  1160

  whatever decision they eventually make, if the noble Baroness could elucidate some of the points I have just made.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not detain the House more than a moment beyond when I first see the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, in her place.
  I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for his persistence in this subject. I am delighted to see it rewarded. It is a good illustration of Aristotle's maxim that it is important that legislators should be subject to the laws which they themselves make. As a guarantee of good legislation, it is vital.
  Secondly, I pay tribute to my honourable friend Mr. Rendel who was first responsible for spotting this issue and who has also had a great deal to do with putting it on our agenda. In addition, I thank the Minister for providing us with a real model of how business should be conducted. If that model had been followed on other issues, we might not have such a contentious afternoon before us as we probably do.
  This amendment, as it stands, is an old friend of my late noble friend Lady Seear because, "the Secretary of State may do whatever he likes". It is one of the greatest conferments of flexibility in any parliamentary provision that I can remember seeing for a long time. I understand, with the time-scale before us, why the Secretary of State wanted to claim the flexibility. But now he has been given his declaration of indulgence to say he can do whatever he likes, I should like to know what he would like to do. Presumably he will have to take a decision before 5th April next. Other people will need to react to that decision and make whatever provision is necessary to accommodate it.
  The Secretary of State has given himself the options of a higher rate, individual compensation and deferment of the introduction of the provision. The Minister spent a great deal of time in the course of our proceedings dwelling on the difficulties of any scheme of individual compensation. I understand what she said. The problem of proof, especially when dealing with compensation arising out of telephone conversations, is considerable. If that standard of proof were applied strictly, many people may fail to obtain the compensation they deserve. If it were applied loosely, it could be open-ended to the point of some alarm. So the preference of these Benches would still be for deferment. I understand that the Minister is not willing to consider the 10 years for which this party pressed. But if she were willing to go so far as considering five years, that may help the situation considerably. With thanks to all those who have taken part in this, I await the Minister's reply.
  3.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should like to answer the points raised, but I may need to follow this up in correspondence because it is important that the wording of my replies is accurate.
  In response to the query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the basis on which legal action could be taken is if someone suffered financial loss having been

  1161
  misled. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right when he says that the degree of financial loss suffered would be difficult to establish on an individual basis. The options on the table therefore include the possibility of deferral—whether five or 10 years is still up for discussion; of individual compensation with all the problems that go with it; or protected rights.
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked what "protected rights" means as to some extent it is a new phrase coming into the agenda. It means that those who demonstrate that they were misadvised and therefore acted to their detriment will have their national insurance record amended to ensure that a surviving spouse will inherit 100 per cent of their SERPS. The difference between that and compensation is that it is not a question of how much actual loss was suffered, but that their position would continue to be the same as though the 1988 changes had not come into effect. That is what is meant by "protected rights".
  However, I repeat that no decision on which system, or any mix or match of these strategies, has yet been taken. Your Lordships will be aware that it is technically complicated in terms of trying to assess the degree of loss that people may have suffered. It is also extremely expensive, running between £5 billion and £10 billion. I was grateful for the recognition of that by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. It is important to get it right. Clearly, until we have got it right, the situation that exists pre-April 2000 continues. That was the point of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, also asked who will pay. The cost comes from the National Insurance Fund. Of course, the Government stand behind that fund. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that no decision has been made on whether deferment will be five or 10 years; whether it will be protected rights, individual compensation or any mix or match. We are trying to establish a scheme which both properly addresses the problems facing those who would otherwise have made different arrangements and who have suffered a financial loss as a result, and being prudent in our role to protect taxpayers' interests. That is what we are seeking to do.
  Finally, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix. This point was first picked up in 1995 when my noble friend Lady Gould tabled an amendment to the Pensions Bill of that year. It was flagged up by the Box, but then was quickly forgotten until it was resurrected recently. Given that fact, I hope that your Lordships will be content when I ask the House not to insist on Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed, but to agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1A and 1B in lieu thereof.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert ("but there shall be no requirement to take out a stakeholder pension in the form of an annuity by a specified age").
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  3A Because it is inconsistent with the condition that a stakeholder pension must have tax exemption or tax approval.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, this amendment relates to the question of annuities, which we debated at some length during earlier stages of the Bill. I think that the answer given by the other place to the amendment we put forward; namely, that,
  "it is inconsistent with the condition that a stakeholder pension must have tax exemption or tax approval"
  is most interesting.
  The main point made during earlier debates was that the present rule, whereby those who have to take their pension are required to do so at the latest by the age of 75, is a matter of considerable concern, not least because the average age of the population is getting steadily higher and a number of people find that the rule is to their disadvantage. The debate in another place was rather curtailed because of the guillotine. It was clear throughout the debates that Ministers seemed to be complaining that they could not give specific answers because there was a guillotine when in fact the latter had been imposed by the Government.
  However, having said that, perhaps I may concentrate on the answer which has now been given. It is of course the case that those taking out pensions receive tax relief when they contribute towards the pension, although it is also the case that they are taxed on that pension when they receive it. So, to that extent, the arrangement we have is asymmetrical. The Government have indicated that they are considering the issue. I wonder whether I may press the Minister further as to whether it is likely that they will reach a decision in the near future.
  The main objection put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, during the previous debate was that if people were not compelled to take an annuity they might spend the money and become a charge on public funds. I should have thought that that could be overcome if people were only allowed to take the sum, other than by an annuity, to the extent that the annuity which remains ensures that they are above the level of income support. It is also true to say—this is implicit in the Government's reason—that not only must you not become a charge on public funds but also, to some extent, you must take an annuity because if you cannot take it with you, you cannot leave it behind you. The concern increasingly in people's minds is whether the tax relief given is something which ought to bar people from taking a form of pension, other than an annuity, providing they do not become a charge on public funds.

  1163
  I merely wish to ascertain whether the Government's thinking has moved forward since the matter was debated in another place. It seems clear to me that something must be done, at least as far as concerns the 75-year rule.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as he said, the noble Lord did debate this matter at some length when it was last before the House. At that time, we said that the Government were in the process of reviewing the drawdown rules. That is indeed the case, and the review includes consideration of the whole issue of mandatory annuity purchase. However, I do not want to raise the noble Lord's hopes too high. We are reviewing these issues on a not quite continuous basis, but on a frequent and regular basis.
  From the fact that a review is taking place, the noble Lord should not draw the conclusion that we have accepted his arguments about annuities. The arguments are very fundamental. Indeed, I can put the main argument in one phrase: pension funds must be used to provide pensions. This is a deal. Pension contributions are made with tax relief. The noble Lord is right to say that the tax relief is on the contributions and not on the ultimate pension. Just before the election, the noble Lord's party suddenly came forward with the quite unexpected suggestion that the tax relief should be on pensions and not on contributions. That had never been debated anywhere and was a totally new proposition, which would have had huge inter-generational benefits and disbenefits that were never debated at any time. Presumably—God forbid!—if the noble Lord's party had won the election, that would have been a manifesto commitment which we might have been stuck with.
  That is not the case here. There is a great deal of continuity in public policy of governments of both complexions. The public policy issue here has not changed. If you have gained tax relief for pension contributions, in the end that must be used for pensions; in other words, to ensure that you do not become a burden on the public purse. There are all sorts of ways in which that can be modified. The drawdown contributions introduced in 1995 were certainly a compromise. However, from the fact that a review is taking place, I do not wish the noble Lord to draw the conclusion that there is any agreement with the arguments that he and other noble Lords put forward when the Bill was previously before the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  20 After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—

  WAR PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS: ENTITLEMENT
  (" .—(1) A widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) (" the DSS pension"), and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex, only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
  (2) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are—

  (a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order reenacting the provisions of that order.

  (b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,

  (c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939 or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),

  (d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment.").

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  20A Because it involves charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
  Baroness Strange Baroness Strange rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A, but do propose Amendment No. 20B in lieu thereof—
  20B After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—

  WAR PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS: ENTITLEMENT
  (" .—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (3) ("the DSS pension") and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a widow in receipt of a basic pension under section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; and a widow in receipt of such a pension who has remarried or is living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex may not retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
  (3) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are—

  (a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order re-enacting the provisions of that order,

  (b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,

  (c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939 or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),

  (d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A, but do propose Amendment No. 20B in lieu thereof.
  Last week your Lordships sent this amendment about the attributable forces' family pension being for life, regardless of future marital status, back to the other place. It was debated there last Monday and I am most grateful to all the honourable Members in the other place who supported it—though, alas, not enough of them did so. The honourable Member for

  1165
  Windsor said that it was a very narrow amendment and that it was "ring-fenced". It is; it deals only with 2,650 ladies, not all of whom are going to remarry at once. However, if passed, it would be to the Government's financial interest to persuade them so to do.
  After much thought, we decided on a new amendment to restrict the provision still further. This excludes specifically any lady in receipt of the state retirement pension. The purpose of Amendment No. 20B is to allow any younger widow the chance of starting a new life, with a new husband and a new father for her children, without financial hardship. If the lady is over 60, the chances are that her children will be able to stand on their own feet.
  There is no legal, procedural or technical reason why acceptance of this amendment should compel the Government to make consequential changes to the occupational schemes of other groups of public pensioners. There is no uniform standard of provision across public service schemes from which acceptance of this amendment would represent an unprecedented departure. There are already significant variations in scheme regulations and funding arrangements; for example, death in service provisions for firemen and police are more generous than those currently available to service widows.
  It is also claimed that, on ground of equity, similar provision would have to be made at significant extra cost for the much larger group of service widows who draw pensions under the main provisions of the Armed Forces occupational pension scheme. Over 80 per cent of those 68,000 service widows will be the widows of pensioners who died in retirement of natural causes. Most are elderly ladies who are not left with young children. This amendment could not possibly include them. This is not a case of "ping-pong"; it is simply a question of honour and of what is right. We believe that this new clause removes any possibility of doubt or of expansion beyond the 2,650 ladies concerned.
  Last week my noble friend Lord Northbourne talked of the importance of fathers and families. he was supported by the noble Earls, Lord Mar and Kellie and Lord Longford; the noble Viscounts, Lord Hood, Lord Brentford and Lord Bridgeman; the noble Baroness, Lady Young; the noble Lords, Lord Warner, Lord Ahmed, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool and Lord Ashbourne; and my noble friends Lord Alton, Lord Rosslyn, and Lord Listowel; the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and myself. Although the debate was restricted to two minutes per speaker, we all felt that the importance of a father in a family mattered so much that we had to speak. None of us exceeded our two minutes; some of us even spoke for less.
  I have already spoken of the children of war widows who visited your Lordships' House two weeks ago who are the very children to whom this amendment might mean much: four and five year-olds, Matthew and Dominic Beale, Charles Auckland, who came in a
  1166
  pushchair and told his mother I was a nice lady, and Jennifer Fox who wore a party dress, and how pleased they all were when the Doorkeepers and some of your Lordships spoke to them, turning their faces to father figures, like sunflowers to the sun. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A, but do propose Amendment No. 20B in lieu thereof. —(Baroness Strange.)
  3.30 p.m.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we are sympathetic to what the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has said. This matter has now been debated in the other place where the Opposition indicated that they are supportive of this proposal on the understanding that it is strictly ring-fenced to relate to post-1973 war widows of servicemen who die or who are killed in the line of duty while still serving. That said, we do not think that it is right to return it to them at this stage. It is our hope and expectation that the Under-Secretary of State in the other place, Mr Rooker, will do as he said in debate and,
  "metaphorically hotfoot it from this debate to the MoD to say what has been said here and in the other place, and ensure that that is properly addressed in the review".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/99; col. 390.]
  In addition, I feel that it is important to press the Minister for assurance that this review is real, given the reasons stated for the Commons disagreeing to this amendment; namely,
  "Because it involves charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient".
  We are concerned that this reference to the review is inconsistent with the reason stating a concern that there may be a charge on public funds.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches have supported the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, at every stage of proceedings and we continue to do so. We think that the present treatment of war widows rests on a series of assumptions about the position of women which, in this day and age, are totally indefensible. Because I have repeated that argument at every stage of the Bill, I shall not repeat it now. I hope that the House will take it as read.
  I shall instead turn my attention to the reply given at the previous stage when we considered this matter by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who I am happy to see present. She argued that it was absolutely impossible for the MoD to do what was wanted. If she will forgive my saying so, she reminded me of one of my academic colleagues some 40 years ago. The college said then that it was absolutely impossible for it to pay the staff more often

  1167
  than once every two months. Some of us expressed some surprise at this view and a deputation was sent to look at the accounting system, led by a professor who was a specialist in accountancy. he reported that he had heard that such an accounting system had once existed, but he had never hoped to have the privilege of actually seeing it in operation!
  I wondered whether some such remark as that might possibly apply to the defence of the Ministry of Defence, for in effect its argument was that it did not really deny that what was being done to war widows was an injustice; it said that it could not rectify that injustice for fear it might have to rectify some other injustices too. That is the defence of the Crewe limerick:
  "A man in the restaurant at Crewe
  Once found a mouse in his stew
  Said the waiter, "Don't shout,
  Don't wave it about
  Or the rest will be wanting one too".
  In making this defence, the MoD has impaled itself on a fork: for either its argument is correct—in which case it will have to rectify the other injustices also—or it is not correct, in which case it is of no force. In neither case does it constitute an argument for resisting this amendment.
  The key question here is: is this amendment ring-fenced? The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has dealt with that point; I shall deal with it a little further. It is, of course, true that the essential injustice of denying a widow the right to remarry or cohabit extends beyond war widows. On the other hand, it is equally true that it has been recognised, I think in every century, that the widows of members of the armed services killed in the line of duty have a quite special claim to consideration.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, invoked the fire service, the police and the Civil Service. I know that members of the Civil Service have a thankless job, but it is not normally regarded as part of their responsibility to be killed in the line of duty. Members of the fire service and the police may sometimes end up being killed in the line of duty. I am sure that they have a great claim on our consideration when they do, but it is not of the very object of the exercise that some of them will. You cannot go to war without contemplating casualties in your own forces; not even in the days of sanitised war by Cruise missiles can you do that. If the object is to send people into a situation where you expect some of them to get killed, you must have a special consideration for them. The reason you must do this is essentially that otherwise you do not succeed in recruiting.
  I was interested in an item which appeared in this morning's newspapers. The text I have here is from the Independent although the article also appeared in other papers. The article states that there are,
  "concerns that the British Army is now too small to meet its commitments".
  The result is that it has begun recruiting direct from prisons and young offender institutions. I am told that this has happened before but it is becoming more systematic. The paper reports that,
  1168
  "CritFics claim that the scheme is scraping the bottom of the barrel because the Army cannot find enough recruits through traditional methods".
  The noble Baroness shakes her head. If she wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to take the intervention. I think that if anything remotely resembling this is actually the case, rather than going to such lengths would it not be a great deal simpler and probably cheaper to accept this amendment? It is not the identical amendment which was moved before. When another place pleads privilege—as it did—we must accept that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, accepted it. But those who remember the arguments about Scottish tuition fees will remember that it remains in order to table a somewhat different amendment to see whether another place may take a different attitude.
  I listened to much of the debate in the other place. One could say that, in a sense, this amendment was considered. But it was grouped with a great many others and any consideration it received was properly described as cursory.
  This is not even a case of asking the other place to think again; it had a great deal to think about last Wednesday. I should like the other place to think about this matter. If the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, chooses to press the amendment to a Division, we will support her.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, about a very simple point of construction. Can she clarify whether the proposed entitlement in subsections (1) and (2)
  "when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex"
  —requires amendment to the provisions, schemes and enactments referred to in subsection (3)(a) to (d)?
  Baroness Strange: My Lords, I think it does. If people are discovered to be cohabiting or living together, the pension is taken away from them. Whether they are remarried or cohabiting, in either event they lose the pension.
  The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, perhaps I may speak as, I think, the only diocesan Bishop in the Church of England whose father was killed during the last world war. Therefore, my mother, as a war widow, brought up her only child in the kind of difficulties which many Members of your Lordships' House will understand. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, for the enormous sympathy and understanding that she has consistently shown to those families which have found themselves in this predicament.
  I welcome also the contribution made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his plea that this House should specially consider the particular situation in which those who have suffered because of things which have been done on behalf of all of us find themselves. They should receive from us all—in this House and as a nation—the utmost consideration.

  1169
  I shall listen very carefully to how the Minister responds to this part of the debate. If, as I think I heard rightly, there may be some way in which consideration is given further to this matter, I hope that I shall find myself able to accept the Government's stance. But if that is not the case, I hope that every consideration will be given to those war widows who, through no fault of their own, often find themselves in a most difficult situation—emotionally and economically—for the simple reason that their husbands have given their lives for their country.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, yet again, I wish to strongly support the amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said almost all of what I wished to say from the service point of view. However, I should like to make two further points.
  My first point is that the problem the Army and the other services have at the moment is not so much one of recruitment—although that certainly exists—but one of retention. This is one of the issues on which retention will be judged—whether people stay or go.
  My second point is that it is all very well to say, "Let us wait for the review". First, we all know that reviews take a very long time; and, secondly, if the amendment were to meet the approval of the Commons and become law, it would not matter what the review said. If we do not pass this amendment and the review later discusses the question and says, "What a nice thing this would be", there would be no legislation to support it. Ways would be found by the Treasury not to have the legislation. This is a matter of money.
  As we are offering the other place a new amendment—yet more ring-fenced than before—I strongly urge that we should consider the effect on the services. This is an extremely important issue by which they will be judging the Government and the country.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Freyberg: My Lords, it is extraordinary that in the same week in which so many of us are wearing poppies to commemorate those who died in the service of their country— and in the same week that the Prime Minister and other Ministers will lay wreathes at the Cenotaph—the Government are refusing to provide current servicemen and those recently deceased with the kind of pension that will offer their widows and families lasting security.
  The Prime Minister has declared that he is keen on promoting the family and keen on modernisation. This is one area where modernising the terms of the pension of a uniquely dangerous profession in line with modern-day occupational pensions would be extremely welcome. As was said, unlike almost any other profession, the military expects those serving to train for and partake in combat and to put their lives at risk on a regular basis.
  Sadly, some young families will inevitably lose their fathers—several have in the last month. Such an eventually should be properly catered for, especially as it affects a very small number. Instead, if a war widow
  1170
  ever considers remarrying or cohabiting, she risks losing all her pension, which is often her only financial security. Any new partner is expected to provide for children who have lost their father purely because of the nature of his profession. In other words, a widow would not be considering remarrying if her husband had not been killed or had died pursuing his work. This is outdated and unacceptable.
  My noble friend Lady Strange has forcefully articulated these arguments. I support her more than ever after reading last week's debate in the other place and the Government's worryingly poor command of the figures thrown up by this amendment. I hope that the Government will think again and not take constant refuge in the delaying tactic of a pledge to look at the matter after a review. The reform of the Armed Forces main occupational pension scheme is a longer-term project which may not address the immediate position of the small, ring-fenced group with which the amendment is concerned. Many young children could be settled into new family units. They should not be asked to wait any longer.
  Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendment. In doing so, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, on her persistence on this point.
  There are three strands to the Government's rejection of the earlier attempt. Those three strands—cost, precedents and unfairness to widows of others in the public service—may be prayed in aid again, so I should like to spend a moment talking about them.
  It is said that there will be an additional cost to the public purse. The sums involved must be minuscule, particularly if the surrender of the DSS pension on remarriage is taken into account. It has been argued that the net cost cannot be quantified because there is no way of telling how many who do not remarry under the present scheme might marry again if the rules were changed as proposed in the amendment. Are we really to take that as an overriding reason for refusal? Often in similar cases of uncertainty about how people will react, there are sound statistical and actuarial methods for gauging costs. If the Government were willing, surely that would not be a reason for refusal.
  What then must be the reasons? A resort of all governments is to pray in aid the creation of precedents as a reason for refusing. In this case, that strikes me as bizarre. Several very cogent arguments have been made already during the passage of the Bill which make it clear that, if the will were there, the rationale for giving these widows what they deserve could be found.
  Let me offer another suggestion for the Government to think about. The Armed Forces are the only group of people who are excluded from the maximum working hours legislation. Why not make use of that? Let us face it: no uniform standard of provision applies across the public service schemes, in this case or in any other. Even when the much-heralded and too long-awaited MoD review is complete I would bet as a near certainty that it will not prove to conform with all

