Sitting of 19 October 1999

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

DEATHS OF MEMBERS
2.34 pm
Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the deaths of Mr. Roger Stott, Member for Wigan, and the right hon. Alan Clark, Member for Kensington and Chelsea. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of our two colleagues during the recess, and in extending our sympathy to the families and friends of those Members.

WRITS ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER acquainted the House that during the Adjournment, pursuant to the Recess Elections Act 1975, the Chairman of Ways and Means on her behalf had issued warrants to the Clerk of the Crown for new writs for the electing of Members to serve in this present Parliament for Wigan, in the room of Roger Stott, Esquire, deceased, and for Hamilton, South, in the room of the right hon. George Robertson, who has been called to the House of Peers.
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 26 October.

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

    Brain Scans
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What is the (a) length of the waiting list and (b) average waiting time for a brain scan for those aged (i) under 18 years and (ii) 18 years and over; and if he will make a statement. [92584]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Brain scans are diagnostic procedures carried out in radiology departments. During the quarter ended June 1999, the average waiting time for a radiology out-patient appointment was two weeks.
    Miss McIntosh: I congratulate the Secretary of State for Health on his appointment, and welcome him to the
    236
    Dispatch Box in that capacity. Is he familiar with the tragic case of Shaun Johnstone, aged 16, of Boroughbridge, who was not given a brain scan within two weeks but was asked to wait two months? Perhaps that reflects on the present obsession with the distortion of waiting lists in the health service, with, in that case, tragic consequences. The father is especially concerned to raise the question of confidentiality, as neither the patient, who was 16 and therefore no longer a minor, nor the father, was told of the diagnosis, which could not be confirmed before the boy died. Will the Secretary of State make a ruling on that case?
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of the case of Shaun Johnstone, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in passing on our condolences to the family. The case was especially sad, not least because it is extremely unusual for a young person of Shaun's age to have a cerebral tumour. I understand, however, that both Shaun's general practitioner and the consultant neurologist who dealt with the case believe that even if Shaun had attended his first out-patient appointment, which I understand he was unable to do, he was suffering from an inoperable tumour, so treatment would have made no significant difference. I know, however, that that is of little comfort to Shaun's parents, other relatives and friends.
    Of course I shall gladly look into the case. I understand that the health authority has already done so, and the parents have been advised that the most appropriate course of action would be to approach the health service commissioner. I strongly advise them to do that, but I will still look into the case.
    The general point that the hon. Lady made is wrong. We are bringing waiting lists down for in-patients, and we will continue to do so, but there is now a change of tack. We are ensuring, in particular, that there will be faster and more convenient care across the piece in the national health service. We will begin with the core priority areas of cancer and heart disease. It is important to improve those services; we have already set in place a two-week standard for patients referred with suspected breast cancer, and I want to improve on that.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: I too congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. As some people are waiting for brain scans for as long as nine weeks in Oxford and 16 weeks in Birmingham—as he has acknowledged, none of those waits shows up on the Government's much vaunted waiting lists measure—and as yesterday he seemed to be reorienting his priorities for the health service, will he follow the example of the new Scottish Administration and recognise that measuring waiting lists is not the right thing to do? Will he put the emphasis on waiting times instead? Surely what is of concern to patients is how long they have to wait for the totality of their treatment, not how many people have the misfortune to be in the same boat.
    Mr. Milburn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post, too. We have made it clear from the outset that it will take some time to get waiting lists down. They are coming down and they will continue to come down. The drive on waiting lists will be unrelenting. They are now about 70,000 lower than those that we inherited from the previous Government, when numbers were rising at a record rate. That has taken some time to get right.