  1171
  other public sector schemes. There will always be significant differences. I do not believe that any MoD review can change that. For that reason, the argument does not stand that there will be differences if the widows are treated in this way.
  When replying to the previous debate on this matter, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, said:
  "While we have an enormous amount of sympathy for the women whom the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has drawn to our attention … there are many widows whose husbands have died pursuing their duty and public service in dangerous circumstances who will feel embittered, upset and angry if this amendment is passed".—[Official Report, 27/10/99; col. 312.]
  Surely the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who is so genuinely sympathetic to the war widows, is not suggesting that bitterness and envy among others are reasons for refusing to accept this amendment. I believe that many of those other groups would feel pleasure and gratitude that 'the Government had seen fit to help war widows in this way. I support the amendment.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, for reasons that I have explained in previous debates on this important issue, I rise simply to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, that if she takes her amendment to a Division, she will have my support.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, because I spoke very strongly in favour of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, when we discussed the matter on two previous occasions, I should say why I do not think that I will be able to support her today if she presses her amendment to a Division to send it back to the Commons. First, I could not reasonably justify the further tightening of the screw. The noble Baroness's original amendment was the correct one and that is the one that the Government should have accepted. I understand why the noble Baroness needed to ring-fence her new amendment in such a way that certain war widows would not be able to keep their pension if they remarry. However, it would be wrong to allow the Government off the principal hook, which is that they should address the whole question of the Armed Forces pension scheme and how it treats war widows who remarry.
  When we discussed this matter on the previous occasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, mentioned the problem of read-across. If the Government had accepted the amendment of the noble Baroness, all other pension schemes in the public sector would rise up to say, "Me too, please". The noble Earl, Lord Russell, dispensed with that argument in his usual amusing and elegant way. However, I would say that that argument did not seem to hold water for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the Labour Opposition when they voted in favour of the restoration of war widows' pensions on second widowhood. The question of read-across did not occur to the Opposition on that occasion. I may have prayed it in aid as the government Minister, but it did not seem to matter to them at the time. It is a little rich that the Government think it matters in this case.
  1172
  I shall repeat what I said on the last occasion that we discussed this matter:. I know what a difficult brick wall the MoD is in this regard. Without being rude to the noble Baronesses, I described the matter as one of the lassies trying to do better than the laddies; namely, trying to do better than my noble friend Lord Howe and I had done when we were in office. I wish them well. However, we shall not aid the issue by sending back the amendment before us today. All those noble Lords who heard the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, had the distinct impression that she understood and sympathised with the problem. Certainly, poor Mr Rooker—I say that advisedly—found himself in the position of having to eat his own words five minutes after having spoken them. he had been fed the figure of £15 million by the MoD, but he quickly realised that that was not the figure at all. he had to backtrack quite considerably.
  Noble Lords have pressed this matter as much as is possible at this stage. We must hope that Mr Rooker can be held to his closing statement, which I shall quote:
  "The Government have got the message both from this debate and from the one in the other place. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to trust to the review to put the maximum pressure on the MoD … I give my commitment to this as a DSS Minister—that I make urgent representations to my right hon. Friend as a result of what has been said tonight".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/99; col. 392.]
  I am prepared to accept that statement, but with a little warning to the Government. They will have noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, will stay with us in the next Session of Parliament. I am sure all noble Lords will join me in congratulating the noble Baroness on that. If the noble Baroness finds a way to come forward with an amendment on this issue in the next Session—and I am sure that she will be able to do so—and if the Government are still difficult, then I shall urge everyone to vote against them. However, they should now be given the benefit of the doubt.
  Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate in what he said on this matter. In 1942 I, too, lost my father. It seems a long time ago now. he was a Member of another place. My mother—his widow—took on his seat at Bristol Central and sat in another place for nearly two-and-a-half years representing that constituency. I remember only too well the hard work, trouble and care taken by my mother on behalf of war widows. She was president of the women's section of the Royal British Legion for a long time after hostilities had ceased. I support the noble Baroness, and if she does press her amendment to a Division, I shall certainly be in her camp.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, last week the other place voted to overturn Amendment No. 20 which would allow forces widows whose husbands' death was attributable to service to keep their occupational pension for life. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, pressed me on what was the meaning of returning the amendment on financial grounds, as opposed to addressing the merits of the argument. I shall draw the noble Baroness's attention to the Companion to the Standing Orders:

  1173
  "If the Commons disagree to a Lords amendment which infringes their financial privileges, the disagreement is made on the ground of privilege alone, and not on the merits of the amendment, even though the Commons may have debated the merits of the amendment".
  That illustrates that this complies with the procedures of the House rather than the substantive issue. I hope that will reassure the noble Baroness.
  This new amendment also seeks to allow these widows to keep their services attributable pension on remarriage, but excludes those in receipt of a Category A state retirement pension—that is, those who have earned a state pension in their own right.
  The Government recognise the sacrifices made by those who die as a result of their service and the need to compensate their dependants adequately, fairly and properly. They greatly value the contributions service wives make in supporting their husbands. That is why the war widows' attributable pension is rightly more generous than the other service widows' pension. The annual attributable pension for widows is 400 per cent higher than normal service widows' pension precisely to reflect that degree of compensation, respect and recognition for the loss of a husband in service.
  I understand that the Government's decision to oppose this amendment may seem unsympathetic. I hope that that is not the case, because paying widows' pensions for life is an issue that does not only affect the attributable pension widows and it does not only affect other service widows; it affects all public service widows. Service widows are not uniquely affected, even though while they remain widowed, they are uniquely—and rightly—compensated.
  The position of widows of servicemen is, I believe, similar to that of many public service widows. Many noble Lords have said that it is possible to ring-fence, or even if that is not possible, then that is neither here nor there. However, noble Lords, particularly those who have been in government, know perfectly well that, for the sake of equity and fairness the Government have to consider the read-across implications of any amendment, however sympathetic noble Lords may be to a particular group.
  I know that I seem to be arguing the thin edge of the wedge; but that indeed is what it is. The Government could not in all equity accept an amendment which ring-fenced those war widows with pensions already 400 per cent more generous than those of other service widows and not extend those rights there. Such an important matter must be considered coherently and in the proper context, which is not, if I may suggest to your Lordships, an amendment to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
  The MoD has given an assurance that the issue is being given serious consideration as part of its comprehensive review of the Armed Forces pension scheme. In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, my noble friend Lady Symons tells me that the MoD expects the review to be completed and the findings published and ready for consultation next summer. We are not talking about a very long period of time. This is not a delaying or
  1174
  kicking into the long grass tactic, as your Lordships might fear. There is a review; it is expected to be concluded shortly. In that context the MoD will be reviewing all the pensions, including pensions due to illness and to death in service for men and for their widows alike. It is in that context that I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment today.
  A further concern, identified by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is that the amendment would restrict the application of the right to retain a pension on remarriage to those who had acquired a Category A state pension. That means that those who had saved and invested in their own pension would be penalised while those who had not and were dependent on their husband's pension would be protected. That would be a further very unfortunate and unfair anomaly which I am sure your Lordships would not wish to pursue.
  We are not talking about cost. We are talking about timing, context, ring-fencing and fairness. The review expects to report next summer, but in fairness to all service widows the matter needs to be considered in its full context. An amendment to a DSS welfare reform Bill is not the right vehicle. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, will accept that the Government and the MoD especially—my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean has been present for the debate and spoke to these matters at Third Reading—have very much taken on board the concerns expressed by your Lordships. The views of this House have been heard and the issue has been well aired and will be addressed in the review, which will proceed fairly shortly and will then be out for public consultation. It is proper to consider the matter in its full context and it is equitable to do so because of the very real issues of ring-fencing and the extra anomalies that would be introduced by the amendment, which is defective.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has fought a good fight. I am confident that in her hands this issue will not go away. But when it comes back—if it comes back—let it come back in a proper context, properly reviewed and assessed and properly subjected to consultation. In the light of that, your Lordships can make a considered judgment. I hope that the noble Baroness will not now press her amendment.
  Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment, particularly my noble friends Lord Freyberg, Lady Park of Monmouth and Lord Morris, my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell. I should like to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I am sorry that I am threatening him, but perhaps with any luck this may go away. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his kind and moving words and I thank other noble Lords who have spoken. I thank my noble friend Lady Hollis for the time she has spent on this issue—it was not of my choosing—and for the kind and lovely way in which she replied. I know that her personal feelings are the same as mine and the same as many of your Lordships. We are not being intransigent, difficult, or any of those

  1175
  things. We are simply putting down a marker for the future. We modified the amendment in a way which I hoped would be helpful to the Government. This is a money-saving amendment, not a money-spending one.
  If something is right, fair and true, in the long run that is what matters. I should like to ask the House to agree to Amendment No. 20B in lieu.
  4.5 p.m.
  On Question, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A but do propose Amendment No. 20B in lieu thereof?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 140.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Addington, L.

  Freyberg, L.

  Ailsa, M.

  Gainford, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Glanusk, L.

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

  Goodhart, L

  L.

  Gormanston, V.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Grey, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Barker, B.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Bethell, L.

  Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Bramall, L.

  Inge, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Ironside, L.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

  Jeger, B.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Jopling, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Kemsley, V.

  Calverley, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Carlisle, E.

  Kintore, E.

  Chalfont, L.

  Lauderdale, E

  Clancarty, E.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Coleridge, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Lloyd-Webber, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Long, V.

  Crook, L.

  McNair, L.

  Cross, V.

  McNally, L.

  Cuckney, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Davidson, V.

  Manton, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Drogheda, E.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Dundee, E.

  Merrivale, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Effingham, E.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Elibank, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Elles, B.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Exmouth, V.

  Monson, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Morris, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Moyne, L.

  1176

  Newall, L.

  Sharman, L.

  Newby, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Sharples, B.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Simon of Glaisdale. L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Slim, V.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Steel of Aikwood, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Stewartby, L.

  Pender, L.

  Strange, B. [Teller]

  Plumb, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E

  Prior, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Temple of Stowe, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Rennard, L

  Thurso, V.

  Rochester, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Rowallan, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Russell, E. [Teller]

  Waddington, L.

  Ryder of Warsaw, B.

  Weatherill, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Wedgwood, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Sandys, L.

  Wise, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Gale, B.

  Alli, L.

  Gavron, L.

  Amos, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Annan, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Graham of Edmonton. L.

  Bach, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Berkeley, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Blease, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Brett, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Howells of St Davids, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Carter, L.[Teller]

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Darcy de Knayth, B.

  Kirkhill, L.

  David, B.

  Lane, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Lipsey, L.

  Desai, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Diamond, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Elder, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  [Teller]

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  1177

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Simon, V.

  Molloy, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Monkswell, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Strafford, E.

  Orme, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Peston, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Varley, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Wakefield, Bp.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Rea, L.

  Warner, L.

  Rees-Mogg, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Richard, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  St. John of Fawsley, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Young of Dartington, L.

  Serota, B.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  33 Clause 50, page 56, line 23, leave out ("26 weeks") and insert ("two years").
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof—
  33A Page 56, line 23, leave out ("26") and insert ("52").
  4.16 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 33 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33A in lieu thereof.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 33 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33A in lieu thereof. —(Baroness Hollis of Heigham).
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we on these Benches shall not seek to overturn the Commons proposal disagreeing to our amendment to extend the allowances for bereaved spouses to two years. However, we feel very strongly that the Government have shown their true colours in regard to this important issue by preventing any debate in the other place. That indicates calculated contempt both for Parliament and for vulnerable bereaved spouses. Ministers should be utterly ashamed of themselves. It is hardly surprising that so many Labour MPs voted against the Government despite all the usual bullying.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I deeply regret that the other place has seen fit to disagree with the amendment passed by this House after a great deal of discussion to allow a bereavement allowance for
  1178
  two years rather than the six months originally proposed in the Bill, and have proposed one year, which was defeated in favour of the two-year option.
  During the passage of the Bill in this House, I moved amendments, which I did not press to a Division, calling for widows benefits for women over 45 to remain as of now, equalising for widowers on the same basis; namely, the national insurance contributions of the deceased spouse. I still believe that that was the right course. However, I supported the two-year amendment rather than the one-year option as being the more generous alternative.
  I have repeatedly said, and say again for the record, that it is wrong to remove by stealth the right to contributory benefits. The Government have no electoral mandate for that. There has been no public discussion of the merits of social insurance as compared with the welfare system based on means-testing. Much of the Bill is based on the removal of the right to a benefit for which contributions have been made in favour of a system of welfare benefits dependent on means-testing.
  The Government appear to be shifting from a system of social insurance, whereby people qualified for benefit for which they had paid, in favour of a welfare system whereby people do not get what they have paid for unless they can demonstrate real need. We are not talking here about the well to do, for whom the amounts involved are not even small change; we are talking about ordinary working people who, over the years, have prudently set aside money—perhaps through an occupational pension, to which they have contributed to provide a modest income when they can no longer work. Such plans have always taken account of the fact that there will be some state provision for which people have also paid.
  That is true for widows. Even if they have rights under occupational pension schemes to which the deceased spouse contributed, they are unlikely to qualify for more than half the pension that the husband earned up to the date of death—which anyway is unlikely to be a full pension at that date. The overwhelming majority of such people are not rich.
  The removal of the right to a pension has occurred with little publicity. Only recently have sections of the media woken up to the fact that it is happening at all. It is happening against the assumption that things have changed for most women more than actually they have. Despite what was said by my noble friend the Minister, 5 million women do not work outside the home. The nearly 6 million women who do so work part time. The national minimum wage—which I applaud—overwhelmingly benefits women. That shows, if we need to be shown, that women are still not the main wage-earners in the majority of households.
  If we turn away from social insurance as a way of providing for people, the only alternative is to encourage them to provide for themselves through private insurance. Many people will not do so. There are other pressures on disposable income during the middle years of life. So the future could be grim for pensioners in the next century.

  1179
  The Government seem anxious not to increase income tax at least. I understand that, but if people are forced to provide for their future or for possible future dependants through the private insurance industry, they will not find themselves better off.
  I return to my original theme. The widow's benefit for women age 45 and above was based on the contributory principle. The Government's proposal to remove entitlement to it altogether will save large amounts of money—roughly £500 million a year. That does not take into account the money that will be saved by ending the personal allowance concession for widows in their first two years of widowhood. The Government, like those preceding them, have little to learn about clawback when it comes to taxation. I do not personally object, provided the poor and vulnerable are not denied benefits for which they have paid. I believe that is happening under parts of the Bill.
  I repeat that I deeply regret that the Government and the other place have not found it possible to accept the modest two-year amendment that was overwhelmingly proposed in this House.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, with this amendment, the Minister has shown the real advantages of timely concession. We would have preferred two years to one year, but we prefer also one year in the hand to two years in the bush.
  At this stage of the Session, only issues of the very highest priority justify dividing the House—and only on those issues will we take part in doing so. We therefore accept the one year that is in the hand, with thanks to the Minister for her efforts in improving on the original six months.
  The Minister knows that we think she is not so much wrong in what she is doing as substantially premature. She and her colleagues would expect us to press her even harder than we would have done before on legislation against age discrimination in employment and on the need to make rapid progress towards equal pay. With those provisos, I leave the position as it stands and thank the Minister for a mercy that, although small, is very real.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, was essentially to complain about the role of the guillotine in the other place. That is a little rich coming from an Opposition who, when in government, regularly used the guillotine when that suited their purpose. This was, after all, a guillotine Motion that the Opposition in the other place did not choose to oppose and did not put to the vote. I sat through the entire proceedings in the Gallery and that Motion seemed to have the consent of the other place, so the noble Lord's comments were misplaced.
  As to the amount of time spent on this issue compared with others, that is a matter of the priorities of the House. If Members of the other place chose to speak longer on one item than on another, and chose not to speak fully on this matter, that presumably reflected the importance they attributed to the
  1180
  amendments. I repeat, the guillotine Motion was not opposed. A cluster of invalidity benefit amendments were discussed by 7 o'clock. Between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock, this matter and other widow-related issues were debated by consent through the usual channels. The comments of the noble Lord are misplaced to that extent.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, given the size of the Government's majority in the other place, clearly they would get a guillotine Motion through—come what may. The view was taken, I think rightly, that rather than debate the issue in question, it was right to concentrate on the substance of the issue. That is what happened. None the less, throughout the debates in another place, Ministers complained that they could not give a proper answer because of their guillotine.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lord, if the noble Lord is saying that Opposition Members did not vote against the guillotine Motion in the other place thinking that they would be defeated and would be wasting their time. I point out that that did not stop them voting on other issues that day and on other days. It was entirely up to the Opposition whether or not to challenge the guillotine Motion. They did not do so.
  I turn to the substance of the points made by my noble friend Lady Turner. Originally, we proposed a six-month period for bereavement allowance. Instead of returning to the 26 weeks in the Bill, the amendments moved in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State provided for a more generous 52 weeks—which was the length of time proposed to this House by my noble Lady Crawley, to whom we must all be indebted.
  We have held lengthy debates on the proposals. The Government believe that it is no longer possible to justify paying a widow's benefit for life regardless of circumstances—regardless of whether the widow has a generous occupation, has any dependants or has a well-paid job of her own.
  We propose instead that the new bereavement allowance should offer financial support for a limited period following bereavement, recognising that people need that breathing space. Our first proposal was six months. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his remarks to that effect. The Government did listen and move, and they came forward with the proposal for 12 months. When that was put to the vote in this House, it had wide support.
  On Report, the amendment of my noble friend Lady Crawley was supported not only by my noble friends but also by right reverend Prelates, Liberal Democrats, most life Cross-Benchers, and even some noble Lords on the Benches opposite. The only opposition in your Lordship's House to the one-year amendment came from Members on the Tory Front Bench and on the Tory Back Benches. Now the other place has endorsed that proposal.

  1181
  Our reforms concentrate help available from the state where and when it is most needed—on immediate needs and on children and families, while ensuring that existing widows will not lose.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does she not recollect that a number of us on this side of the Chamber voted for the two-year option—including myself? That proposal was not supported only by Opposition Members.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  4.30 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  34 Clause 50, page 56, line 32, leave out ("26 weeks") and insert ("two years").
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  34A Page 56, line 32, leave out ("26") and insert ("52").
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 34 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34A in lieu thereof.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 34 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  42 Clause 57, leave out Clause 57.
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  42A Page 66, line 4, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").
  42B Page 66, line 23, leave out ("For this purpose") and insert—
  ("(9) In sub-paragraph (8)—

  "benefit" includes (in addition to any benefit under Parts II to V of this Act)—

  (a) any benefit under Parts VII to XII of this Act, and

  (b) credits under regulations under section 22(5) above;").

  Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed, do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42B to the words so restored to the Bill, butdo disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42A to the words so restored to the Bill and do propose Amendment No. 42D in lieu thereof to the words so restored to the Bill—
  42D Clause 57, page 66, line 4, leave out ("two") and insert ("seven").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion, I shall speak also to my Motion No. 43D. I
  1182
  shall seek to explain that in a moment. Under the Government's proposals in the Bill no fewer than 310,000 future disabled people will lose their disability and incapacity benefits either in whole or in part. That cannot be justified under any circumstances. The purpose of this debate is to protect disabled people from these unfair impositions, especially as most of them are very severely disabled and poor. Today I do not propose the deletion of the offending clauses dealing with incapacity benefit as I did at Report stage. I do not seek to wreck the Bill. My wish is to reach an honourable compromise with the Government. It is that compromise, and that alone, that we are debating and voting upon today.
  The Government have a long list of achievements in relation to disabled people. Those achievements are impressive and the Government deserve congratulations. But they are absolutely irrelevant to this debate. It is no comfort to a disabled person who is denied his benefit, or sees it slashed, to be told about government generosity in helping some other disabled people. As always, it is the individual who counts. Many new invaluable measures have been initiated by Alistair Darling who is an outstanding Minister and one of the great successes of this Government. But I have no doubt that with these clauses dealing with incapacity benefit he has made a major political miscalculation. I understand that. We all make mistakes. However, the consequences of this miscalculation will damage hundreds of thousands of disabled people in future. Despite all the talk about constitutional propriety and the rights of each House of Parliament—some of it loose talk—I believe that it is our right and duty to try to persuade the Government to be more reasonable.
  My compromise proposals are modest but important. They seek to change from three to seven the number of preceding years during which claimants need to have paid the appropriate amount of national insurance contributions to qualify for incapacity benefit. They seek to change the disregard from £85 to £128, which is the level of the disability income guarantee, and to change the taper from 50p to 23p—the same as the standard rate of income tax. My proposals would reduce the number of disabled people affected by the Government's original proposal by two-thirds and halve their original intended savings. The proposals do not neuter the effect of the clause, as claimed by the Secretary of State. I believe that to halve the savings which the Government intended to make at the expense of disabled people is a reasonable compromise. The Government would still be able to recoup money from the better off but the poor would be protected.
  The question of the starting point of income for the purposes of means-testing—the disregard—is very important. The Government claim that they have made big concessions by changing the disregard from £50 to £85. I am glad that they have backed away from their original figure of £50, but it is incredible that they suggested it. It would have meant reducing incapacity benefit to someone with an income of as little as £6,123 per annum, which is way below the official poverty

  1183
  line. Although Ministers are fond of quoting the figure at which all incapacity benefit is deducted, the crucial matter for most recipients is where means testing begins. That is the matter on which we should focus.
  The concession by the Government to change the disregard to £85 is inadequate. It means that a disabled person will start to lose his incapacity benefit when his total weekly income is an £85 pension, plus £67 incapacity benefit, giving an annual income of £7,943. That level of income—approximately £8,000 a year—is below the official poverty figure. That is the Government's latest concession for someone who is below the official poverty level. Some people say that as the Government have now made a concession we should be satisfied. These minor concessions are hopelessly inadequate. Any government who penalise people with an income of £8,000 deserve the opposition that they get.
  Not only do the Government begin to hit those at a low income level; they hit hard with an incredible deduction rate of 50 per cent. Incapacity benefit is already taxed at 23 per cent. If one combines that with the additional 50 per cent deduction it means that severely disabled people suffer a marginal tax rate of 73 per cent, while the top rate for a millionaire is 40 per cent. That does not make sense. The Government's provisions turn logic on its head. The position should be the reverse. Millionaires should be taxed at the 73 per cent rate and those on incapacity benefit at 40 per cent. That is the situation with which we are faced.
  My proposal for a disregard of £128 means that incapacity benefit is reduced when income starts at £10,179 a year. That income is also low, but it is much more reasonable than the Government's figure and there is greater justification for it. The Government's figure of £85 is not index-linked and therefore would be eroded by inflation. My figure is linked to the disability income guarantee and would automatically rise with inflation.
  In the House of Commons the Secretary of State promised an annual review of the figure but made no effort to put that commitment into the Bill. I know that he cannot bind future governments. However, he could make it more difficult for them to backtrack. he has failed to do so. I am pleased with the other concessions: the exemption of those with the severest disabilities—the 20,000 people who get the higher rate care component of the disability living allowance—and the estimated 22,000 people who will get the disabled person's tax credit. But although the concessions are welcome, those people are a tiny proportion of the 310,000 I mentioned earlier. So I suggest that too much should not be made of the concessions for this very small number of the most severely disabled people.
  Regrettably, the Government are trailing red herrings to justify their proposals penalising disabled people. As recently as last Wednesday the Prime Minister complained:
  "Since 1979, the number of people claiming incapacity benefit has trebled".
  He also said:
  1184
  "As a result of our reforms, we will bring the system of incapacity benefit under control".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/99; co1.289]
  Let us face those statements head on. I accept, as Ministers allege, that the Tory government encouraged many unemployed people to go off the unemployment register and on to invalidity benefit, as it was then called, before incapacity benefit, via friendly general practitioners who were sympathetic to the people who were disabled. So the figure shot up. I think that that is right; that is probably what happened. But the Tory government turned off the incapacity benefit tap in 1995 and the system changed dramatically.
  Since then friendly general practitioners have had no role. Incapacity benefit claimants now have to be certified by two strict Benefits Agency doctors. Some disabled people complain that the tests are too stringent; even paraplegics, double amputees and blind people cannot qualify. That is a measure of how appallingly disabled those recipients are. They are the people we are discussing today.
  In 1995, the Tory government also tightened the eligibility test and eliminated the earnings related supplement of £15 week. That was very tough action by the Tory government of that day. But today departmental statistics show clearly that the cost of incapacity benefit is falling. So much for the stories that it is rising out of control. It is not falling just by a small amount. The forecast decline is for as much as £750 million over the lifetime of this Parliament. So contrary to what the Prime Minister said, the system does not need to be brought under control. It is already under control mainly because of the Conservative 1995 Act.
  Claims that the numbers of people and the costs of incapacity benefit would escalate without this Bill are therefore groundless. They form no excuse for the Government's proposals. I believe that penalising future disabled people for the alleged sins of the past is hardly a blueprint for welfare justice.
  However, there are more examples of creating misleading impressions. By the careful use of selective figures, the Government seek to give the impression that vast numbers of incapacity benefit claimants have occupational pensions and are well off. They impel me to visualise thousands of them driving in their Rolls-Royces to pick up their incapacity benefit. But the Government's claim that nearly half of incapacity benefit claimants are in the top 40 per cent of income distribution makes it sound as though they are well off. It is one of the arguments used constantly by Ministers. But a household with average income is also in the top 40 per cent; so the Government's claim is meaningless.
  The significant fact is that very few of the people on incapacity benefit are wealthy. Of those with occupational pensions, over 90 per cent have occupational pensions of less than £5,000, or £100 a week. And even with the addition of incapacity benefit of £3,000 a year, the vast majority hover around the poverty level. Those are the undisputed facts.