    237
    We shall continue to get waiting lists down, and by the end of this Parliament we will have fulfilled the pledge that we gave to the people at the general election. The difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party is that we keep our election promises rather than break them. However, we have also made it clear that reducing waiting lists is just the start. We want to modernise each and every aspect of NHS treatment and care, so that patients everywhere get the fast and convenient services that they want.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. Those of us who have campaigned on health issues over the past couple of years have been impressed by the clear sense of priorities of many people both inside and outside the national health service. Before the election, the main worry was the enormous explosion in in-patient waiting lists, which was getting out of control and discrediting the health service. I also welcome the fact that the health service is now—
    Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is Question Time. Would he move on rapidly and ask the question directly? It should relate to waiting times for brain scans.
    Dr. Palmer: I want to ask the Secretary of State this question. Will the priority that he is giving to heart disease and cancer treatment improve waiting times and waiting lists in those areas, as that will reflect the priorities of ordinary people?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. There has always been a connection between reductions in waiting lists and waiting times. As we get waiting lists down, so waiting times will come down. We can now guarantee—the Opposition were never able to do this when they were in government—that patients will wait no longer than 18 months for treatment. During the past year, we have reduced the number of people waiting more than 12 months for treatment by a third. There is obviously a long way to go, but patients want fast and convenient care and they know that they will get that from the Labour Government.
    Dr. Liam Fox: I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. These days it is nice to see Ministers who are willing to come along and defend their positions. What my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) says is true: this initiative is an example of distorted clinical priorities in the health service. The Secretary of State is new to the job. Does he accept that patients care not how many people are behind or in front of them in the list, but how long they and their families will have to wait for treatment? Will he abandon the waiting list initiative, which is reducing the NHS to a shambles, with extraordinarily distorted clinical priorities?
    Mr. Milburn: No, I will not do that for two reasons. First, when politicians, whether in opposition or in government, make promises at general elections, they should keep them. We intend to keep our promise that, by the end of this Parliament, the number of people on waiting lists will be 100,000 lower than we inherited. Secondly, we are taking this initiative because it is the right thing to do. As waiting lists come down, so will
    238
    waiting times. That is happening already, and in the core priority areas of cancer and heart disease we are now setting in train action that will ensure that patients are seen in a timely fashion. That is what patients and staff in the national health service want.
    Dr. Fox: Under this Government, getting on to the waiting list is an achievement in itself. An extra 190,000 patients have been waiting to get on to the waiting list since Labour came to power, and that does not take into account the fiddling of the figures that seems to take place daily.
    The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Nursing and just about every medical and nursing body in the country say that the waiting list initiative distorts clinical priorities and keeps the sickest patients waiting longer than necessary, because minor cases are treated earlier in order to get the figures down to suit Ministers. Why does the Minister not realise that? Is it because this is about the Prime Minister's ego and not the running of the health service? The Secretary of State knows that this policy is flawed, that it is the wrong way to run the national health service and that it is bad for patients, but that it is the Prime Minister's second political prisoner.
    Mr. Milburn: It is a bit rich for the Conservatives to give lectures about fiddling figures, given that they spent 18 years fiddling figures. They fiddled the employment figures not once, not twice, but more than 30 times. They tortured the statistics until they confessed.
    If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to listen to what heart surgeons, heart specialists and the royal colleges had to say yesterday, he would have learned that they welcome the direction that we are now taking in the national health service to modernise and speed up all aspects of care.

    Terminally Ill Patients
    Ms Hazel Blears: What steps he is taking to ensure that appropriate care is available to terminally ill patients admitted to general hospitals. [92585]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): All terminally ill patients should receive appropriate and sensitive palliative care whether in hospitals or other settings. To support that, in June 1998 the Department of Health distributed throughout the national health service three documents on good practice in palliative care, produced by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services. Copies are available in the Library, and one of which covers "Palliative Care in the Hospital Setting."
    Ms Blears: I welcome my hon. Friend to her position on the Front Bench. In her public health role, she has one of the most important jobs in government. I look forward to working with her to tackle health inequalities in deprived communities such as mine, and I thank her for the reply to my question.
    I understand that the Department is aware of the sad case of Mrs. Carol Green from Salford, who in March last year died in Hope hospital having been admitted as a terminally ill patient. Her husband, Mr. Green, was forced