  1185
  The Government are also trying to create an impression that these cuts to the benefits of poor people are essential for modernising the welfare state. Only the naive and the credulous could believe that. Regrettably, the Government's proposal for modernising incapacity benefit in the future is to go back to Michael Portillo's proposal of means testing incapacity benefit—a proposal rejected by his fellow Right-winger, Peter Lilley, as being too difficult for disabled people to stomach. These again are the facts. In looking to the future and in modernising, the Government are harking back to a past which was rejected on reasonable grounds.
  It would be highly significant for the future of the welfare state if a means test, such as that to be applied to incapacity benefit, were to be extended to the retirement pension. Is it or is it not to be so extended? Ministers have made announcements. We are now informed officially that there will be no means test for retired pensioners. That is an important and welcome statement by Ministers. But in the light of that statement, perhaps Ministers can explain to the House why those people leaving the workforce because severe disability makes them incapable of work are to be treated so differently and so much more badly than those leaving because of age. What is the difference? Why should those who are leaving because of disability be treated so much more badly than those leaving because of age? I can see no difference. I am open to correction but to me it is a clear case of discrimination against disabled people. Perhaps Ministers can enlighten the House.
  The other assurance that would be welcome is a commitment that the Government have no intention of getting rid of incapacity benefit altogether. Ministers say they want to relate incapacity benefit to recent work. So they intend to deny incapacity benefit, except for a tiny category, to all those who have had the misfortune to be unemployed for three years before claiming. They will not receive a single penny of incapacity benefit if they have been so unemployed. But there are various depressed areas in Britain where it has been virtually impossible to obtain a job for many years. I have spoken recently to MPs from Wales and elsewhere. They say that it is impossible to obtain any kind of job in their areas. It is the fate of many depressed areas in Britain. So why should disabled people who live in those areas be denied the benefit given to others in prosperous areas? It is what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, called the geographical lottery—except that in this lottery there are no winners, only losers. There is no "right" figure to provide. We can only make our best judgements. However, I believe that seven years is a more reasonable figure because in some areas people can easily be seeking work for that period.
  To deny disabled people their incapacity benefit on those dubious grounds is bad enough. But the real injustice becomes clear when we consider that, in many cases, those claimants have paid their national insurance contributions for some 10, 20 or 30 years. They have paid in good faith and naturally they expect
  1186
  the benefits, but the Government shift the goalposts and now say that if you do not meet these conditions, you will not receive benefits. How can that be justified? That is a reasonable question and I do not believe there is quite such a reasonable answer.
  I have no doubt that the Government have lost the moral argument and are now trying to turn the debate into one on the constitution. Some Members of this House who opposed my proposals complain that the House of Commons has already voted on them and that I put the whole Bill at risk. They should know that that is nonsense. The fact is that the other place voted only on my amendments to delete the damaging clauses and has not voted on the compromise proposals which we are debating today. The House of Commons will only be able to vote on the compromise proposals if this Motion is carried today. If we do not vote for these today, we deprive the House of Commons of the opportunity to vote on these proposals.
  As for the allegation that I put the whole Bill at risk, there are precedents for this House returning Bills to the other place and for doing so time and time again. There is no question of the Bill being lost, at least not today, and it is right that the other place should be made fully aware of the cross-party views of this House.
  The Government are saying that it is time for this Bill, including these deplorable proposals, to be put on the statute book. I suggest to the contrary. It is time for this House to assert its view; to challenge this unjustified attack on disabled people; to declare that the Government's comment, "No compromise —full stop" is a betrayal of the dialogue of democracy, and to urge the Government, even at this late stage, to think again. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed, do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42B to the words so restored to the Bill, but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42A to the words so restored to the Bill and do propose Amendment No. 42D in lieu thereof to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
  The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, in his usual characteristically compelling way. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, have rightly earned a nation-wide reputation as the most respected and knowledgeable champions of disabled people. There are no two people whose honour and integrity I more greatly admire. If they had continued to speak from the green Benches in the other place, I doubt very much whether we would have found ourselves in the mess that we are in today.
  I can honestly say that, in my 39¾ years in Parliament—partly in another place, partly in here—for the past 25 years trying, with so many other of my

  1187
  admirable noble friends, to secure a fair deal for disabled people, this is my saddest moment. It is not because this is my last utterance in Parliament but because of the monstrously unjust actions of this Government, made only very marginally better by last week's concessions.
  One of the most worrying aspects of this episode is the further proof of the executive's ever-increasing stranglehold over parliamentary democracy. The most remarkable point about last week's rebellion in another place was not that so many defied the pressure of the Whips but that so many succumbed to it. I hope I might be forgiven for thinking that, if the Government's supporters had half as much feeling for disabled people as, they claim to have for foxes, the offending clauses in this Bill would have been strangled at birth.
  If a Conservative government had behaved like this, there would have been outraged protests and demonstrations throughout the land. If the Government persist in restricting and resisting the modest offering of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, they will have every reason to dread the judgment of the ballot box in 2002.
  On arrival here, one receives a warm handshake from the Lord Chancellor. I wonder whether, on one's enforced retirement from here, one receives a hug from the Leader of the House.
  Lord Rix: My Lords, since this Bill was last under discussion in this House, there has been much talk of brokering a compromise on the vexed question of how to reform disability benefits. Scarcely two weeks ago, I signed my name in support of the very proposals which are before us again this afternoon. However, for all the talk of compromise both here and in another place, it is easy to forget that thus far neither House has actually been given an opportunity to accept or to reject these compromises.
  Commentators such as Simon Jenkins, who in The Times last Friday urged the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, to accept that it is time to give up, are quite mistaken. The debate may be well rehearsed but the options are only just being laid out before us. Only when this House and another place are given a real choice and are offered a viable alternative to the Government's cuts-led agenda, can we say that true consensus has been reached.
  Of course, outside this House, we heard the nonsensical view that to lay down a choice here today somehow challenges the democratic status of the other place. How can this be so when the "Lord Ashley/Dr Berry" compromise has never been tested in the other place? There are 8.5 million disabled people in the United Kingdom whom noble Lords on the Government Benches—for instance, the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Morris of Manchester—have endeavoured to represent over many years, as have a steadfast number of hereditary Peers from all sides of the House, some now fortuitously restored to us including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord
  1188
  Swinfen and Lord Astor of Hever and, from the Cross Benches, our very own, the indomitable noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, as well as a mere lifer, me.
  Our postbags are still full of letters from anxious disabled people. We are duty bound to act on these concerns. Why should there be any question over our mandate to attempt sensibly to revise the Bill when fewer than half the Members in another place consented to the Government's own proposals?
  Time and again I have stood up in this House and welcomed measures in this Bill which offer more help to young severely disabled people. As president of Mencap, I acknowledge that those who are born with a severe learning disability are likely to be better off under the new dispensation. I do not doubt the Government's commitment to this group and believe they have acted in an exemplary fashion in seeking to improve protection for youngsters in further and higher education and seeking to ensure that the new ONE service really is a service for disabled people. But on incapacity benefit, while I recognise the Government have moved, I do not believe that tightening contribution conditions to three years offers disabled people adequate protection and I do not believe that hitting disabled people living below the poverty line with a means test in order to finance increases for other disabled people is morally justifiable.
  As we have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, is advancing a realistic compromise to government proposals. Instead of denying benefit to severely disabled people who have been out of employment for a mere three years, seven years at least guards against penalising those who have made every effort to find suitable work before reconciling themselves to the limitations of their disability, or those who have faced unemployment in difficult economic conditions in advance of the onset of their disability.
  As the other proposal stands, as your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, means testing incapacity benefit will hit individuals living below the poverty line, and will withdraw benefit with a taper which is harsher than anything imposed on millionaires—some of whom are sitting on your Lordships' Benches—within our tax system. To start reducing benefit instead at £128 per week, and with a taper of 23 pence in the pound, is not generous; i t is realistic.
  It may be worth reminding the House that one of the Government's new indicators in the first annual poverty audit is a reduction in the number of working age people living in families claiming income support for long periods of time. If incapacity benefit is tightened in the way the Minister proposes, and severe disablement allowance is abolished, the Government will find that increasingly hard to achieve.
  In the same report, the Secretary of State for Social Security claims that,
  "the right policies are the policies that work".
  He pledges,

  1189
  "to continue to listen to people on the ground, including people who are themselves living in poverty, to make sure our policies are having the right effect".

  I urge the Government to look again at what they have heard from disabled individuals and their advocates within the 500 strong organisations represented on the Disability Benefits Consortium who are key partners in delivering the fight against poverty and are aware of the situation on the ground.
  Furthermore, the report of the National Policy Forum to this year's Labour Party conference claims to "build upon the platform" of getting more help to the most severely disabled people. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the House today that threats to jeopardise this support are empty.
  It also strikes me as extraordinary that, if newspaper reports are true, the Government have threatened to trade welfare reform against Lords reform. We are talking about the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled people, many of whom are among the poorest in our society. Decisions about their future should be taken in all conscience and in a climate of utmost seriousness, not on the basis of political calculation.
  Despite all the help that the Government have given to people with a learning disability, as well as those affected by SERPS—for which I am most grateful—and despite my high regard for the care and debating skills of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, should the House divide on this matter I shall have no option than to vote with my conscience to support the fair and balanced compromises of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. That will then offer Members of another place a genuine alternative to what is currently on offer from the Government. I urge other noble Lords to do the same.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I was deeply moved, as I know my noble friend Lord Ashley will have been, by the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch. As ever, he was most kind and spoke as persuasively as he was brief and eloquent. he will be very deeply missed in all parts of your Lordships' House.
  Again, I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Ashley for his constancy and the clarity of his advocacy in moving his amendment. As he and I are reminded by our postbags every day now, their opposition to means testing incapacity benefit and changing the contribution conditions for entitlement have united the major organisations of disabled people as never before.
  Neither my noble friend nor I approach this debate with any feeling of personal animus towards those of our colleagues who were content with the Secretary of State's original proposal in the debate in this House on 13th October. Nor is there any animus on our part towards DSS Ministers. Certainly the Secretary of State knows of the warmth and kindliness of my intentions towards him personally. For as Chairman of the Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary
  1190
  Contributory Pension Fund, elected by the House of Commons as a whole, I looked after Alistair's own pension for 10 of the past 12 years with undeviating concern for his interests.
  The plea I shall make to him today is that of a committed supporter of this administration. My purpose is not to hurt the Government, but simply to do whatever I can further to improve the Bill in the interests of disabled people and their carers. Much apart from wanting to hurt the Government, I very much want them to succeed and passionately believe that they are more likely to do so if all of us speak with total candour.
  Friendship is not friendship without candour and it is as a candid friend that I ask the Government to look again not just at the detail but also the principle involved in the proposed changes to incapacity benefit. The Secretary of State told the BBC last week that, while he had moved on "points of detail" he would not water down the principle on which his proposals were based. But how principled was it to encourage tomorrow's pensioners to save for their retirement today and, at the same time, try to impose on disabled people who have already saved for their retirement, over 30 or more years, a cut in benefit of 50 per cent of any personal pension over £50 or, as is now proposed, £85 a week?
  Ministers have spoken in parliamentary debates, as I also have done, of those who will benefit from the Bill. More especially I welcome the help proposed for 20 to 24 year-olds in full-time education. But we cannot ignore the losers under the Bill as drafted, one estimate of whose ultimate number is that it will total 310,000 disabled people.
  The Government have now created the Disability Rights Commission for which my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill first made detailed provision in December 1991. Naturally I am delighted. This and the appointment of Bert Massie to chair the commission have been welcomed all across Parliament. It was, however, Bert Massie, commenting on this Bill in The Times, who put it to the Government that:
  "cuts in entitlement to Incapacity Benefit do not force people to work if they cannot do so: they just make such people poorer".
  Even more to the point, he added:
  "If the problem is that people not entitled to Incapacity Benefit are receiving it because of the policy of the last Government … the answer is to identify those people and to improve 'the gateway' to Incapacity Benefit, not to refuse it to those to need it.".
  Labour Ministers rightly condemn the Major government for their encouragement of unjustified incapacity benefit claims from unemployed people to cut an ever-lengthening dole queue. But the proposals now before Parliament do not dispossess those who allegedly ought not to have the benefit. Instead they make life harder for disabled people who, having paid national insurance for a contributory benefit in good faith over many years while in work, could now lose a substantial part of the amount for which they thought they were insured. Whatever else this might be called, it is not a triumph for high principle. Indeed, the principle involved is no less unwholesome than the

  1191
  detail. In the words of Sir Peter Large, than whom no severely disabled person is more widely respected here at Westminster, why on earth should we have to,
  "take from people in need to give to those in greater need"
  when the rate of increase in total social security spending has already been cut by half of what it was under the Major government?
  Again, why should we now cut the benefits of people who become unfit for work if they have saved, year by year, for very modest personal pensions at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer insists that the economy has never been stronger nor Britain more prosperous?
  Most disabled people are appreciative, as I am, of helpful new steps taken in their interests by Ministers all across Whitehall and, like me, they want the Government to succeed. But they say that the proposals on incapacity benefit confuse reform with retreat. They are not resistant to change, for there are many reforms disabled people want urgently to see. They want ministerial preoccupation to be with value as well as cost and disability benefits to be commended to the taxpayer not as acts of compassion, but of enlightened self-interest and moral right.
  In candid and thus—as I said—true friendship, I ask my ministerial colleagues to reflect again and to respond positively 10 this amendment.
  It was in that spirit that my good and right honourable friend Tom Clarke spoke and voted on the Government's revised proposals in another place. And let us all remember, on this side of the House, that it was Tom Clarke who led for Labour in explaining our policies for disabled people at the general election. In the House of Commons last week, in a speech of high distinction, he kept faith impeccably with what he told the electorate on our behalf. Let us also keep faith today.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, a wholly compelling case has been made out by all noble Lords who have spoken from their expertise, which is acknowledged not only in your Lordships' House, but throughout the whole country. Yet it is reported that honourable Members of another place have threatened to withdraw the Weatherill amendment if we insist tonight. If so, that threat is in grave contempt of your Lordships' House, and it is a slight upon the status and dignity of the bicameral process. It is a threat to which this House should not defer.
  Indeed, no second Chamber, however constituted or reconstituted, should be deprived of the option to decline to approve repugnant legislation, in particular on humanitarian grounds such as obtain in this case. As at present constituted, the House acts upon its honour to protect the interests of this vulnerable minority against oppression, for the reasons so eloquently explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. The Parliament Acts make provision for another place to have its will in due course if that is what its Members wish.
  1192
  The business of government has, as is wholly predictable, again hit the buffers towards the end of the Parliament. No acceptable accommodation has as yet been afforded, and as I understand it, none is on offer. Many years ago, the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, who sat on the Cross Benches, gave me a book inscribed with gratitude for my work on the Floor of the House on behalf of the disabled. Therefore it would not have been possible for me today to sacrifice their interests on the altar of political convenience at the behest of the usual channels. This Government evince but scant concern for minorities. Their protection has now become the urgent obligation of your Lordships' House, and, I hope, the business of the Loyal Opposition.
  To defend those unable to defend themselves from unjustified attack may not be charged as "wanton confrontation". If so charged, it would not be so readily understood by the majority of the people.
  5.15 p.m.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, it is one of the annual rituals of this place that, come November, Ministers facing the exertions of the ping-pong season get an attack of constitutional heavy breathing. Like other heavy breathing, it is often done down the phone anonymously and no one in this Chamber is accountable for it. I believe therefore that I need to clear the air a little.
  So far as I know, no one anywhere in this Chamber questions the supremacy of the elected Chamber. That is true both as a matter of fact—the Parliament Acts see to that—and as a matter of justice. What is at issue between us, and has been an issue in debates for as long as I have been a Member of this House, is whether that supremacy is arbitrary in that another place, whenever it wishes, can say, "I am going to have my way, so there!", or whether that supremacy is governed by the rule of law as set out by another place itself in the Parliament Acts.
  What is set out in the Parliament Acts is not a procedure simply for another place to be able to insist, but a procedure that requires the Secretary of State to share with us the responsibility for getting his Bill on to the statute book; to bargain, to negotiate, to compromise and to seek to reach agreement. That is a perfectly fair burden to which to subject any legislator.
  This Chamber is not in the business of stopping Whipped government Bills. Whenever any Whipped government Bill fails to become law, we may say that a political misjudgment has taken place. What remains a matter of debate is whose that political misjudgment might be. The answer is usually "both" when that happens, because even if one believes that the other person has been totally unreasonable, it may be a misjudgment to fail to foresee his unreason. Therefore, I hope that we shall not have the rather petulant four year-old's "shan't play" noises that we have been hearing from time to time, but that we have serious scope for a reasonable discussion.
  Furthermore, I hope that I shall not hear any more of this mysterious threat to the Weatherill amendment. I agree with the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal

  1193
  that that is not the way to proceed. It is a proposal for mutual assured destruction. On that occasion, the acronym is particularly appropriate! In any case, if any of us were to change our policy because of a threat of that sort, we should not deserve to stay here in the first place.
  I shall not repeat my arguments in detail against either of the clauses that we are debating. I understand that they are grouped together. I have argued that the first one, on contribution records, is unfair to groups which do not have an equal right to make contributions: people in areas of high unemployment; people from ethnic minorities; and people who suffer progressive disabilities, such as, for example, deafness, which interfere with their ability to work before they finally become eligible for incapacity benefit.
  I simply do not understand why the Government have insisted on this clause. It does not make any sense to me. When I listened to Mr Rooker, the Minister of State, replying to the debate on Wednesday evening, all I heard was the equivalent of the famous marginal note in the UN delegate's speech, "Weak point, shout".
  I cannot hear any clear principle. I have read what the Minister and the Secretary of State have said. They seem to be desperately worried about people who have had long periods of unemployment and then claim incapacity benefit. I simply do not understand why that worries them so much. The Minister has said that there is no question of fraud. I thank her for that. I am not certain how far that sentiment applies throughout the Government. At the last Prime Minister's Question Time, when my right honourable friend Mr Kennedy asked the Prime Minister why he insisted on this, the Prime Minister replied with a figure from the Green Paper claiming a threefold increase in the number claiming incapacity benefit since 1981.
  First, if that was the Prime Minister's reasoning, he is locking the stable door after the horse has been stolen; the horse was stolen by the previous government in the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994. I am sure that the House will be relieved to hear that I shall not enter into a debate on that point now. However, it put a stop to that increase in the figures which have since decreased.
  Behind much of this debate is the concern of people to explain the increase both in incapacity benefit and in claims for disability benefit as a whole. Many people have been inclined to claim that there has been fraud. Attempts to find it have always come to nothing. The Minister has most generously confirmed that in the case of BIP, in which her record is an extremely honourable one. The recently-published DSS research report no. 94 found that people recognised as disabled in the past few years were recognised according to the same standard as would have applied many years ago, although the numbers so recognised had increased. The incapacity benefit leavers tracking study found that those who had been unemployed before claiming incapacity benefit were less likely to become employed afterwards.
  1194
  The study also found—this is a very interesting finding—that people's self-perception with regard to their own health was a more accurate predictor of their employment future than the incapacity all-work test. In fact, people are probably better judges of their own health than are the Government. I am not particularly surprised to hear that, but I believe that there are those who would be.
  Therefore, why should there be such an increase in the number of people claiming disability benefits? I believe that this point is crucial to the whole of our argument. First, there is, thank God, far less stigma attached to having a disability than there was even 10 or 20 years ago. Therefore, people are willing to make a claim and to accept the label of being a disabled person when 20 years ago they would not have been. I can only regard that as a good thing. Secondly—and this is a finding of the incapacity benefit leavers tracking study—in the tightened conditions of the labour market, employers are more likely to resist employing people with lowered capacity. Therefore, those people have a greater need to claim incapacity benefit. Thirdly, it is well known that illness is a consequence of unemployment. That case is documented at length in the Acheson report; I do not need to do so now.
  The Acheson report has also found that, although mortality has fallen, morbidity has not fallen in proportion, especially among the poorer part of the population. The poverty/ill health link is much clearer than it was before. Again, that is relevant to the number of claims. We also have better diagnosis in relation to mental health illness, depression, and back pain, which accounts for one in every seven days lost from work through sickness. We have the car culture which both makes people take less exercise and puts their backs in uncomfortable postures. Here, I rely on the authority of the orthopaedic surgeon who many years ago treated my own back.
  I turn to the other clause concerning occupational pensions. At least I understand what the Government are doing although I do not accept it. They argue that they should concentrate help where it is needed most. That is a good principle, but even good principles cannot exist in monopoly. They have to share the world with other principles. Here, they conflict with other principles. First, they conflict with the contributory principle. That is not absolutely sacrosanct, but anyone who proposes to alter the conditions of a contributory benefit must shoulder the burden of proof. That is a heavy burden.
  Secondly, what the Government are doing contradicts the need to encourage private provision for pensions. That is an increasingly urgent need of which the Government are well aware and to which a considerable part of this Bill is devoted. I cannot see that it encourages people to invest money in private pensions if they know that if they become sick, 73 per cent of what they put in will be lost to the Treasury. That does not promote the usual motive for private provision.

  1195
  Finally, what the Secretary of State has done is not equipped for uprating. The uprating is discretionary, not of right. The Minister knows what has happened to the uprating of capital limits for income support, which are equally discretionary. They have not been uprated since 1988. That is the box into which the Secretary of State proposes to put incapacity benefit for those in receipt of occupational pensions. That box is a coffin. We should not put it there.
  Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, when this matter was last before this House, I voted with the Government. I did so because I was reassured that the Secretary of State was looking again at the figures and I was given to understand that concessions would be made which would allay the concerns of many of us on this issue. I know the Secretary of State to be a man with a good heart and a good head. Like my noble friend Lord Ashley, I consider him to be one of the great talents in our Cabinet. However, it has been a source of great disappointment to me and to others that he has not accepted the compromise of my noble friend Lord Ashley.
  Like my noble friend Lord Morris, I am a friend of government and I speak to government as a friend. The Secretary of State has raised the level of his means test. However, even that rate fails to take full account of the huge costs incurred by many disabled people. The point about disease and frailty is that even the most powerful people are humbled by it: by not being able to do what one once could and having to rely on others for even small assistance. The depression that comes so often with incapacity creates even greater dependency. Incapacity can come to any of us: chronic arthritis striking down a school teacher or a secretary; an early stroke ending a career in nursing; neurological disease throwing out of work a father of young children.
  In his arguments, the Secretary of State has said that if the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ashley is passed, single people could have an early retirement pension of up to £23,000 before entirely losing their incapacity benefit. he went on to state that a parent with two children and a dependent spouse, for example, could have a pension of something over £30,000 before being cut off, as though those sums were extraordinarily high.
  The mistake we are making is in turning our welfare system into the American equivalent, which becomes no more than a meagre safety net in which the majority of citizens have no stake. I happen to accept that the universal principle may have to be surrendered in the face of changed circumstances. It was for that reason that I argued for the introduction of fees for higher education but that there would be a means test, set comparatively high, for those who would have to pay.
  When replacing thresholds, I believe that they have to be drawn at something other than a mean and miserable level. The reason why we must ensure that thresholds are not drawn too low is because we need to maintain commitment by the many to the welfare
  1196
  state. The risk in going down the American road is that the majority have no vested interest in protecting the welfare system; they are no longer stakeholders.
  I have every sympathy with our ministerial colleagues who wrestle with the difficult problem of welfare reform. I believe in welfare reform, but I also believe in welfare. When we developed the welfare state in this country, at its heart was the belief that when calamity struck citizens who had contributed to the commonweal, they in their turn should be sustained by the commonweal; not with cap in hand or in ways which removed human dignity but in ways which were decent and fair.
  I cannot understand how we can justify a withdrawal rate of 73p in the pound—50p by the means test and 23p in tax—for severely disabled people. Yet, as we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, say, the top rate for millionaires remains at 40p in the pound. How can we have that kind of disparity? What are we thinking about? What is happening to our values? Are we forgetting who we are? What does "social justice" really mean?
  There is much in the Bill that is good and I would not like to see it fall. However, I cannot vote with my Government on this issue.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—
  Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I shall be brief. I hope that the noble Lord will be patient for a few moments. I am minded to go into the Lobby with the noble Lord. Lord Ashley, this evening, particularly on one point. I refer to the level of disregard. It seems to me that although the Government have improved the situation from their original proposals, it is still very much on the mean side.
  The only other point I make is that the more I listen to debates on this subject, the more it strikes me that incapacity benefit is not well suited to being a general source of "top-up" for income for disabled persons. We have to accept that the structure of welfare benefits generally, and particularly those available to disabled people, is complicated. In the years when one had to advise constituents in another place about benefits and their relationship to each other, particularly for the disabled, I found myself constantly confused and wondering whether I was giving correct advice.
  I hope that if the Government face a set-back on this issue, they will not be deterred from reconsidering the relationship between the benefits. In particular, I hope that they will come to a view about whether incapacity benefit should be specifically related to work and the inability of a person because of disability to undertake work, or whether there is a need for a more general supplement of a kind which would assist many of those who appear to be potentially disadvantaged by the proposals introduced by the Government.
  I shall say no more than that. However, it seems to me that many of the arguments which the Government may be using to defend their own position are narrowly focused on the purpose of incapacity benefit

  1197
  whereas many of the arguments of those who have put the contrary case are a recognition that the incomes of disabled people, particularly those who are out of work and may have been so for a long time, are modest. The structure needs to be looked at to see how that can be remedied.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, when dealing with an issue as emotionally charged as this, it is not difficult to support what is seen to be popular. However, we all know that it is often much more difficult to support what is believed to be right.
  Some may say that this part of the debate is a watershed, a moment of truth or perhaps a crunch time. As we are likely to have other occasions such as this before 17th November, I feel that such descriptions are not appropriate. However, it would to apt to say, like the Americans, "We are now playing hardball".
  I say that because we have now reached a stage in this House where we are challenging a government elected by the British people to a point of unjustifiable conflict. We are perilously close to doing that in two ways. One is in respect of the constitutional role of this House; the other in respect of the Bill and the amendments to it.
  As concerns the first point, let us remind ourselves of why we are here. Indeed, we say it so often that we should have it, if not in our hearts, in the forefront of our heads. We are here to scrutinise and revise; to point out to the Government errors in proposed legislation; to nit-pick; to cross "t"s and dot "i"s and to challenge, but only to a certain point. The moment we go beyond that point we become dangerously close to abusing our powers, our authority and the privilege which we have been given to contribute to the lawmaking process of this land and to its people.
  If this continues, sooner or later it will become more and more evident that this country can no longer tolerate an unelected House holding the people's chosen government to ransom. Up to this point, this House has made its views known. The Government have considered those views. As we know, they have responded. Enough is enough. Now is the time to cease this protest. The whole House should support the decision of the elected Government. For those reasons alone, the Government should be supported at this stage.
  However, it is also important to address the Bill and the amendments. I shall deal with that in two ways. First, I shall say why my noble friends on this side of the House should support the Government, and secondly, why other noble Lords, particularly the Official Opposition, should also support the Government.
  I have spent most of my adult life conducting wage negotiations with employers. Never once did I obtain all I wanted, but I never expected to. Once in the realms of negotiation, you recognise that you have to compromise. I knew that I could not secure satisfaction for every demand that every one of my
  1198
  members wished to make; but I sought to secure as much as I could for as many as I could, and, at the same time, to ensure that all those I represented sacrificed the least, in terms of both wages and conditions and job security. That was a discipline I set myself on each and every occasion. That is not universally true throughout the whole of the trade union movement. I am sure we can all remember the miners' strike of 1984–85 when the refusal of the mineworkers' leader to compromise resulted in hardship and agony for so many miners and their families as well as for so many others.
  So, what is the relevance of that to the debate on this Bill? I shall tell the House. The Government listened to the arguments advanced by this House; they made concessions and amended the Bill accordingly. Now the Bill, as acknowledged by my noble friend Lord Ashley, is generally a good one. Therefore it should be accepted. Although it may not provide all that is wanted, the vast majority of the Bill is good.
  I say to my noble friends that this Bill provides far more benefit for far more people—the vast majority being among the most disadvantaged—than the numbers the amendment seeks to protect. Therefore, if this Bill falls far more people will lose compared with those who will gain because of the insistence on pushing this amendment to a Division and winning. I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment. If not, I urge all my other noble friends on this side of the Chamber to vote against him.
  I turn now to noble Lords opposite. I appreciate that the role of the Opposition is to oppose. That they have done. But there comes a time in this House when that opposition must cease and I believe that that time has now come. If that is ignored, then in my view the Opposition are no longer acting as a responsible opposition. From their records and from the statements made by the Tory spokesman on social security at this year's Conservative Party conference, it is clear that this Bill is not to the liking of the party opposite, despite the advantages it will bring to many people. So it would seem that any support given to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ashley by the Opposition will only be for the purpose of jettisoning the whole Bill. That being so, it is a very undignified stance. Indeed, it would be contrary to the understanding reached in respect of the Government's legislative programme when agreeing the Weatherill amendment.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, has the noble Lord forgotten that these proposals were turned down by the Conservatives when they were in office?
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, it is true that they were turned down. It was put forward by Mr. Portillo and turned down by Mr Lilley. I am wondering whether it was with an eye on the general election that they were turned down at that time.
  As I said at the outset, the Government have been driven to play hard ball. In the circumstances, no one could blame this Government, if their proposed

  1199
  legislation on welfare reform and pensions is further frustrated, for being less than forgiving in the wake of such destruction.
  Baroness Masham of Ikon: My Lords, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, for all the support he has given disabled people within and without Parliament. For years the noble Duke has been president of RADAR (the Royal Association of Disability and Rehabilitation). Many people thank him for all he has done.
  Many people are becoming concerned about the meanness of spirit of the Government towards unfortunate people who have to struggle to survive. I should like the Minister to say how much it will cost to administer the means test to these severely disabled people. They will feel let down unless the House supports them tonight in asking the Government to try and understand their needs more closely than they have so far been able to do.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, suggested that, in what we may be proposing to do this evening, this House could be exceeding its constitutional duty. I take issue with him on that point. The House in fact is performing its constitutional duty. If this House feels that the other place should think again, it has a duty to ask it to think again. The noble Lord has not been in this House as long as I have. I can remember that when this party was in government, the House asked the government of that day—the Members in the other place—to think again.
  It may be unwise; it may be inadvisable to try and delay matters. I do not know how difficult it is to arrange government business—I have never been in the position of trying to do so. But as far as I am aware there is no constitutional reason why Prorogation, which I gather is planned for Thursday, could not be postponed. I am sure that the Government will want to get their Bill through and I for one do not want to stop them, but it may be necessary for this Bill to be amended yet again. If the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, takes this matter to a Division, I am strongly inclined this evening to vote with him in his Lobby.
  I have one question for the Minister. Why, when the Government are attempting to get people to produce their own private pension arrangements to back up what is acknowledged to be a rather low state pension, are they means-testing disabled people for incapacity benefit which is exactly the same sum as the state pension?
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I support these amendments. It is important that there is some method of uprating, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, clearly demonstrated.
  I reiterate something that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said when he so persuasively introduced these amendments; that is, the other place has not been
  1200
  asked its opinion on the compromise amendments. In any case, the Bill has to go back to the other place because of the successful amendment of my noble friend Lady Strange.
  Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I apologise for taking up the time of the House after one and a quarter hours on this debate. However, I want strongly to speak on it.
  When I was eight I had polio and was paralysed for 18 months. Luckily, I recovered. So I know what it is like to be disabled. Many more, 8.5 million people, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, pointed out, certainly know what it is like to be disabled. The National Health Service looks after everybody equally. So should the social security system. That is the problem with which we are dealing today.
  My father was a double amputee. As a result, I have worked for the past 10 years for all those who suffer from various disabilities. I am a life member of the Limbless Association; I am a director of SANE, the mental health charity; I am a patron of Depression Alliance, which deals with people who suffer from depression. Sadly, I shall not be able to do that too much longer from within your Lordships' House, but I shall continue my work outside.
  The disabled did not choose to be disabled. Unfortunately, they are disabled. They must be treated fairly in all ways. Because I have lost my franchise to be here, I shall not become a hooligan; I shall not vote against this Government willy-nilly until Wednesday or Thursday. But in this case I feel it is the duty of this House to ask the other place to look seriously at this problem, which has not been debated there. It is the duty of this House to revise extreme measures of any government. We have done that successfully for many years. I urge your Lordships, if this matter comes to a vote—I feel sure it will—to support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, so that it can be seriously examined again.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, anyone speaking in your Lordships' House in a debate on the disabled, which has had as participants those who have already spoken this afternoon, must do so with great diffidence. I speak not only of the noble Lords, Lord Ashley, Lord Rix, Lord Morris, and my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, but also of the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy. They have devoted their lives, in large measure, to helping the disabled. Therefore on this occasion I speak with great diffidence.
  Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that we are now dealing with two sets of amendments, which have been grouped together. One group relates to the effect on the disabled if the restrictions on contribution requirements imposed by the Government are carried through, and the second group deals with the question of whether the disabled should have their benefits reduced because they happen to have occupational pensions. I believe that the grouping of the amendments is appropriate but, none the less, it is important for us to bear in mind the fact that we are discussing two issues here. Although they may be

  1201
  related they are, to some extent, separate. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will feel that it is right to oppose both sets of amendments, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord, Ashley.
  We have before us some amendments on which the House of Commons has got to support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley—
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Let there be no doubt on the matter: we will certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
  I want to stress most strongly a point which has been made by a number of noble Lords, not least the proposer of the amendments himself; namely, that the House of Commons has not yet had an opportunity to vote on these amendments. When we discussed the matter during earlier stages of the Bill, we voted on and carried amendments to remove these two clauses, which I believe to be fundamentally wrong in principle. The matter then went to the other place and the Government came forward with totally inadequate amendments as a form of compromise. It is that on which the House of Commons has so far voted. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, seemed completely unaware of the fact that the other place has not yet had an opportunity to vote on these specific issues.
  Although I continue to take the view that these clauses are wrong in principle, I recognise the fact that there is a case for compromise. I certainly believe that the compromise put forward by the Government is totally inadequate and that that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is one which the House as a whole should support. It is an entirely reasonable basis on which the House may proceed. Therefore, it does not seem to me that the issue of the constitutional position of the House, or whatever, actually comes into question at this point. Indeed, it is something quite separate.
  Nevertheless, at the end of the day—and this is important—I feel bound to say that the matter rests with the House of Commons. We should give Members in the other place the opportunity to vote on these amendments. I do not take the view that it would then be right constantly to reject them. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, pointed out, it is not his intention to kill the Bill. Similarly, it is not our intention to kill the Bill. Although there are a number of objectionable features in the legislation, I believe that, overall, it does things which ought to have support. Our task is to remove these particular clauses from the Bill.
  I do not think that these clauses can conceivably be regarded as reform. They are fundamentally flawed. In addition, it has been said that this is a matter upon which there will be a conspiracy of hereditary Peers, and so on. However, one has only to look at the results of the voting on the last occasion when the matter was before the House. If no hereditary Peers had voted against these clauses, the amendments against the
  1202
  Government and in favour of knocking out the clauses would still have been carried by a substantial majority. I believe that there is great opposition throughout the House as regards what the Government are doing; indeed, it is all-party opposition.
  My next point is equally important. It has been reported, not least in some press articles, that this is a measure to increase expenditure on the disabled. It is not so. These clauses do not represent a measure to increase expenditure on the disabled; they represent cuts in what has already been previously agreed for the disabled. That is the crucial difference between the two positions. In effect, we have been told by the Government, "Oh well, we have made a concession". But what has actually happened is that the Government have come forward with these proposals, which propose to take away benefits from the disabled. They have then said, "You can hang on to a little bit of what remains". That is not a reasonable deal. However, the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, would strike a reasonable balance between the two sides of the House.
  I should like to say a few words on the substance of the matters now before the House. The first set of amendments is concerned with a contribution condition. It has been the hallmark of the Government's so-called "reforms" that, as an overall effect of policy, they have undermined time and again the contributory principle. Indeed, they have extended the question of means testing time after time. What we object to most strongly in the first clause that we are discussing and which the noble Lord seeks to amend is the proposition that people who have contributed for many years but have not done so recently—very often for good reasons—should suddenly find that they lose their disability allowance. We believe that to be wrong in principle. At any rate, one should go for the compromise which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has proposed; namely, that it should at least be a question of whether such people have contributed over a seven-year period.
  The second set of issues relates to the question of incapacity benefit and pension contributions. I do not wish to burden the House by repeating the excellent exposition made by the proposer of these amendments as regards the way in which this will operate. It will do so by applying a ludicrously high, effective marginal rate of tax to people who cannot conceivably be regarded as well off. But there is an even stranger situation here. Under this clause, and at this very high rate of marginal tax, incapacity benefit will be taken away from people because they have an occupational pension. The whole thrust of the rest of the Bill is to say that people should make provision by way of pension. But what do we find? If you are disabled and have been fortunate enough to find a pension, you will suddenly find that you are penalised for so doing. The clause is totally inconsistent with what remains in the rest of the Bill.
  However, there is something even more curious about this proposal. If you have an occupational pension at a relatively low level, your incapacity benefit will begin to be withdrawn. Indeed, after not

  1203
  very large increases in the level of income at which this happens, it will then be withdrawn altogether. If another individual on incapacity benefit had an income from stocks and shares of, say, £2 million a year, his incapacity benefit would not be affected at all. It is a truly lunatic situation. I really do not understand why it should be so.
  There are many other arguments to deploy but, as many have already been put forward this afternoon, I do not wish to burden your Lordships' House by repeating them. However, there is perhaps one that is worth mentioning. I have in mind the question of public expenditure. We have been told, "Well, we have to make these cuts on the people who are incapacitated"—who are certainly not among the richest members of the community—"in order to pay for some of the improvements which have been made elsewhere in the welfare system". Indeed, some of those improvements will affect people who are better off and less incapacitated, if incapacitated at all. That is not a reasonable way to assess priorities.
  I conclude on this note. Like most noble Lords, I am genuinely puzzled as to why the Government should persist in retaining these two clauses. I find them completely incompatible with the overall approach which they seem to be adopting. They cannot conceivably be regarded as reform. However, as I say, while they are wrong in principle I recognise that a compromise should be agreed. I do not think that this is something which should go back and forth and endanger the Bill. However, it is tremendously important that this House should carry out its duty, which is to ensure that those in another place, who must at the end of the day have ultimate responsibility for these matters, should have an opportunity to vote on the amendments which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I very much hope that your Lordships will support them.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in supporting Amendments Nos. 42A and 42B to Lords Amendment No. 42, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43A to C. Of course I am asking the House therefore to reject the amendments of my noble friend.
  It always gives me great pleasure to reply to such a balanced debate with such a variety of views as we have heard tonight. There have been three main themes advanced tonight. First, that what is being offered by my noble friend Lord Ashley is a compromise; secondly, that what the Government are doing affects people below the poverty line and, thirdly, that the other House should have a chance to consider—which it has not yet done—the amendments of my noble friend.
  My honourable friend Mr Rooker in the other place said that he was engaging with myths as much as with information. I am afraid that I am about to do the same thing tonight. First, although this measure has been alleged to be a compromise, it is not. Secondly, we have been told that it affects people below the poverty line, but it does not The statistics are quite misleading.
  1204
  Thirdly, we are told that the Commons have not had a chance to consider this matter when they have and have made their position already clear. I shall return to that point.
  The Government have made it clear all along that the incapacity benefit reforms are based on principle, helping the 1 million disabled people who say they want to work to do so while providing the right support for those who cannot. The Government are already spending more than £24 billion a year on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people. During the course of this Parliament we expect to spend nearly £2 billion more. I repeat that this is not a cuts agenda, even though that has been alleged by some, including the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, tonight. As I say, we are spending nearly £2 billion more on disabled people in the course of this Parliament. But we believe that in doing so the greatest resources should be spent on those with the greatest needs. If we are to meet that challenge, incapacity benefit needs to be reshaped and reformed.
  I remind the House that despite some suggestions to the contrary—again from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—no one who is currently disabled and on incapacity benefit will be affected by these changes. In response to my noble friend Lady Kennedy I also remind the House that in future 90 per cent. of those on incapacity benefit will not be affected by these changes. I say to my noble friend Lord Morris, who has alleged that incapacity benefit expenditure is not out of control because the numbers on it are falling, that that is simply a result of measures taken in 1995. When someone now reaches retirement age he or she comes off IB and goes onto old age pension. That is the reason for the fall in numbers. It has nothing at all to do with the actual caseload.
  The Government clearly have not gone as far as my noble friend Lord Ashley would like. I accept that. My noble friend presents his amendments as a compromise. That word has been much used tonight. However, his amendments are not a compromise by any definition of that word. They neuter most of the effect of this Bill, as I do not doubt that my noble friend intended they would. IB was devised as an earnings replacement benefit for those who became sick and disabled while in work and who might otherwise have remained in work. As people have said tonight, incapacity benefit was never intended to massage the unemployment figures, although it was so used by the previous government. IB was never intended to be a top-up for early retirement, although it is now being used in that way too. We are bringing back IB to its original intent, an earnings replacement benefit for those disabled while in work and unable to continue to work.
  My noble friend's proposals for the contribution conditions would allow someone to qualify for 113 who did one year's work as long as 81 years ago. That is not creating a link with recent work. That is not compensating someone who has had to leave work recently because of incapacity. Instead it makes incapacity benefit a latent unemployment benefit.

  1205
  My noble friend's proposals on occupational pensions would enable a single person to get IB with a pension—not an income—of up to £23,000 a year which would have been provided by earnings of £45,000 plus, or a couple with two children to get incapacity benefit with a pension of up to £39,000—I repeat that that is not income, wages or earnings but pension—implying preceding earnings of £60,000 to £80,000. No one in your Lordships' House—
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. But are not the figures for earnings and pensions that she has just given to us similar to the sort of figures that she mentioned in connection with the working families' tax credit when she defended the fact that government benefits were being given to people on those levels of earnings?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the working families' tax credit for a couple with two children would taper out at about £15,000 of earnings; that is, for a couple with dependent children. I refer to both partners being in work and eligible to claim childcare allowance. However, I am comparing like with like, not apples with oranges. The childcare allowance is equivalent to DLA, not IB. WFTC tapers out at earnings of between £14,000 and £16,000. My noble friend's amendment would result in IB tapering out at a pension of double that; that is, £39,000. That would have had to be preceded by earnings of £60,000 to £80,000. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, gave me the opportunity to make that clear.
  By any stretch of the imagination my noble friend is not targeting those with the greatest needs. My noble friend says that he is protecting the poor. Since when has someone with a pension of £30,000 plus—and therefore with preceding earnings of double that figure—been deemed poor? My noble friend's amendments are not a compromise. The word "compromise" is a useful one. It has become emptied of meaning tonight because, as my noble friend himself said, his amendments would remove from their reach two-thirds of those affected by the proposals.
  Earl Russell: My Lords—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not intervene in other people's speeches and I hope that I shall be allowed to make my speech tonight.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does she understand that in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, we have conceded the principle? That is a great sacrifice. Some substantial share of the practice would be an appropriate response.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, to concede the principle and then move amendments which take almost everyone out of its operation is not to my mind a substantial compromise.
  1206
  As I say, my noble friend's amendments are not a compromise. They take almost two-thirds of those affected by the measure out of its reach and they hugely reduce the impact on most of the rest. That is why the Government cannot and will not accept them. However, the Government have listened and have moved significantly. I remind your Lordships that the Government have extended the period over which national insurance contributions have to be paid from one out of the last two tax years prior to the claim for IB, to one out of the last three. In practice, that means someone will be able to get IB, given the working of the tax years, even if they last worked four and a half years ago. To qualify, people will need only to have worked for four weeks on average male earnings—or 12 weeks on the national minimum wage—sometime within the past four and a half years. Do your Lordships really believe that is an onerous contribution condition to meet?
  The extra year that the Government amendment proposes will particularly help people with progressive diseases, who may lose their jobs some time before they are eligible to claim IB, and others with broken work records. As I promised on Report, the Commons amendment provides that people on disabled person's tax credit earning below the lower earnings limit will be able, like carers on invalid carer's allowance, to qualify on the basis of credits in the last two tax years, provided that they have paid contributions at some point in the past. That offers them real security if they stay in work. Again, the Government have listened, responded and moved.
  Turning to occupational pensions, the Government intend to raise the occupational and personal pension threshold by £35 a week, from £50 to £85—which is substantial. That figure, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in the other place, will be reviewed annually so that it keeps its value. Invalidity benefit will not even begin to be reduced for a single person until their income reaches £152 a week. Despite what was said by my noble friend Lord Ashley about the poverty line, that is some £55 a week above what many of us regard as the poverty line—below half average earnings. My noble friend misled the House, possibly because he was comparing a family with children against a single person. Again, that is apples and oranges. I am sure that my noble friend did not intend to mislead the House but he certainly did, and that mistake was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
  I repeat, the taper on IB does not even begin to come into effect for a single person, and similarly for couples, until their income is at least £55 above the poverty line that has been quoted by my noble friend. That means that single people will continue to get IB until their early retirement pension reaches nearly £11,500 a year, which is £86.50 a week higher than the disability income guarantee. A couple with two children could get £18,500 and child benefit on top of that, before they lost their entitlement to IB. On top of that, they might also qualify for DLA. Under the Government's proposals, unlike those of my noble friend, those people most severely disabled on the

  1207
  highest rate of DLA will not be affected at all. As a result of the Government's proposals, 100,000 disabled people will no longer be brought within these changes.
  Three additional points were made. The first was that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ashley was a compromise. Although your Lordships may wish to describe as a compromise something that effectively takes two thirds of the people out of the Bill's reach, do not think that you are somehow negotiating. Your Lordships are not and we are not.
  The second point made and repeated concerned the poverty line. Given that the taper kicks in at some £55 a week over the poverty line and, on the Government amendments, would not be withdrawn for a couple with children until some £18,500 be fore child benefit and DLA, we are not talking about people below the poverty line.
  The third point—made emphatically by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—was that the other place did not have the chance to consider the amendments and that therefore we would be doing them a favour by returning these proposals for further consideration. I do not agree. I sat in the Gallery in the other place, as did one or two other noble Lords—not for the whole debate, but I went to and fro. It was clear to me and to the House that the entire debate on incapacity benefit, which went on for some three hours, was on the whole range of amendments thereto, as well as on the government amendments. My honourable friend the Member for Kingswood, Mr Roger Berry, stated in the other place on 3rd November:
  "I have supported a compromise position, which is on the Order Paper".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/99; col. 321.]
  And he went on to describe it. That was just one part of an extensive debate on incapacity benefits. The other place had a proper opportunity to debate the noble Lord's amendment. It chose instead to support the Government rather than defeat them and to support the amendment of my noble friend, there advanced by Mr Roger Berry. The Commons have considered these amendments. They chose to support the Government. They considered this matter as part of the wider debate. They do not need these matters to be sent back to them.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, the other place did not have the opportunity to vote on these amendments.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the other place had wanted these amendments, it could have voted down the Government's proposition and voted for the other amendments on the Order Paper put by Mr Roger Berry, which were basically the same as my noble friend's amendments. The other place chose not to do so. To suggest that the Commons had neither the wit nor the intelligence to see that strategy is deeply condescending to Members of the other place. They knew what they were doing. It is an act of self-deception by your Lordships to suggest that they did not.
  1208
  The Government have a good and strong record of supporting disabled people. The Government are spending up to £2 billion more this Parliament. This is not about cuts. It is about seeking to respond to real, new and emerging need. The Government have delivered the Disability Rights Commission and are delivering the disabled person's new deal and the disabled person's tax credit—all in two years of a Labour Government. We are continuing that work in this Bill, strengthening the help given to the most severely disabled, the poorest disabled people, and to children and young people. That is a record of which we are proud.
  We believe that what we are doing in the Bill is right. We are focusing help on people who need it most. For example, children born with a severe disability—not people retiring on a generous white-collar pension of £30,000 or more. That is why, although the Government have listened and have moved quite considerably, they will not be moving any further. The Government have sought to meet reasonable concerns. They have done so and should receive credit for that. Given that the Government's concessions and compromise have taken something like 125,000 people out of the changes in the Bill, to dismiss them as some noble Lords have done tonight—including some of my noble friends—as being somehow trivial and insignificant is deeply churlish.
  The Government have listened. It is time that your Lordships listened. Ping-ponging the Bill will not bring anything further for disabled people. My noble friend Lord Ashley may believe that, but he is wrong. Ping-ponging the Bill will not bring forward any further concessions. I quote the Secretary of State:
  "There are no further changes to come. The Lords must understand that".
  Ping-ponging could delay and endanger other aspects of the Bill affecting millions of people; not just extra help for the poorest and most severely disabled but the right of bereaved men to receive for the first time widower's benefits. Ping-ponging the Bill would also risk delaying and endangering the protection of SERPS widows, which we discussed earlier this evening. Let your Lordships be in no doubt that it would also risk the right of women who divorce—as, unfortunately, half of all married women will—to receive shared pension rights, which is something for which your Lordships called. Finally, it might risk or endanger the opportunity for several million low-paid people to enter a good, cheap, safe, funded stakeholder pension scheme.
  I do not exaggerate when I say that millions of people—women, low-paid people, widowers and the poorest disabled people—will benefit from the Bill. So why are your Lordships proposing to ping-pong it when no further concessions are to be had? The House of Commons has twice—I repeat, twice—made its views clear that it supports the Government and that it supports the Bill. Ping-pong will delay the Bill; it could endanger it. It will not extract any further concessions; there are none to be had.

  1209
  As your Lordships acknowledge, the Government have the right to get their legislation through—not my noble friend's legislation; not the Tory legislation; but the Government's legislation. I ask your Lordships and my noble friend: is it not time to acquiesce with grace to the considered decision of the elected House and send a Bill, which will benefit millions of our people, on to Royal Assent?
  Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I wish to thank all the speakers who have participated in this splendid debate. We have had some marvellous contributions, nearly all of them well informed. I congratulate all speakers who have taken part. I need refer only to the brilliant speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. Assuming that we were in a general election mode, it was a wonderful, rabble-rousing speech; it would have been a highly successful contribution to the hustings. Unfortunately, he got the date wrong, the time wrong and the place wrong. Apart from that it was a marvellous speech.
  The only other comment I have on the noble Lord's speech is that he boasts about having been a trade union leader. If I may say so modestly, as a young man I was too. If I belonged to a trade union with a leader who was prepared to penalise severely disabled, poor people—living on a poverty level income, on £8,000 or whatever—I would join a different trade union.
  The Minister has spoken with her usual eloquence. My noble friend is a great expert in this field. She is far more expert than anyone else in the House—with, perhaps, the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Both of them are exceptional speakers. However, I must pick her up on one or two small points.
  She began her contribution by saying that there had been a splendid variety of views. I heard no variety of views at all; all I heard was unanimous condemnation.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that will teach me to indulge in irony.
  Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, there was unanimous condemnation in the House of the Government's policies—except from our great friend, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity.
  The Minister said that my amendments were not really compromise. I know that my noble friend is good at fiddling figures—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Never! Never!
  Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, playing with figures perhaps. All I shall say is this: my amendments halve the money that the Government tried to save and squeeze out of disabled people.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is not correct. The Government's original proposals were for £700 million. My noble friend's proposals will bring that down to approximately £190 million.
  Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the last Government proposals that I saw were £500 million.
  1210
  They were left with £350 million if my amendments were accepted. We could not lean over backwards further than that to be more compromising. I was against the principle—as was the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—of hitting severely disabled people in this way. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, we gave way on the principle; we tried to compromise and to be reasonable because we recognise that the Government have this great majority in the House of Commons. That is the point.
  Another point is that my noble friend mentioned those great examples of people on incapacity benefit who have marvellous pensions of £23,000 or £30,000. For her to quote those kinds of extreme examples shows the desperation of the Government. The wages necessary to receive a pension of that kind will be somewhere in the region of £100,000 or £200,000—I do not know. It requires an enormously high salary. How many severely disabled people applying for IB will have earned that kind of vast fortune? Maybe a dozen; maybe two dozen; maybe 100; maybe 1,000—but, out of the 310,000 people that we are talking about, that is nothing.
  My noble friend seemed to be proud of excluding people from the measures in the Bill. It is a strange Bill where one has a Minister standing up to say "I am proud that this Bill does not cover these people and does not cover those people". The Bill is supposed to help people; it is to make specific provisions for IB to help people.
  Perhaps I may round off in this way. My noble friend did not dispute that the Government's concessionary position leaves some disabled people in poverty of one kind or another. Someone receiving £8,000 is not a wealthy person to be hit by these proposals. She did not deny that the tax rate for these people is 70 per cent compared with 40 per cent for millionaires. She did not deny that the concessions given by the Government relate only to some 20,000 people with the high rate of DLA and 22,000 people with the disabled person's tax allowance.
  Speeches have been made in the House by various speakers. I do not intend to go through them all. The Minister has failed to deal with them adequately. When she tries to frighten the House by mentioning all the good things in the Bill that are at risk, I shall say this: she knows that no one has been a stronger supporter of this Government than me; no one has been a stronger supporter of this Bill than me; no one has been a stronger supporter of welfare reform than me. I started my speech by saying that I admired the Secretary of State; I said how good he was and how wonderful was the record of the Government. But on incapacity benefit the Government are acting disgracefully by hitting these people. We are not jeopardising the good things in the Bill; we are simply challenging the Government for hitting people on incapacity benefit.
  I hope that the House will support my amendments. As far as concerns the future, my options are open. I commend my Motion to the House.
  6.28 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 260; Not-Contents, 127.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Denham, L.

  Addington, L.

  Desai, L.

  Addison, V.

  Dholakia, L.

  Ailsa, M.

  Dundee, E.

  Alderdice, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Elles, B.

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Elton, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Exmouth, V.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Astor, V.

  Feldman, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Attlee, E.

  Fitt, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Flather, B.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Barker, B.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Gage, V.

  Bell, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Berners, B.

  Geraint, L.

  Bethell, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Biffen, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Birdwood, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Gormanston, V.

  Blease, L.

  Gray, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Bowness, L.

  Grey, E.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Hamwee, B.

  Bridges, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Buccleuch and Queensbarry, D.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Byford, B.

  Higgins, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Home, E.

  Caithness, E.

  Hood, V.

  Calverley, L.

  Howe, E.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Ironside, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Clancarty, E.

  Jopling, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Kemsley, V.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Clwyd, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Kingsland, L

  Coleridge, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Kintore, E.

  Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Lane, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Cross, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Layton, L.

  Darcy de Knayth, B.

  Leigh, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Limerick, E.

  1212

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Redesdale, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Rees-Mogg, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Rennard, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Renton, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Richardson of Calow, B.

  Lloyd-Webber, L.

  Rix, L.

  Long, V.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Longford, E.

  Rochester, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Luke, L.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Rowallan, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Russell, E. [Teller]

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Ryder of Warsaw, B.

  McNair, L.

  St. John of Fawsley, L.

  McNally, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Maddock, B.

  Sandberg, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Sandys, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Selsdon, L.

  May, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Sharman, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Sharples, B.

  Mills, V.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Monson, L.

  Slim, V.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Morris, L.

  Steel of Aikwood, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Sterling of Plaistow. L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Munster, E.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Strafford, E.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Newall, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Newby, L.

  Swinfen, L. [Teller]

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Noel-Buxton, L.

  Temple of Stowe, E.

  Norrie, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Northesk, E.

  Teviot, L.

  Norton, L.

  Teynham, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Thurso, V.

  Orme, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Palmer, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Trumpington, B.

  Pender, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Plumb, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Prentice, L.

  Wharton, B.

  Prior, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Quirk, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Wise, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Wright of Richmond, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Reay, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Berkeley, L.

  Alli, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Amos, B.

  Borrie, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Brett, L.

  Bach, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  1213

  Brookman, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Privy Seal)

  Burlison, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Lipsey, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Crawley, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  [Teller]

  David, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Donoughue, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Elder, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Nicol, B.

  O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Gale, B.

  Puttnam, L.

  Gavron, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Randall of St, Budeaux, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Richard, L.

  Goudie, B,

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Serota, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Simon, V.

  Grenfell, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Hacking, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Varley, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Warner, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Howells of St Davids, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Winston, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  43 Clause 58, leave out Clause 58.
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  43A Page 66, line 27, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 42 and insert ("Where—

  (a) a person is entitled to incapacity benefit in respect of any period of a week or part of a week,

  (b) a pension payment is payable to him in respect of that period (or a period which forms part of that period or includes that period or part of it), and

  1214

  (c) the amount of that payment (or, as the case may be, the amount which in accordance with regulations is to be taken as payable to him by way of pension payments in respect of that period) exceeds the threshold,

  the amount of that benefit shall be reduced by an amount equal to 50 per cent. of that excess.
  (1A) In subsection (1) above "the threshold" means—

  (a) if the period in question is a week, £85 or such greater amount as may be prescribed; or

  (b) if that period is not a week, such proportion of the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) as falls to be calculated in accordance with regulations on such basis as may be prescribed.

  (1B) Regulations may secure that a person of any prescribed description does not suffer any reduction under subsection (1) in any amount of incapacity benefit to which he is entitled.
  (2) Regulations may provide—

  ( ) for sums of any specified description to be disregarded for the purposes of this section;").

  43B Page 67, line 1, after ("for") insert ("the aggregation of").
  43C Page 67, line 3, after ("payable)") insert ("in respect of the same or different periods;

  ( ) for such sums or aggregate sums").

  Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke rose to move, That this House—

  (a) do not insist on their Amendment No. 43 to which the Commons have disagreed,

  (b) do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43B and 43C to the words so restored to the Bill, and

  (c) do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 43A to the words so restored to the Bill with the following amendments—

  43E Line 12, leave out ("50 per cent.") and insert ("the standard rate percentage of income tax")
  43F Line 15, leave out ("£85") and insert ("the level of the Disability Income Guarantee")
  6.42 p.m.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 43 to which the Commons have disagreed, do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43B and 43C to the words so restored to the Bill, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43A to the words so restored to the Bill with the proposed amendments.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  46 Clause 60, leave out Clause 60.
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  46A Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 46 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 46A.

  1215
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No 46 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 46A. —(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, we debated this matter at considerable length at earlier stages of the Bill. We certainly remain of the view that the arguments that we put forward then are justified. None the less, I think it is right that the Commons should concentrate on the two Motions which we have just passed. Therefore, I do not wish to oppose what the noble Baroness has just said.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  53 Clause 70, leave out Clause 70.
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  53A Page 74, line 36, leave out ("in any specified circumstances")
  53B Page 74, line 40, leave out ("and")
  53C Page 74, line 42, leave out ("a contract between the client and a third party,") and insert ("arrangements involving a third person (and not referable to any contract between the client and the worker),")
  53D Page 74, line 43, at end insert ("and

  (c) the circumstances are such that, were the services to be performed by the worker under a contract between him and the client, he would be regarded for the purposes of the applicable provisions of this Act as employed in employed earner's employment by the client,").

  53E Page 75, line 1, leave out ("the purposes of the applicable provisions of this Act") and insert ("those purposes")
  53F Page 75, line 3, leave out from ("his") to end of line 4.
  53G Page 75, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—

  ("(2) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) "the intermediary" means—

  (i) where the third person mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above has such a contractual or other relationship with the worker as may be specified, that third person, or

  (ii) where that third person does not have such a relationship with the worker, any other person who has both such a relationship with the worker and such a direct or indirect contractual or other relationship with the third person as may be specified; and

  (b) a person may be the intermediary despite being—

  (i) a person with whom the worker holds any office or employment, or

  (ii) a body corporate, unincorporated body or partnership of which the worker is a member;

  and subsection (1) above applies whether or not the client is a person with whom the worker holds any office or employment.").
  53H Page 75, line 14, leave out ("relevant payments or benefits,") and insert ("the specified amount of relevant payments or benefits (the worker's "attributable earnings"),").
  53 Page 75, line 15, leave out ("client") and insert ("intermediary").
  53K Page 75, line 16, leave out ("client") and insert ("intermediary (whether or not he fulfils the conditions prescribed under section 1(6)(a) above for secondary contributors)")
  1216
  53L Page 75, line 17, leave out from ("of") to end of line 19 and insert ("the worker's attributable earnings;").
  53M Page 75, line 23, leave out from ("of") to ("period") in line 25 and insert ("the worker's attributable earnings for any specified").
  53N Page 75, line 26, at end insert—

  ("( ) for aggregating any such amount, for purposes relating to contributions, with other earnings of the worker during any such period;

  >( ) for determining the date by which contributions payable in respect of the worker's attributable earnings are to be paid and accounted for;").

  53P Page 75, line 37, leave out ("third party") and insert ("intermediary").
  53Q Page 75, line 44, at end insert ("persons, whether — (i)")
  53R Page 75, line 47, after ("1988)") insert (", or

  (ii) persons of any other specified description.").

  53S Page 76, line 7, at end insert—

  ("( ) Regulations made in pursuance of subsection (3)(c) above may, in particular, make provision—

  (a) for the making of a deduction of a specified amount in respect of general expenses of the intermediary as well as deductions in respect of particular expenses incurred by him;

  (b) for securing reductions in the amount of the worker's attributable earnings on account of—

  (i) any secondary Class 1 contributions already paid by the intermediary in respect of actual earnings of the worker, and

  (ii) any such contributions that will be payable by him in respect of the worker's attributable earnings.").

  53T Page 76, leave out lines 13 to 23.
  53U Page 76, line 35, leave out ("third party") and insert ("intermediary").
  53V Page 76, leave out lines 40 to 44.
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart rose to move, That this House—

  (a) do not insist on their Amendment No. 53 to which the Commons have disagreed,

  (b) do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53A to 53H and 53L to 53V to the words so restored to the Bill, but

  (c) do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53J and 53K to the words so restored to the Bill.

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments deal with what were originally Clauses 70 and 71 of the Bill that came to your Lordships' House from the Commons. Those clauses caused a great deal of controversy in both Houses and indeed outside Parliament. The clauses are an attempt to block the use of single person personal service companies for tax avoidance. When I say "tax avoidance", I use 'that phrase for convenience though it is not really very accurate. The real concern is not with income tax but with national insurance contributions. In fact, the scope for avoiding income tax by the use of a personal service company is quite small. By contrast, the scope for avoiding national insurance contributions is enormous. That applies both to employers' and to employees' national insurance contributions.
  An organisation called the Professional Contractors Group has run an energetic and effective lobbying campaign on behalf of its members, who are mostly IT experts working through their own personal service

  1217
  companies. Like most lobby campaigns, some of the Professional Contractors Group's claims need to be taken with a certain pinch of salt. There is no doubt that tax avoidance is a much greater element in the formation of personal service companies than the Professional Contractors Group concedes. Indeed, that problem will become worse if the rules are not changed. I am not convinced by the claim that most IT workers will "up sticks" and move themselves and their businesses abroad. But the campaign has also made some strong points, to which I shall come in a moment.
  The Government's original proposals in the Bill as it emerged from the other place were strongly criticised by a number of senior professional bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. The Government accepted those criticisms—at any rate, to some extent—and came back at Report stage in your Lordships' House with a number of useful revisions. Unfortunately, those revisions were deeply flawed. In particular, it is wrong that, as those revisions provided, liability for employers' NICs should be imposed on the nominal employer—the personal service company—rather than on the real employer. That is wrong for two main reasons.
  First, it is grossly unfair on a worker who uses a personal service company, especially in borderline cases where it is uncertain whether the worker's job will be classified as that of an employee or as an independent contractor. It puts on the employee the entire risk of an adverse ruling on the status. Secondly, what is plainly now going to happen is that the clients will insist on contracting only with workers who can use their own personal service companies as an intermediary. The clients will refuse to contract with the workers directly. That, I believe, is entirely contrary to the public interest.
  That is why we accept most of the government amendments to the clause, but object to the two key amendments, Amendments Nos. 53J and 53K, which would impose liability to pay the secondary NICs—the employer's national insurance contributions—on the personal service company. If those amendments are deleted, the liability will return to where it should rest; namely, on the client.
  But that is only part of the problem. The Government need to rethink these matters at a more fundamental level, and at two issues in particular. First, they must look carefully at the whole NIC system, because of the enormous preference that it gives to self-employment over employment. Self-employed people now receive almost the same benefits as employees. But the NIC contributions paid in respect of the self-employed are very much lower—in particular, because there is no equivalent of the employer's contribution. I have seen figures suggesting that the NIC subsidy by employees to the self-employed may be as great at £2½ billion a year.
  Secondly, the Government need to examine carefully the classification of people as either employed or self-employed. That is where the
  1218
  Professional Contractors Group has its strongest point. People with very high skills who enter into a short-term contract to perform a specific job and then expect to move on to another job with another client, seem to be more clearly self-employed than employed. Such people do not receive, and do not expect, rights under employment law: holiday pay, membership of occupational pension schemes and the other benefits that go with employment. But under the existing tests they may be employees for tax purposes even if they are not employees for the purposes of employment law.
  We need to re-examine the whole question of classification so that the test for the classification as employed or self-employed can take into account not merely the specific job being done but the whole pattern of work that a particular worker goes in for. That is why we believe that Clauses 70 and 71 present serious and unsolved problems. We believe that the Government should take those matters away, reconsider them and return with solutions at a later date. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment 53 to which the Commons have disagreed, do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53A to 53H and 53L to 53V to the words so restored to the Bill, but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 53J and 53K to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Goodhart.)
  The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, in my valedictory speech in this House—a place that I shall miss a great deal—I do not intend to re-rehearse the points that were well made in a rather late short debate in the other place last Wednesday (at cols. 404–429 of the Official Report) as to why Clause 70 should stay removed from the Bill. When the House divided at midnight the Government insisted that Clause 70 should be reinstated, despite the fact that at the very least it appears to discriminate against smaller contracting businesses.
  At a meeting of about 240 professional contractors in Aberdeen in July, and a similar number in the Jubilee Room last Wednesday, there seemed to be feelings of anger and bewilderment: anger that running one's affairs through a long-established personal service company is now regarded almost as an illegal activity; and bewilderment that a perfectly sensible, popular, preferred, flexible, and in some cases necessary method of working as contractors is under attack. If there is large-scale fraud as regards the National Insurance Fund, I am sure that there is all-party support in this House to help the Government to stop it. A figure of £200 million was given, but doubts have been expressed about its accuracy.
  The aspect that alarms me most about the situation is that in order to catch a few wrongdoers there is ready acceptance that many perfectly legitimate contracting businesses will have to close down if they cannot change their method of working or absorb the competitive pressures from larger, favoured organisations.

  1219
  I realise that this provision has had to be accommodated in a large, complex and important Bill. But Clause 70 is important to those whom it affects. I make a plea that in a similar future situation adequate parliamentary time will be allowed, away from the Bill, in both Houses, and that there should be genuine pre-legislative consultation with established pressure groups such as the Professional Contractors Group. The group continues to have real concerns about the practical application of Clause 70 and has suggestions for better ways of achieving the Government's objective. Here I should declare an interest in the Professional Contractors Group. The group intends to give me a hugely expensive dinner this coming Wednesday. I believe that fish is to be the main course.
  During my journey back to Scotland on Friday after our sadly curtailed Sitting, I read an article in the Evening Standard of which I should like to quote the first sentence:
  "Shortly after becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown decided to find out why there are so few entrepreneurs in Britain".
  I think I can now assist the right honourable gentleman. The threat of IR35 being enacted has already caused a trickle of entrepreneurs to go abroad. If the provision is enacted as Clause 70, there is a danger of the trickle becoming a flood. If the seven or eight contractors—young, smart, articulate and interested—who were listening to the debate with me in another place last Wednesday are a representative sample of the group, we should be fighting tooth and nail to keep them in this country, and not treat them like unwanted raffle prizes.
  The Minister will probably tell me, as usual, that I am talking rubbish. I shall not try to embarrass the noble Lord; however, I earnestly hope that on this occasion he is correct and I am wrong.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, shall not detain the House long as I have deployed the arguments at previous stages: we debated this point in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. I am deeply disappointed that the Government have decided to bring these clauses back to the House at this stage.
  I have tried to read and understand the debate in the other place. I must say that it was an extremely scrappy debate. The knowledge that it would be guillotined encouraged people to intervene at every stage. Like the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, I find it difficult to see the justification for taking this measure through in such a blunderbuss fashion.
  No one on this side of the House has denied that there is a problem with the Friday to Monday transition, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has asserted. But there is absolutely no doubt that this and the succeeding clause will hit a large number of perfectly reputable self-employed people, who will find themselves having to pay not merely the self-employed tax but both the employer's tax and the employee's contribution. In a very competitive industry that kind of thing can make a difference.
  1220
  We have talked a good deal about people in the IT contracting industry. I do not know whether even now the Minister realises the scale of the attack that this clause represents. Recently, I received a letter from Mr P J Street who works as a consultant in the railway industry. he writes:
  "Until recently I was in full time, salaried employment, but I resigned and set up my own company. This, I hasten to add, was so that I would obtain more variety and job satisfaction (I'm no longer working for my original employer). As you rightly pointed out"—
  he refers to my speech at Third Reading—
  "the effect of Clauses 71 and 72",
  as the matter stood then,
  "will be simply to saddle me with an excessive tax liability because I will have to fund both employee's and employer's NIC. I work in the railway industry …
  Unlike a permanent employee I have no continuity of employment. The client doesn't fund a pension scheme, sick pay scheme, holidays, etc, and if I want a perk, such as a mobile phone, I have to fund it myself".
  Is it really the intention of the Government to hit people like that—because that is what they are doing? I fear that, as the noble Earl said, some people will simply pack up and go abroad because they feel that they are being unjustly penalised and will be unable to compete under the burden. That is a great shame.
  We are told in the press, given the usual leaks, that there will be all kinds of splendid bonuses for people to engage in share option schemes and so on. What the Government give with one hand they take away with another. I believe that it is a great shame.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I understand that we are to have just one debate on IR35. It is perhaps appropriate for me to comment at this stage, although the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, concentrated on the specific amendments that are before us. First, I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, who has been assiduous in pursuing the arguments on this point with considerable skill. It is sad that, as I understand it, in a short time he will no longer be with us. One cannot help but ask whether those who come after him will be of the same quality that we have seen from his speeches on this amendment. I believe that he has represented the interests to which he has spoken 'with considerable skill.
  We conduct this debate following a further spin session on the way in which the Government are to encourage entrepreneurs. As with the welfare reform side, I believe that we must look carefully at the way in which the Government say one thing in public relations terms and do something quite different. We have seen that illustrated clearly in the case of this clause. We on this side of the House have made it abundantly clear that we do not favour tax avoidance, but we genuinely believe that as a result of the measures that are now before us a considerable number of people, who are perfectly genuine entrepreneurs, will find themselves paying a substantial amount in tax and national insurance contributions. We have yet to see the particular tax

  1221
  proposals. However, this is another stealth tax. It is no good the noble Lord raising his eyebrows. Unless we can together find a reasonable solution it will have the effect of discouraging industry and lead to it going abroad, as well as other unfortunate consequences.
  I had not realised until I read Hansard in another place that this was yet another "Yes, Minister" case. We discovered in relation to the previous set of amendments that the Government's new proposals to deal with the disabled were put to the previous government and turned down. They have re-emerged with this Government. I understand that this is a somewhat similar situation. The Revenue proposed this measure to the previous government, who turned it down, and now it emerges again. Alas, with the bar on documents proceeding from one government to that of another party we shall never know.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. He may recollect that when I first debated this matter at the early stages of the Bill I said that they tried it out on me when I was Secretary of State for Social Services in 1979. I turned it down.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, it has taken a long while to surface. I recall it well. I also recall that, quite apart from the merits, when my noble friend and I were both at the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise customarily came along with a list of 20 or 30 so-called anti-avoidance proposals. Generally, we agreed that each could have two and that would be it. Be that as it may, it is crucial that further consultations should take place.
  I should like to quote an observation by Mr Timms in the other place:
  "The proposals … have been widely welcomed, not least by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Professional Contractors Group".—[Official Report, Commons; 3/11/99, col. 428.]
  My understanding is that that is not so. The group does not welcome what is now proposed.
  Following the original insertion of this clause in the Bill and its translation to your Lordships' House, a considerable amount of consultation took place but largely with bodies such as the Law Society, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred, and other organisations of that kind. As a result, significant changes were made. The government amendments now before us are very different from those originally tabled. I am happy to say that the so-called control test has gone, certification has been dropped and so on.
  What is now before us is certainly better than what we had before, but the fact is that that is largely as a result of consultations with those major professional bodies, not those most affected. I hope that this evening we shall have an undertaking from the Minister that the Government will carry out a further round of consultation with those people who are affected. A large number of them came to the House the other day to make representations to various people, including their own Members of Parliament.
  1222
  That is of great importance if the proposal is to proceed in a reasonable form and is not to have the undesirable effects that we have already debated.
  The central point is the Government's proposals in regard to the question of costs. The essence of the problem is that as far as concerns this group of people, what is proposed to be taxed and to be subject to national insurance contributions and so on is the total revenue of the operation. If it is a normal plc that is not so: the revenue is divided up into its component parts and so on. But as the clauses now appear before us the new rules will allow personal pensions for the individuals concerned from expenses allowed to employees under Schedule E rules to 5 per cent of the gross fees to cover running costs. But they do not cover a considerable number of other costs, for example salaries paid to support staff, most training and in particular capital equipment. The whole amount of the revenue is classified as income. That has a serious effect on those companies. That is clearly wrong if we are to have a level playing field between the large and small companies operating in this area. I cannot believe that it is in the interests of the economy as a whole to discriminate in that way so that only large companies find themselves able to expand the business, to invest, and so on. The Government have not recognised a serious problem.
  Before the provision comes forward in the finance Bill, the Government should carry out a series of further consultations. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who arranged a suitable meeting for those concerned in this House. None the less, we have a long way to go before the clauses are in a satisfactory form. I understand that there are provisions in the Bill for the Treasury, and other orders, to alter the provisions. If that is so, we can put right what we are unable to do now. It is too difficult to try to form specific amendments which we could have sought to force on the Government today. I do not propose that my noble friends should vote against the proposals before us. However, I express the hope that the issues will be further considered and a sensible solution to the problem found.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, two sets of congratulations are due. The first is to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He has become more radical and antagonistic to the provisions as the Bill has proceeded through the House. The noble Lord will remember that when the matter first arose, he was concerned only with the definition of self-employment. He objected to the control test rather than the existing test. He argued that if the amendment were accepted or passed, his Benches would support the clause. We did what he wanted; and he has gone to the next issue.
  The next issue was to oppose the whole clause on the grounds that we have heard; I shall not repeat them. Now he agrees with almost all the clause but appears to oppose the basis on which national insurance contributions are calculated and charged. The noble Lord is a true radical and deserves praise for that, if not for consistency.

  1223
  The second congratulations are due to the Professional Contractors Group. I have never encountered such a literate, persuasive series of letters. Ministers have had something like 2,000 letters. I have received many dozens. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has received a number. They are literate, well spelt, well argued, persuasive letters—and wrong. A great dealt of parliamentary time has been taken up because a number of people have gathered together, put aside a certain amount of money for lobbying, and persuaded a number of noble Lords opposite of a view of this legislation which is utterly misguided and misconceived. They deserve credit for it; that is the way lobbying works; that is the way politics work. That is what we have to respond to; and I have been responding to it.
  However, I shall not go over the wider argument on the clause. The amendments before us from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, are on one specific aspect: whether the client of the worker is responsible for deciding whether the new rules apply to a contract and is liable to pay employers' national insurance contributions if they do.
  The Motions numbered 53W and 54W would have the effect of reverting to the original proposal, and place liability on the client for any NIC liability incurred by a worker hired through a service company. One of the most unpopular features of our original proposals in the very widespread consultation we carried out—I shall not repeat the figures—was the proposal to do just what the noble Lord proposes. As a result of the consultation, we listened to what people said. We were persuaded that it would have the effect of putting an end to a mechanism which provided valuable flexibility in the market for skilled workers. Most people have welcomed the changes we have made which allow that flexibility to continue while at the same time ensuring that the right amount of tax is paid.
  Before I turn to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it is necessary for me to quote from the response of the Professional Contractors Group to the press release of 23rd September. It said, first, that the removal of registration is to be welcomed; it would have been an administrative burden. That we did, and it is not in contest.
  Secondly, the group said that the move from a single test of supervision, direction and control is to be welcomed. That we have done; it has not been contested.
  Thirdly, on the transfer of a responsibility for accounting for tax and NIC from the client to the service company, it said that it is "very welcome indeed". That is not much support for the arguments put forward by noble Lords opposite.
  Four points have been argued in the debate. First, it is easier for the client than the worker to bear the risk of having to pay the employer's NICs in particular where the client is a substantial company with a number of short-term contract workers. That implies that larger companies are not as concerned about
  1224
  profit margins as smaller companies—which I contest. But it surely does not reflect the reality of the business world: that businesses of all sizes compete. On the contrary, the onus for calculating any secondary and primary Class 1 contributions is best placed with the service company. The worker will build up a knowledge through his previous contracts, and possibly his concurrent contracts, about what working circumstances lead to a NIC liability.
  Secondly, it has been argued that where there is liability as to whether the provision was applicable, it is plainly easier for the client than the worker to get legal advice and to form a judgment on the degree of risk. But that ignores the fact that the service companies will have access to advice from the Inland Revenue on whether a contract is caught by the provision. In addition, they will have a right of appeal if they are not happy with the decision. We should not forget that the original proposals would have introduced a new test—to decide whether the provision is applicable to a contract—which has now been withdrawn.
  There is a wealth of experience in the private sector and the Inland Revenue in applying these rules. A borderline test will be clear to contributors as being just that: one on which advice should be sought. I do not believe that such advice cannot be obtained by service companies.
  Thirdly, there is concern that if there is a dispute with the Inland Revenue, it is easier for a client than for a worker to fight it. That may be true for elaborate avoidance vehicles dreamed up by City lawyers. But the provision is simply to ensure that where a worker would be the employed earner of the client but for the service company, they should pay NICs on relevant contracts. It is a simple concept which has a right of appeal when there is disagreement.
  Finally, there is concern that our proposals will increase the pressure on workers to form service companies; in other words, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, that clients will refuse to contract with workers who do not have service companies. I hope that I explained from my experience of nearly 30 years that that is not in practice the case. It is not the way the system works. The cost to the client should be the same whether he hires an employee or a service company. The worker will seek to pass on the NIC cost to the service company in the cost that he charges to the clients. The decision is tax and NICs neutral.
  I shall not go back on the existing definitions of employment. However, I wish to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about consultation with the Professional Contractors Group. I assure the noble Lord that we are consulting the Professional Contractors Group on guidance for its members so that the proposals can be made as clear as possible.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, that is the essence of the group's complaint. It will be told the position; it will be made as clear as possible. The group's complaint about the consultation is that it has not had a reasonable

  1225
  audience on the arguments for changing the Government's proposals. What the Minister has just said brings out that fact: that the Government will tell the group, but they will not listen to it.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when this charge was made at the last stage in this House, I said that the Professional Contractors Group had been present at the seminar which the noble Lord attended and that when I asked it about the consultation, it said they were satisfied with it and that it understood that the Government intended to pursue the basic thrust of the proposal. After all, if we are talking about something over £200 million in tax avoidance, it is the responsibility of the Government to pursue a proposal of that kind. I was astonished when the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that he accepted only one or two out of 18 or 20 tax avoidance measures put forward by the Revenue. Ministers in the Treasury are supposed to be on the side of taxpayers, not on the side of tax avoidance. I found that a very curious set of priorities.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about the meeting which he was kind enough to arrange for the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, myself, and others who attended. Nonetheless, there is a widespread feeling among people who do not feel that the Government are listening to all the arguments. Can I put one argument? Is it the case under the present arrangements proposed by the Government that if the personal service company invests more in equipment which, together with its other costs, exceeds the 5 per cent limit the Government have imposed, it will find that it is at a disadvantage compared with a large company because it will be taxed on the amount over 5 per cent and the large company will have no such inhibition?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that objection is based on the misconception which has been prevalent in this debate that somehow these one person service companies are entrepreneurs and that they are making some specific contribution other than the skill of the person. We are talking about one-person companies. We are talking about people who choose to form themselves into a company rather than being self-employed without incorporation, which is what most other people in the same position do. Why are they doing that? I do not say that every single one of them is doing it for the purpose of tax avoidance, but I think it has been generally accepted that that is a very substantial reason. We, as guardians of the public purse, have the responsibility of ensuring that that tax avoidance element of the formation of service companies is not allowed to continue.
  I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will not feel it necessary to press his rather modest amendment to this very important change.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I would particularly single out the question of the risk with which I do not think he
  1226
  dealt adequately. The risk arises particularly in borderline cases. First of all, the noble Lord did not accept what seems to me patently and obviously true. That is that the risk of an adverse decision, so far as employers' NICs are concerned, should rest with the real employer and not with the nominal employer. It is the bigger organisation and not the one person company who is clearly in a better position to bear that risk. It can be spread over a much larger number of cases. For the individual concerned in the one person personal service company, it may be catastrophic, as pointed out in the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, read to us. It must undoubtedly be an issue for many people in that position.
  Equally, the reason why employers or clients will insist on dealing only with service companies is again simply the risk. By dealing with the service company, they know they are at no risk at all if Clauses 70 and 71 are brought back in the form that the Government want them as the risk is bound to lie on the worker and not on the employer. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have done in the past, I am sure he was an exceptionally good employer and would not have allowed that sort of issue to disturb him.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not just my company is doing it now. All market research companies are doing it now.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the question is how much longer they will continue to do so if the personal service company becomes something which is clearly seen as a protection for them against the risk in borderline cases.
  The Minister will no doubt be relieved to hear that I do not intend to divide on the Motion. There are three reasons. First, we have probably had enough Divisions today. Secondly, broadly speaking, we agree with the Governments' objectives but feel that the proposal has not been adequately thought out and that it needs more care. Thirdly, there will be opportunity for further consideration in the next six months or so because, as we know, there will be legislation in the next Finance Bill to deal with the tax aspects of a personal service company and Clauses 70 and 71 can then, as a result of subsection (9) in each clause, be revised in the light of the relevant decisions taken in that Bill. However, I hope very much that the Government will take the opportunity of reconsidering something that I believe is aimed in the right direction but which is a deeply flawed solution. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  53 Clause 70, leave out Clause 70.
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  53A Page 74, line 36, leave out ("in any specified circumstances")
  53B Page 74, line 40, leave out ("and")

  1227
  53C Page 74, line 42, leave out ("a contract between the client and a third party,") and insert ("arrangements involving a third person (and not referable to any contract between the client and the worker),")
  53D Page 74. line 43, at end insert ("and

  (c) the circumstances are such that, were the services to be performed by the worker under a contract between him and the client, he would be regarded for the purposes of the applicable provisions of this Act as employed in employed earner's employment by the client,").

  53E Page 75. line 1, leave out ("the purposes of the applicable provisions of this Act") and insert ("those purposes")
  53F Page 75, line 3, leave out from ("his") to end of line 4.
  53G Page 75, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—

  ("(2) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) "the intermediary" means—

  (i) where the third person mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above has such a contractual or other relationship with the worker as may be specified, that third person, or

  (ii) where that third person does not have such a relations lip with the worker, any other person who has both such a relationship with the worker and such a direct or indirect contractual or other relationship with the third person as may be specified; and

  (b) a person may be the intermediary despite being—

  (i) a person with whom the worker holds any office or employment, or

  (ii) a body corporate, unincorporated body or partnership of which the worker is a member;

  and subsection (1) above applies whether or not the client is a person with whom the worker holds any office or employment.").
  53H Page 75, line 14, leave out ("relevant payments or benefits,") and insert ("the specified amount of relevant payments or benefits (the worker's "attributable earnings"),").
  53 Page 75, line 15, leave out ("client") and insert ("intermediary").
  53K Page 75, line 16, leave out ("client") and insert ("intermediary (whether or not he fulfils the conditions prescribed under section 1(6)(a) above for secondary contributors)").
  53L Page 75, line 17, leave out from ("of") to end of line 19 and insert ("the worker's attributable earnings;").
  53M Page 75, line 23, leave out from ("of") to ("period") in line 25 and insert (" the worker's attributable earnings for any specified").
  53N Page 75, line 26, at end insert—

  ("( ) for aggregating any such amount, for purposes relating to contributions, with other earnings of the worker during any such period;

  ( ) for determining the date by which contributions payable in respect of the worker's attributable earnings are to be paid and accounted for;").

  53P Page 75, line 37, leave out ("third party") and insert ("intermediary").
  53Q Page 75, line 44, at end insert ("persons, whether—

  (i)")

  53R Page 75, line 47, after ("1988)") insert (", or

  (ii) persons of any other specified description,").

  53S Page 76, line 7, at end insert—

  ("( ) Regulations made in pursuance of subsection (3)(c) above may, in particular, make provision—

  1228

  (a) for the making of a deduction of a specified amount in respect of general expenses of the intermediary as well as deductions in respect of particular expenses incurred by him;

  (b) for securing reductions in the amount of the worker's attributable earnings on account of—

  (i) any secondary Class 1 contributions already paid by the intermediary in respect of actual earnings of the worker, and

  (ii) any such contributions that will be payable by him in respect of the worker's attributable earnings.").

  53T Page 76, leave out lines 13 to 23.
  53U Page 76, line 35, leave out ("third party") and insert ("intermediary").
  53V Page 76, leave out lines 40 to 44.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 53 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53A to 53V to the words so restored to the Bill.
  Moved, that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 53 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 53A to 53V to the words so restored to the Bill. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Motion No. 54W not moved.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  54 Clause 71, leave out Clause 71.
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  54A Page 77, line 16, leave out ("in any specified circumstances")
  54B Page 77, line 20, leave out ("and").
  54C Page 77, line 22, leave out ("a contract between the client and a third party,") and insert ("arrangements involving a third person (and not referable to any contract between the client and the worker),").
  54D Page 77, line 23, at end insert ("and

  (c) the circumstances are such that, were the services to be performed by the worker under a contract between him and the client, he would be regarded for the purposes of the applicable provisions of this Act as employed in employed earner's employment by the client,").

  54E Page 77, line 25, leave out ("the purposes of the applicable provisions of this Act") and insert ("those purposes").
  54F Page 77, line 27, leave out from ("his") to end of line 28.
  54G Page 77, leave out lines 29 to 33 and insert—

  ("(2) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) "the intermediary" means—

  (i) where the third person mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above has such a contractual or other relationship with the worker as may be specified, that third person, or

  (ii) where that third person does not have such a relationship with the worker, any other person who has both such a relationship with the worker and such a direct or indirect contractual or other relationship with the third person as may be specified; and

  (b) a person may be the intermediary despite being—

  (i) a person with whom the worker holds any office or employment, or

  1229

  (ii) a body corporate, unincorporated body or partnership of which the worker is a member;

  and subsection (1) above applies whether or not the client is a person with whom the worker holds any office or employment.").
  54H Page 77, line 38, leave out ("relevant payments or benefits,") and insert ("the specified amount of relevant payments or benefits (the worker's "attributable earnings"),").
  54 Page 77, line 39, leave out ("client") and insert ("intermediary").
  54K Page 77, line 40, leave out ("client") and insert ("intermediary (whether or not he fulfils the conditions prescribed under section 1(6)(a) above for secondary contributors)").
  54L Page 77, line 41, leave out from ("of") to end of line 43 and insert ("the worker's attributable earnings;").
  54M Page 77, line 47, leave out from ("of") to ("period") in line 2 on page 78 and insert ("the worker's attributable earnings for any specified").
  54N Page 78, line 3, at end insert—

  ("( ) for aggregating any such amount, for purposes relating to contributions, with other earnings of the worker during any such period;

  for determining the date by which contributions payable in respect of the worker's attributable earnings are to be paid and accounted for;").

  54P Page 78, line 14, leave out ("third party") and insert ("intermediary").
  54Q Page 78, line 21, at end insert ("persons, whether—(i)")
  54R Page 78, line 24, after ("1988)") insert (", or

  (ii) persons of any other specified description,").

  54S Page 78, line 32, at end insert—

  ("( ) Regulations made in pursuance of subsection (3)(c) above may, in particular, make provision—

  (a) for the making of a deduction of a specified amount in respect of general expenses of the intermediary as well as deductions in respect of particular expenses incurred by him:

  (b) for securing reductions in the amount of the worker's attributable earnings on account of—

  (i) any secondary Class 1 contributions already paid by the intermediary in respect of actual earnings of the worker, and

  (ii) any such contributions that will be payable by him in respect of the worker's attributable earnings.").

  54T Page 78, leave out lines 38 to 48.
  54U Page 79, line 12, leave out ("third party") and insert ("intermediary").
  54V Page 79, leave out lines 17 to 21.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 54 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54A to 54V to the words so restored to the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 54 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54A to 54V to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  85 Clause 84, page 87, line 23, leave out (", 70").
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  85A Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 53 to which the Commons have disagreed.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  93 Clause 84, page 88, line 4, leave out (", 71").
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  93A Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 54 to which the Commons have disagreed.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 85 and 93 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 85A and 93A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 85 to 93 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 85A to 93A.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Royal Parks
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the present uses of the Royal Parks are appropriate.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I am a joint trustee of the Royal Parks Appeal of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and have been for the past decade. There is much to be said in favour of the Monarchy, but not least that we owe a great debt of gratitude to that institution for the creation of the Royal Parks. They were given to the people—it was never intended that they should be used for commercial purposes—for their use; for their refreshment; to provide them with peace and recreation; and to give them an opportunity to enjoy a park or country experience.
  In a real sense, the Royal Parks are the lungs of London. They are visited by people who do not have dachas in the country, but wish to enjoy the grass, the trees, the flowers and the birds and have some relief from the stresses and strains of city life, which grow ever greater. They are a true rus in urbe.
  The first point I wish to make is that they should be inviolate from development. The expropriation of any land in the Royal Parks is much worse than nibbling away at the green belt.
  Secondly, traffic intrusion must be reduced. The Outer Circle of the Regent's Park, for instance, has become a major commuter rat run. In the mornings and evenings, streams of cars pass through driven by people who are not visiting the area and have nothing to do with it. I ask the Minister, who speaks on behalf of the Government not

  1231
  only for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but also for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to do three things—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken. I do not have that privilege.
  Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I am sorry to differ in the smallest particular, but it is my understanding that when a Minister speaks on a subject from that side of the House he speaks for the policy of the whole Government.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in that general sense, of course the noble Lord is correct.
  Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification of the Minister's position. Will he use whatever influence he has in the Government to take steps to end that practice, both in the Regent's Park and in the other parks? If it is not possible to do so all at once, will the Government do their best to ensure that traffic is slowed down? Will they ensure an enforcement of the 30 mile per hour speed limit? That could easily be achieved with the use of speed cameras and sleeping policemen. The danger to pedestrians would then be reduced, as would noise and pollution.
  Thirdly, we would like to see the parks properly maintained. The existing infrastructure is collapsing. The roads and paths are forever being patched up. Many of the signs indicating, for example, that no skating or cycling is allowed in certain garden areas have decayed or vanished. The money should be found to restore them. Furthermore, the staffing structure of the parks is collapsing. The friendly, helpful park-keeper is a figure of the past; an almost extinct species. The Commons Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs recently published a report deploring that. Park managers are also on the way out. In the Regent's Park, which I know well, there is an excellent manager, Mr David Caselton, but I believe that that park is almost unique in that. The other park managers have disappeared.
  Moreover, there is a need to preserve views. Mary had "Calais" written on her heart and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will have "views" written on his. The most recent act of vandalism, perpetrated on St. James's Park, is the ferris wheel. It overshadows a world heritage site and the Royal Fine Art Commission did its best to stop the building. It will look even worse once the cars, in which the public are to travel, have been attached.
  We willingly gave up our carparking space on the Horse Guards Parade in order to create that great open space which is such an addition to the amenity of the capital. How sad that the wonderful view from the bridge in St. James's Park is now so marred and spoiled. Will the Minister say when the monstrosity is to be removed? Furthermore, will he undertake that the surface area will not be scarred by hideous temporary buildings, as happened recently?
  Behind all this looms a larger problem; that of finance. It is a question of money. This year's grant to the Royal Parks Agency was £26.39 million from the DCMS, which
  1232
  is a rise of £4.4 million over the year 1998–99. But it is the first increase for five years and, much worse, between 1994 and 1999 there was a 30 per cent fall in real terms in the funding of that agency. Even the present increase will not make up the loss because £3 million of the additional money is not for the parks but for projects connected with the Princess of Wales. Therefore, by 2000–01 we shall be back to £22.2 million, which represents another cut in the budget of the Royal Parks Agency. What a way to start off the millennium!
  In desperation, the agency is advancing down the road of privatisation and commercialism. In 1998, Royal Parks Enterprises was set up to sponsor events and to sell merchandise in the parks. As they are commercial companies, their primary purpose is to make a profit. In the summer of 1999, Kensington Gardens in Hyde Park was leased out for rock and pop concerts. No fewer than nine of them took place in six weeks. Of course, they involved not only the loss of the use of the park during the time of the performance, but the appearance of lorries, portaloos, portakabins, fences, damage to the grass and the visit of thousands and thousands of fans. So for long periods the public are excluded from the use of great tracts of the park. They are not able to enjoy them; to take their children out; to play games there; or to have picnics.
  I draw on a recent example from the Regent's Park where a flower show took place this summer. It was totally unnecessary because we have plenty of flower shows in London and we have plenty of flowers in the park. At that fair, hardly a flower appeared; it was mainly devoted to the selling of garden gnomes and fountains. (It is as well that Mr. Major is not present!) It lasted only a few days, but the soccer players and other young people who use that part of the park were excluded from their pitch for five weeks.
  Another jewel in the crown of the Regent's Park is the secret garden for meditation. A theatrical performance was put on there by a group of ladies. It was an idiosyncratic performance and they were selling garden plants. For two weeks in the height of summer the public were excluded from that wonderful garden. It was devoted to a totally different purpose when there is already a perfectly adequate theatre in the Regent's Park.
  What did all those events raise in financial terms? We should be grateful for detailed accounts from the department. I estimate that probably only about £1 million was raised, which does nothing ultimately to solve the financial problems of the parks.
  A creeping commercialism is taking root. Let us take the example of Ronald Rae. I have nothing against Mr Rae, and indeed I do not know him. Until his work suddenly landed in the middle of the park, I had never seen it. Twenty huge works suddenly arrived in the Nesfield gardens. As the Minister will know, the Nesfield gardens are divided in two. The first part is comprised of formal Victorian gardens designed by Nesfield Senior. The second part, designed by Nesfield Junior, is an English park garden.
  In a space of less than nine acres, the 20 huge sculptures were dumped for sale, for the benefit of Mr. Rae. I rang up Camden Council, which had not even given planning permission. When I inquired, its

  1233
  representatives said that a different department was responsible. They admitted that an error had been made but said that they would grant permission retrospectively. One can imagine the fate of someone who produced that excuse in relation to a house. Will the Minister tell the House when the sculptures are going to be removed?
  Some people have said that it is good to attract many thousands of people to the parks. Perhaps I may refer them to Fred Hirsch's classic and seminal work, The Social Limits of Growth, in which he demonstrates conclusively, in the case of what he calls "positional goods", that the influx of masses of people destroys the very thing that they have come to see and enjoy.
  I appeal to the Minister and the Government to make a new start. A new chief executive is about to be appointed to the Royal Parks Agency. We wish him well. The present Prime Minister has done a number of good things. I hope that I shall not be expelled from the Conservative Party for having said that. His policies towards Europe and Ireland have evolved. But what immediately concerns us is domestic policy. It would be splendid if he were to intervene, as he has done in the case of architecture, and seek to divert the wasteful flow of cash away from building white elephants for which there is no demand, no long-term use and no means of maintenance. If that cash could go towards preserving our Royal Parks and their character, and abolishing the need to resort to futile and dubious commercial projects to raise money, the Government would earn the gratitude of the whole country.
  7.43 p.m.
  Lord Kennet: My Lords, I very much agree with the general drift of the noble Lord's remarks. I have had the inestimable—I do not know what the word is; not "privilege" or "pleasure"—perhaps positive joy of living across the road from Kensington Gardens since I was four years old. I refer to the north side, which is the less smart and frequented side. Having been able to compare it in later life with the major parks of other civilised capital cities, I know that Kensington Gardens is the largest and finest. Of course, Regent's Park is equally fine, but it is smaller—I make that point to avoid competition with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley.
  There is currently a trend explicit in government thinking that we should do something to improve Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, by which is meant something to attract more people or another sort of people from those who go there at present. I believe that that trend is based on a misconception or a false impression. There could not be a broader spectrum of people than those who use the Royal Parks at present. They are of every age, sort, colour, number of legs and so forth that one can imagine.
  When the Government's policy was first launched, I went for a walk one Sunday afternoon especially to see what and whom I should see. I was particularly struck by a nascent difference of opinion among a fairly large number of black youths under a tree and by the way in which the park police approached with a vehicle at one-and-a-half miles per hour, disembarked in slow motion,
  1234
  assumed smiles and lolled towards the young black men. The men instantly explained the difference of opinion to the police, who instantly settled it and lolled away again at one-and-a-half miles per hour. In one way, it is only in a large park that one can have really humane policing.
  On the same walk I overheard two French ladies who were out walking together. The younger looked around at everything and, beaming expansively, said, "It's very beautiful". The older woman rounded upon her with the stern disapproval that only an older French lady can use to a younger French lady and contradicted her: "It's magnificent". I thought so too; and if one compares Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park with the major central parks of other civilised capitals, one is forced to admit for once that this country probably has the best.
  The parks of Paris are formal, splendid and enjoyable, but they are very small and they are dry in the summer. Rome has nothing really. The main park in Berlin is good, but there is a great roaring motorway right down the middle, separating one half from the other, which takes one half a day to summon up the courage to cross. Washington is one of the best; it has great expanses of real beauty. However, by and large in Europe I believe that we have the best parks and that we should therefore be extremely careful in considering ways of changing them.
  Kensington Gardens is not collapsing at all. I am not sure that I detected in the Government's statements about Kensington Gardens, as did the noble Lord, Lord St John, the notion that it was collapsing. It is not collapsing, and I do not believe that the Government feel that it is.
  I turn now to the question of concerts. Clearly, six to nine concerts per year on the vast treeless area in Hyde Park is too many. That is too many nights of unignorable thumping for the neighbours of the parks and too many weeks—not nights—of closure of neighbouring thoroughfares for traffic, which causes considerable congestion. Therefore, I hope that it may be possible to keep down the number of concerts to one or two. It would be nice if only one of them were pop and the other opera or some well thought out change of content from year to year.
  It is difficult to know what one thinks about the Diana project because one does not know what to expect. There appear to be no firm proposals after a year of deliberation, except for a general notion that it may be in Kensington Gardens. Good, say I, provided that it does not occupy too much territory. The territory in particular in the north-west corner has been occupied creepingly by many good causes over the past 50 years, most already devoted to children. It would be a pity to take that whole corner away from natural greenery and natural woodland and make it into a formal phenomenon of any kind.
  In short, my opinion is that the present arrangements are about right. I am glad to be able to say that for once. I am continually telling governments that their arrangements for this and that are not right. My noble friend Lord McIntosh knows only too well what I mean—probably better than any other of your Lordships. Therefore, it is a pleasure for me to be able to

  1235
  say, "Do not change it, it is good". I am glad to be able to praise this Government for having gone as far as they have and I urge them to go no further.
  That is a particular pleasure because this will be my last speech in your Lordships' House. I shall retire therefrom and reflect with some pleasure and some boredom on the 39 years I have spent here. I shall wish good 39-year stints at the minimum to all those who come into the House in the future.
  7.52 p.m.
  The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a very great privilege and pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I have spent a mere tenth of the time that he has spent in this House. I have admired vastly his contributions, although we may disagree on the expansion of NATO.
  To my eternal shame, I never took part in the debate on Stonehenge two years ago. As he has done today, on that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, led on the subject of Stonehenge; the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made the most brilliant speech; and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, closed the debate, saying that something would be done and progress would be made. Had I spoken on that occasion I should have said that Stonehenge is a clock; that we are at the millennium; and it is time to make that great national man-made monument in the most perfect surroundings a fitting tribute to our generation.
  The London parks are not a clock but they tell us about the seasons: spring, summer, autumn and winter. We who live in this great capital city enjoy that. We relax when we get out into those parks and we are recharged. In its excellent report dated 28th February 1996, the Royal Parks Review Group headed its sixth and final section not with the words "Conclusions" or "Recommendations" but with the words "Need for a Champion". It certainly found two champions today, in the noble Lords, Lord St John of Fawsley and Lord Kennet. Be one a Londoner, a visitor to London, a tourist from abroad, an employer or an employee of the Royal Parks Agency or the Royal Parks Constabulary, a pelican or a ruddy duck on St James Park lake, or a great oak in Richmond Park, they and all of us who care for the Royal Parks are greatly in the debt of the noble Lord for introducing this Un starred Question.
  I am grateful to him for the opportunity which it gives me to set out my stall—unlike some of those who operate stalls in our parks—in support of those unique parks, those swards of green which run through our capital city. Indeed, it is still my duty and right to do so until Thursday. Fortunately, the noble Lord is not unique as a champion. There are others. First, I pay tribute to Dame Jennifer Jenkins and her team, who conducted the review and made such timely and far-sighted recommendations. However, due to budgetary restraints some of those have still to be acted upon and implemented.
  Secondly, I pay tribute to the Evening Standard, which has unremittingly campaigned in the highest traditions of journalism for positive developments in the Royal Parks and for the avoidance of negative ones.
  1236
  Among others, Simon Jenkins, Molly Watson, Richard Allen and Sophie Daniels have constantly raised matters such as the cheeseparing of government grants to the parks, the poor facilities, the vandalism, theft, hawkers, buskers and inebriates who damage the parks and the enjoyment of those who visit them to relax and who seek leisure, peace, quiet and tranquillity.
  At the moment I am not able to add to the list of champions the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I trust that I shall be able to do so after his reply to this debate. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport, which the noble Lord represents in this House, and which is responsible for Parliament in the Royal Parks, has left the Royal Parks Agency with insufficient funds to care for and maintain the parks and has set it over-ambitious targets to raise money which it cannot possibly meet. If it tries to do so, the ethos of those parks will be damaged.
  The result of that is that the agency has decided, reluctantly I understand, to introduce short-term measures which, I suggest, diminish the role of the parks in the short, medium and long term. The Government must not allow themselves to shift the blame on to the Royal Parks Agency, which, we all agree, consists of real professionals, doing their job to the very best of their ability. The Government must shoulder the responsibility themselves and recognise that salami-slicing of funding is detrimental to the good of the parks. They must address the problem of finance and revisit the matter of funding.
  When he comes to reply, I have no doubt that the Minister will argue that, first, the Royal Parks Agency received a grant of £26.39 million. That is a rise of £5.4 million. As the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, has pointed out, that is the first increase in funding for five years. No doubt the Minister's argument will be that Royal Parks are better off now than when the Opposition were in power. That argument does not cut much ice with noble Lords on these Benches. The Government have now been in power for 30 months.
  Perhaps I may make some practical recommendations. I start from the premise that the parks are to be open to all and to be open free of charge for ever to those who abide by sensibly enforced regulations. Secondly, they are Crown property, run by an agency. The people of London and those who visit London, either from the provinces or from abroad, benefit most from the green swards through the capital city. Therefore, the nation must pay for the care and maintenance of the parks through, first, arbitrary taxes. Secondly, many of the Crown estates properties border the parks and their capital and income is increased through them. Therefore. it should be possible to draw back money from those Crown estates. Thirdly, the Treasury receives billions of pounds as a result of overseas visitors coming here, spending their money and enjoying the parks. The parks should have a proportional share of that income from tourism. Finally, the Royal Parks Agency should never have to pay for the repair of major thoroughfares through the park. The Mall was repaired, at great inconvenience to certain Londoners. However, I

  1237
  understand why it had to be done. Did all of that funding come out of the Royal Parks Agency? Did it foot the bill? If so, the money should be given back.
  If the Minister feels that the best way of funding the care and maintenance of the parks is by getting the agency a mere £1 million through, as has been pointed out, unsuitable pop concerts, I would ask him to think again. The tread of so many feet will damage the habitat, irritate those who live nearby and who use the amenities for rest and relaxation, and will often cause more damage to the park than the cost of repairing the damage. I urge the Minister to think again.
  I conclude by telling a short story. I do so because, enjoyably to all of us who listen, the Minister, with his enormous command of English literature, which I cannot meet, often chooses from such literature a short story.
  I draw the attention of your Lordships to H.H. Munro (Saki) and his short story entitled "The Lumber Room". Delete "lumber room" and insert "St James's Park". The story is about a little boy called Nicholas who enjoys the park. Let us call him "Carlisle". There was an aunt who controls and bosses everybody. I do not suggest that we call him the Minister.
  Nicholas wished to go into the lumber room. He had disobeyed his aunt by putting a frog in a cup of milk at breakfast. The aunt said that it was impossible for a frog to sit in a glass of milk. Nicholas was right because he had put it there; the aunt was wrong. The aunt arranged for a treat for the children. They were to go off to the beach to play, whereas Nicholas was left behind.
  What happened next? Thinking that Nicholas wished to go into the garden, the aunt told him that he was not allowed to because he was in disgrace. Nicholas had no intention of going into that garden. He wanted to go into the lumber room. While he was in the lumber room, he heard a screech. He went down to the garden. The aunt, who could not find him, suspected that he had gone into the garden.
  Nicholas said, "What happened?" She said, "I was searching for you in the garden. I couldn't find you. I have now fallen into a tank of water." "Aunt, will I be allowed jam for tea?" "Yes" said the aunt, meaning no. Nicholas said, "Oh, aunt, it is the devil who has warned me not to do what the devil says". "You will get jam if you help me out". There is jam in the cupboard; the aunt does not know it. "Therefore, you must be the devil".
  I refrain from saying to anybody that a Minister who does not look after the Royal Parks is a Prince of Darkness. Nicholas apparently got his jam. I do hope that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can, over the millennium period and for the foreseeable future, give the Royal Parks what they need; a backdrop of £60 billion in order to restore them and carry out what needs to be done to bring them up to the proper standard.
  Nicholas said to his aunt, "Devil, you have sold yourself". I say to the Minister, please do not sell short the Royal Parks.
  8.4 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, has introduced a most important subject. He has given us the opportunity to hear two notable swan-songs, if that is the opposite of a maiden speech. I am not sure whether to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, it just seemed like 39 years.
  I have two main points to make on the subject of the Royal Parks. The first is that not all the parks are the same. Because they are not homogenous, their uses need not necessarily be uniform. We should, therefore, approach them in different ways. My second point concerns the question that politicians always need to ask themselves: for whose benefit in this instance are the parks being provided? We need to recognise that changing times may mean changes in responses to that question.
  It is perhaps easy to take our parks for granted. I am sure that this does not apply to others of your Lordships, but we may not know their history as thoroughly as perhaps we should. As the noble Lord said, we assume they are there as green lungs for London. As with many amenities, it may be that they are recognised less by Londoners than by tourists. We have heard comments this evening about the reaction of people visiting London.
  In the publication concerning the Royal Parks, I noticed the references to visitors' surveys. I applaud the investigation of people's responses, needs and wishes for the parks. However, by definition these are people who visit the parks. I wonder who is being missed in that inevitably narrow set of surveys.
  It is easy to assume that the fabric of open spaces will look after itself. Perhaps it is only when things go wrong that a lack of maintenance becomes apparent. That is why it is important not to reach that point. In preparing for today's debate, I was struck by the realisation that it is not only investment in the fabric of the parks which is so important. We need to consider, for instance, the reduced funding for policing. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to policing in the parks. Before this evening I had not particularly thought about how important it is to keep up the level of supervision as an avoiding tactic. I refer also to the reduced funding in human resources; that is, staff. We saw the effect of that in the cancellation of Greenwich's Family Day.
  The conclusions of the Royal Parks Review, led by Dame Jennifer Jenkins, was published in 1996. The section headed "Need for a Champion", to which my noble friend referred, listed the buildings, park walls, gates and lamp posts that are to be maintained. It mentioned the 35 kilometres of road, 170 kilometres of paths, the private river, huge areas of parkland, 1,000 deer and so on. It states:
  "Yet the Agency is expected to look after its domain for less than. for example, some individual national museums. The parks provide incredibly good value for money and are enjoyed by literally tens of millions of people".
  Indeed, they provide excellent value for money. However, one can understand that it is necessary to ensure that the level of funding is maintained. Noble Lords referred to the decreasing level of funding over recent years, other than the recent uplift.

  1239
  It is perhaps inevitable that the Royal Parks Agency is embarking on merchandising ventures. It may be easy to frown on that as a rather "tacky" venture. I hope that it will not be. It might even promote a sense of the history of the parks. However, it will not be easy to get right. Inevitably, larger-scale income generation is on the cards.
  It seems to me that some of the parks can cope with substantial influxes of people; some cannot. Indeed, some areas of particular parks can cope and some cannot. It is right that the parks now have criteria against which to consider the staging of events. It is also right that the Royal Parks Agency continues to consult those who have an interest in the parks and who so care for them. I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the various groups of friends of the different parks and, indeed, of the Friends of the Royal Parks Forum. In their different ways, in the different parks of London, they have been doing a terrific job.
  One of the topics with which the groups of friends have been involved is traffic, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley. I agree in regard to the question of speed. If speed were to be effectively controlled, that might make the use of the parks by road traffic a little less offensive. It is a contentious subject. Since the roads have been taken into the London network, one cannot consider closing those routes without considering the impact on other areas. I feel—it is probably a highly politically incorrect observation—that it is necessary to ensure that those who enjoy the parks by travelling through them should not totally be deprived of that pleasure.
  I understand the protests about the flower show in Regent's Park. I have been reminded of what happened when the first flower shows were started at Hampton Court a few years ago. Temporary structures erected for long periods and heavy concentration of feet undoubtedly mean that the turf is badly damaged. But such experiences should not lead to the conclusion that all major events are inappropriate. Prince Albert brought the 1851 Exhibition into a Royal Park. The parade ground next to Park Lane was used for big events. And I believe that The Mall will be closed for three days to be used fir a millennium fair. That is entirely appropriate. The Royal Palaces used to be part of the parks, not walled off. However, there is a little movement towards bringing them back into the park areas.
  I do not object to the use of the large flat area of Hyde Park for major concerts. Such concerts are an important type of public assembly of the late 20th and early 21st century. Some object to that type of use. I take no pleasure in a heavy reverberating bass, but can understand that some people do. Some object because of the scale. One must be careful not to impose one's prejudices. I say that as somebody who attended one of the Prince's Trust concerts because clients of mine were playing. I was extremely glad to be one of those with a seat and not to have to stand throughout the whole concert.
  Many people enjoy such occasions. The parks provide an exciting venue. I do not believe that everybody who attends a concert in a park goes into the arena without becoming aware of where they are. That is perhaps a mechanism not to be used every week, but one that can be
  1240
  used to introduce new groups of people to one of London's major pleasures. I recall that in about 1979 there was a proposal that the Pope, when visiting this country, should hold a mass in Richmond Park. The protests voiced through the local press were just as loud as the protests made in relation to Prince's Trust concerts in Hyde Park. So it is not only commercial uses which cause such furore. The Pope did not come.
  Having established the criteria, that criteria must be applied in the context of the circumstances of each park. We must be imaginative about the uses that can be made of them. In Richmond Park—my local park—there is an important and interesting environmental centre. It is used as the home for the Thames Landscape Strategy. In particular, it has been developed—the project of one of Richmond's recent mayors—as an environmental centre catering for children with special needs. That sort of venture—a partnership with other partners, in this case including the local authority—is important, exciting and the sort of thing we should be encouraging in our parks.
  The noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, reminded us that too many people destroy the very thing they seek to support. I have used the same argument against the proposed Terminal 5 and in relation to various other London issues. Of course, I support the call for adequate funding, although perhaps not all my responses in relation to the uses of the parks are quite the same as the noble Lord's. I am delighted that we have had the opportunity to air what no doubt will be a variety of views.
  8.16 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue which is of such interest, not only to Londoners but also to visitors to the capital. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I pay tribute to the two notable swan-songs tonight. Although I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for only three years, in that time whatever brief I have been speaking to I have always noted with interest the tenacity with which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has followed the issues surrounding Royal Parks, and I shall miss his Written Questions and the information they have elicited from both the last government and this. I have always listened with interest to the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle. I believe in my three years I have learnt more about the Baltic States than I ever expected to.
  It is timely that we have the opportunity to debate this subject because we are awaiting the first report of the review of the Royal Parks Agency. It was postponed during the Comprehensive Spending Review and we were told in a Written Answer in another place on 1st July that the report should be completed by the end of November this year. As I understand it, from a Written Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, the review is intended to examine how the agency has performed since its creation six years ago; to reappraise the alternatives to agency status; and to make recommendations for the future development and management of the Royal Parks. Are the Government still on target to complete the review

  1241
  by the end of this month? If so, when do they intend to publish the report? Will it form the basis of legislation to be announced next week in the Queen's Speech?
  In preparation for this debate, I read the annual report of the Royal Parks Agency and the annual report published by the Friends of the Royal Parks Forum. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I pay tribute to their work and that of other groups of friends. The report of the friends puts the issues into sharp relief.
  The agency's report highlighted its four main objectives—very laudable objectives which we can all support. They were, first, to conserve and improve the fabric of the parks; secondly, to improve the presentation, safety and enjoyment of the parks for visitors; thirdly, to organise and manage the agency's work efficiently and effectively; and, fourthly, to place the agency on a sound financial basis and to generate increased income. But as noble Lords pointed out, for the agency the challenge is to find ways to maintain the horticulture of the parks—the fabric of the parks—at a high level, to tackle the backlog of maintenance and to use income-raising events without spoiling for ever the character of the parks.
  The report by the friends puts those objectives under the microscope and asks how they meet the needs and wishes of this generation and generations to come. But it recognises the fact that the parks continue to be maintained to a high standard thanks to the efforts of the agency's staff. But the friends are concerned about a new and growing threat. The report states:
  "Because of the pressure to generate revenue, large-scale events are being planned"—
  referring to the events of summer 1999. The report continues,
  "We are in favour of the Parks attracting the widest possible range of visitors, provided that this does not damage the fabric or detract from the peace or enjoyment of regular users and regular residents … in our view frequent pop concerts and other huge events, as foreshadowed in the Royal Parks Enterprises plans for Hyde Park and Horse Guards parade, risk going far beyond what can or should be tolerated".
  My noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley made some very telling points tonight on this same issue. I look forward to hearing the Government's response to the arguments that he put forward.
  Another issue that has caused much public concern is that of illegal trading in the parks. It was a matter which the House discussed in part at both the Report and Third Reading stages of the Greater London Authority Bill. Several amendments were introduced during the proceedings on that Bill by which the Government transferred the management of Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square—at least, those parts which belong to the Crown—from the DCMS to the Greater London Authority. Powers were given to the authority to prosecute illegal traders.
  The House will be aware that a court decision earlier this year made it impossible to prosecute traders on Crown land unless they are actually the owner of the business. Certainly, I have already made it clear in this
  1242
  House that we on this Front Bench support measures that the Government may seek to introduce to ensure that those who actually sell the goods may be prosecuted.
  During the proceedings on the Greater London Authority Bill, the Minister reminded the House that my noble friend—I am sorry, I mean my right honourable friend—Peter Brooke; he is not yet my noble friend but, who knows, perhaps in the future—tried to put the matter right as far as possible, when he introduced a Private Member's Bill in June this year. Indeed, some of the remarks of the noble Lord were not quite reported by Hansard on the first occasion, but he put that right by way of a correction.
  The key provisions of the Bill were: first, to increase the maximum penalty for offences of illegal trading in the Royal Parks and certain other open areas; secondly, to provide for the seizure by park constables of items used in the commission of such offences, for the purpose of interrupting and preventing further illegal trading; and, finally, where a person was convicted of an offence, the Bill provided that the court would be given the discretion to order the forfeiture of any items seized. Does the Minister believe that these provisions form a good basis for a future government Bill? Alternatively, do the Government believe that increased fines on their own will be sufficient to stop illegal traders operating?
  I have already mentioned the discussions on Third Reading of the GLA Bill. The Minister took the opportunity then, on 1st November, gently to chide this side of the House on the basis that the Conservative Party blocked my right honourable friend's Bill. However, as the Minister said, it was, as I quoted from Hansard (at col. 668), a "totally unjustified jibe". No doubt the noble Lord will have the opportunity in a moment to see whether he can argue that one back.
  Like my other noble friends on this Front Bench, I was disappointed when my right honourable friend's Bill was blocked at Second Reading in another place by one of my honourable friends on the Back Benches. He exercised the right that one has in another place to prevent a Private Member's Bill going forward. I have to respect the action of my honourable friend from the Back Benches. He believes that, as a matter of principle, Private Members' Bill should not add to the regulatory burden in this country. I respect his beliefs, but I would argue that, on some occasions, regulation is a necessary evil. Indeed, this is one of them. However, my honourable friend is entitled to stick to his principles as a Back-Bencher. The Minister himself witnessed the same situation in this House today when some of his Back-Benchers stuck to their principles and voted against the Government on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
  If and when the Government bring forward legislation of their own to clamp down on illegal trading in the Royal Parks, we on this Front Bench will support those measures, provided, as ever, that such legislation addresses the problem in an appropriate, effective and fair manner. We would not give up our right to look carefully at the legislation, but we certainly hope that it will be effective and prove to be legislation that we can welcome.

  1243
  There are other illegal activities that cause problems in the parks. I shall stick to just one; namely, the misuse of drugs. I was intrigued to note in the agency's report (at page 12) that the number of drugs crimes recorded in the parks has almost doubled in the past two years: the figure was 68 in 1997, but rose to 129 in 1998. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what information the Government have about the nature of these crimes and the reasons for what appears to be a dramatic increase. There appears to be no other major change with regard to other categories of crimes recorded in the parks.
  Several speakers tonight made it clear that all of us have a great interest in ensuring that the Royal Parks remain a treasure for all of us and for future generations. Indeed, as my noble friend said in his introductory remarks, they are the lungs of the city. They are a precious escape for all of us from the pressures of city life. Indeed, they are an essential part of everyday life for Londoners. It is absolutely vital that we keep safe their historic integrity and hand on to future generations Royal Parks that can give them as much pleasure as they currently give us.
  8.25 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, who deserves the congratulations of all noble Lords on his initiative in introducing this debate, is certainly much more expert than I am on the Royal Parks. Indeed, that is the case with my noble friend Lord Kennet. Therefore, any attempt that I make in the terms of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, to be a champion will be from the point of view of someone who is really a Hampstead Heath boy. I was brought up on the west side of the heath and have lived on the east side for 40 years. That is my home territory. I am an outsider, as a visitor rather than a devotee of the kind that has been in evidence during tonight's debate.
  However, that does not mean that I do not appreciate the enormous importance for London and for the whole country of the Royal Parks. They are a national asset. Of course, they are owned by the Sovereign in right of the Crown but they have been the responsibility of the Government and of taxpayers since the Crown Lands Act 1851. The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, set the right priority when he said that we must ensure that the parks remain open to all, with free access and for ever. If we stick to those three principles, we will at least have made a start, although there is a great deal more than that to be considered.
  Inevitably, what I say about the Royal Parks will be scrappy because it will be said in response to an admirably wide range of observations by all speakers in the debate. Perhaps I may start by looking at the annual report and accounts for 1998–99 of the Royal Parks Agency, which has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The achievement against the seven key targets sets the scene in which I can comment on the observations that have been made.
  The agency set itself three quality targets. The first was the average score by the independent horticultural expert for soft landscape presentation in each park. Here, over the past four years, there has been a rise to a target of 83 per cent, with an 84 per cent achievement in 1998–99.
  1244
  I turn now to the average mark in customer satisfaction surveys. It is true to say that customers are those who visit the parks, and one cannot estimate the views of those who do not go or easily discover why they do not. Nevertheless, as regards customer satisfaction with the quality of the parks, including issues such as cleanliness, upkeep, and so on, the target was 86 per cent with the results not being quite so good at 84 percent. I should not have referred to cleanliness because that is a specific item where the target was 85 per cent and the achievement was 84 per cent. However, generally speaking, I think it will be agreed that those who use the parks are pretty satisfied with what they see.
  I shall have to return to the more controversial issue of income, but that includes income from events and from all the activities in the park, where the Royal Parks Agency met its target of £3.3 million. It also met its target of efficiency savings on running costs. Moreover, because there had been some complaint about the inefficient use of the Royal Parks Constabulary, it almost met its target of reduction of the hourly costs of a police constable on duty.
  The final target was to re-tender the ground maintenance contracts in four parks. That was achieved. That is the context in which I want to talk about the observations made by noble Lords. But before I leave that point, the noble Lord, Lord St. John, said that park-keepers had virtually vanished and park managers were vanishing. I can assure him that the numbers of park-keepers have been maintained but also that all the parks have managers, just as Regent's Park and Primrose Hill have a manager. I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments on the quality of that management.
  I turn to the most difficult issue, which concerns the accusations of commercialisation of the Royal Parks. Of course there have always been special events in the Royal Parks. The 1851 Great Exhibition was situated on the southern side of Hyde Park. Although I cannot find any documentary evidence, I seem to remember that in the 1951 Festival of Britain there was a mock coal-mine near Speakers' Corner which I clearly remember visiting. However, no one can tell me where it was or when it was. It is true that the Government have encouraged the Royal Parks Agency to do two things: first, to raise the income from events of this kind and, secondly, to attract a wider range of visitors to the parks. Some 10 per cent. of the visitors come to the parks to attend specific events. We have to be careful not to be exclusive or elitist in our views on these events. If Proms in the Park are welcome, why not Simply Red or the other popular concert performers?
  The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, talked about unsuitable pop concerts. I share the distaste of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for strong beat, but we have to be tolerant of other people's cultural tastes. As regards the sculptures of Ronald Rae in Regent's Park, they were originally put there for a period of 12 months, but I understand that they are rather popular—the noble Lord, Lord St. John, clearly disagrees—and there is a suggestion that they may be left in position for longer in response to popular demand. I note what the noble Lord said about the flower show and I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said about flower shows in Richmond Park.

  1245
  It is certainly true, particularly during the summer just past, that there has been a considerable increase in commercial events in the parks, organised mostly by Royal Park Enterprises. The income from that is not quite as much as the noble Lord, Lord St. John, suggests. It is only just under £800,000, rather than £1 million, but it is a worthwhile addition to the revenue of the Royal Parks Agency. However, Ministers are aware of problems caused by these events. We have been considering what should be done about that. We are forming the view that we may have reached saturation point in that regard. It is likely that there will be no further increase in events of this kind in future years.
  Noble Lords quite properly commented on funding. Although the funding for 1999–2000 is much higher than in previous years, or than is expected for future years, the increase includes £3 million worth of projects to commemorate Diana Princess of Wales and £2.3 million towards tackling the backlog of maintenance. Clearly it is undesirable for maintenance to be allowed to fall behind so that specific funding is needed for that purpose. I do not deny that there is a problem with the funding of the Royal Parks. They have to compete for funding with many other activities of the Department for Culture, all of which have, quite properly, vociferous advocates. The Royal Parks Agency will have to continue to fight its corner and Ministers will have to continue to listen sympathetically.
  I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, for his tribute to the review of Dame Jennifer Jenkins. I have reread the final conclusions of 1996 with great interest. I believe that she set a standard which we try to keep to. The previous government accepted the recommendations of the review subject to the availability of resources. That is still the position. The noble Earl is right to say that we need champions in this regard. The Evening Standard has been an outstanding champion, as has the Forum of Friends. Their work is much valued.
  I was asked specifically about the Diana Princess of Wales memorial garden. As noble Lords will know, there was a great furore about this in the summer of last year. The proposals that were tentatively made for consultation purposes were very much scaled down. I refer to the refurbishment of the children's playground and improvements to the area south of Kensington Palace which are due to be completed by the spring of 2000. The Chancellor's committee is considering suggested locations for a fountain in memory of the princess in one of the Royal Parks although it has not yet been decided which one.
  The noble Lord, Lord St. John, referred to the menace of traffic in the parks. I believe that he went further than Dame Jennifer Jenkins. She wanted a reduction in the amount of traffic and, in particular, the closure of North Carriage Drive in Hyde Park, which we have not been able to achieve except when commercial events are taking place. I take the noble Lord's point about traffic calming
  1246
  measures. Some are in place and I am sure that the Royal Parks Agency will consider the need for more as necessary.
  As regards millennium events, I am glad to have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the funfair which is to be held on the Mall from 31st December to 3rd January. There will also be a royal tournament style military event in July on Horseguards. There is to be another flower show in Regent's Park following this year's successful show. If anything can be done to increase the proportion of flowers and decrease the proportion of garden gnomes I shall be as happy as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me about the Royal Parks Agency's five year review. It is on time. We now have a first draft but the report has not been considered by Ministers. Over 40 people and organisations have responded to the consultation and we shall make an announcement to Parliament as soon as we possibly can.
  On illegal trading, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has set out the position fairly and I do not need to take time to cover it. The idea of a Private Member's Bill failed because Mr Eric Forth took a position of principle against that. There will probably have to be a government Bill. Let us hope that we shall have something positive to say about that, subject of course to the usual precautions about what is likely to be in the Queen's Speech. Certainly, there is an advantage, in that the Bill is already drafted and covers, as I understand it. more effective penalties than simply fines and will make it possible to act against traders rather than the shadowy proprietors in the background.
  The noble Baroness asked me about drug offences in the Royal Parks. I do not believe that there has been any huge change in drug abuse generally in this country but police intelligence has identified drug dealing in some central Royal Parks. The police put in resources that resulted in an increase in the number of arrests. That was a proper reaction to police intelligence.
  I have reached the time limit allowed for this debate. Again I thank the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, and all who have taken part. I am sure that the Royal Parks Agency will be grateful for the searchlight that has been trained on the royal parks and for the high level of support that has been evinced by all speeches.

  City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [H.L.]
    Kent County Council Bill [H.L.]

      Medway Council Bill [H.L.]
      A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolution of this House of 4th November.
      House adjourned at nineteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  Afghanistan: NGO Funding
  Afghanistan: NGO Funding
  Humanitarian Mine Action
  Humanitarian Mine Action
  Home Department: Expenditure Limit
  Home Department: Expenditure Limit
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Casework System
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Casework System
  Asylum Applications: Processing
  Asylum Applications: Processing
  Non-fatal Offences against the Person
  Non-fatal Offences against the Person
  Offenders Under Supervision
  Offenders Under Supervision
  Prison, Hostel and Boarding School Staff: Training
  Prison, Hostel and Boarding School Staff: Training
  Probation and Immediate Custody Sentences 1998
  Probation and Immediate Custody Sentences 1998
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 29 October
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 29 October
  Roma
  Roma
  Data Protection Act: Statutory Instruments
  Data Protection Act: Statutory Instruments
  Residential Care Staff: Training
  Residential Care Staff: Training
  Medical Professions: Public Appreciation
  Medical Professions: Public Appreciation
  Consultants and Junior Doctors: Retention
  Consultants and Junior Doctors: Retention
  Organophosphate Working Party: Confidentiality
  Organophosphate Working Party: Confidentiality
  Advance Statements
  Advance Statements
  Assisted Food and Fluid Treatment
  Assisted Food and Fluid Treatment
  Euthanasia
  Euthanasia
  Variant Creutzfeldt—Jakob Disease
  Variant Creutzfeldt—Jakob Disease
  NHS Trusts: Procurement Efficiency
  NHS Trusts: Procurement Efficiency
  World Heritage Sites: Land Use
  World Heritage Sites: Land Use
  Stonehenge
  Stonehenge
  National Museums and Galleries
  National Museums and Galleries
  National Museum and Gallery of Wales
  National Museum and Gallery of Wales
  Works of Art: Temporary Export
  Works of Art: Temporary Export
  Works of Art: Deferral Period
  Works of Art: Deferral Period
  Works of Art: Funding for National Purchase
  Works of Art: Funding for National Purchase
  Museums and Galleries: Access
  Museums and Galleries: Access
  Pensioners: Income Support
  Pensioners: Income Support
  Incapacity Benefit
  Incapacity Benefit
  Animal Feed and Sewage
  Animal Feed and Sewage
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Pesticides Safety Directorate