    239
    to watch her in pain, agony and distress during her final hours. Mr. Green and I are pressing the Department to ensure that district general hospitals provide the same pain relief, nursing and supportive care as hospices. Often patients are admitted when they are already dying, and it is too late for them to go to a hospice. Those patients are entitled to the same dignity and care that they would have in a hospice, and I ask the Department to look into the matter seriously.
    Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks, and offer my sympathy to Mr. Green following the death of his wife. I am aware of the case, and I know that my hon. Friend has been pursuing it locally. I hope that it can be speedily resolved.
    Everyone should have access to sensitive care, whatever the setting. Guidance on caring for people during the last days of their lives is now available in the national health service. In addition, strategies for high-quality palliative care should be part of local health improvement programmes. I am aware that a significant number of health authorities do not yet have such programmes and strategies for improving palliative care; they must have such programmes, so that realistic funding for palliative care is secured and the quality of services is maintained.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: I congratulate the Minister on her promotion. Will she take this opportunity not only to recognise fully the work of the voluntary hospice movement and its tremendous contribution to care for the terminally ill, but to say whether she is aware that NHS Executive advice on service agreements with voluntary hospices is still not being followed in two thirds of cases? Will she tell us what action she is prepared to take to ensure that that is put right?
    Yvette Cooper: I shall certainly look into the points that the hon. Lady has made. I take this opportunity to recognise the superb work of the voluntary sector. One of the things that the Government have done is to set up a cancer care action group, bringing together a range of voluntary organisations, the NHS and the Department of Health to consider issues relating to palliative care—particularly in the field of cancer—and to draw on the voluntary expertise throughout the country.

    Health Action Zone
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What discussions he has held with (a) the health authority and (b) health trusts in Camden and Islington concerning the operation of the health action zone. [92586]
    (The Minister of State, Department of Health Mr. John Hutton): Ministers have not yet had meetings with local health authority or trust officials on the progress of the Camden and Islington health action zone. However, my ministerial colleagues and I are currently visiting all the newly established second-wave health action zones, including Camden and Islington. I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that I shall be visiting Camden and Islington health action zone on 10 November. I hope very much that he will be able to join me.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for his answer, and look forward to his visit on 10 November. He will be
    240
    aware that the reason for the declaration of the health action zone was the high infant mortality and low life expectancy in the district, and the high incidence of notifiable diseases. What resources does he expect to bring to bear to improve general practitioner services and, in particular, to make it possible to examine the serious link between child poverty and child ill health in the area? What consultation does he intend to undertake with community organisations and community groups representing those who are suffering because of a combination of poverty, poor housing conditions and ill health?
    Mr. Hutton: Over the next three years, nearly £8 million will be spent on developing health action zone proposals in my hon. Friend's constituency and in others in Camden and Islington. I also reassure my hon. Friend that the principal focus of the HAZ will be on the development of initiatives relating to primary care, and that we shall involve the local community in every way possible. We shall focus particularly on teenage pregnancies and the plight of those in poverty, to whom my hon. Friend referred.
    It is a characteristic of all health action zones that programmes developed locally are done so in full consultation with all local partners. We consider that to be a critical way of tackling some of the health inequalities—two words that the Conservatives always refused to use when they were in government. We are serious about tackling health inequalities. My hon. Friend's constituency includes some of the most deprived parts of the country; we look forward to working with him, and with others locally, to improve the situation and tackle the root causes of ill health.

    Independent Health Care
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: What steps he is taking to regulate the provision of health care by the independent sector. [92587]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I am determined to improve the current arrangements for regulating private health care. An effective regulatory system is essential to provide patients with the protection to which they are entitled. I shall set out my proposals on the way forward shortly, following the extensive consultation that we have undertaken and taking account of the helpful report from the Select Committee on Health earlier in the year.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position and pay tribute to his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who did a first-class job for the past two years.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has mentioned the Select Committee report on regulation of independent medical care. The Committee as a whole was concerned at the extent to which the national health service in a number of ways subsidises the private health sector. It was especially concerned about the way in which repair work is undertaken in the NHS where things have gone wrong in the private sector, which happens quite frequently. Has my right hon. Friend any assessment of the costs to the NHS of such problems in the

    241
    private sector? Can he say what steps he will take to recoup such costs directly from the private hospitals concerned or the insurers who are involved with the patients?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important issue. I join him in praising the work of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for—
    Mr. Simon Burns: Holborn and St. Pancras.
    Mr. Milburn: Thank you. It is always nice to have a bit of co-operation from the hon. Gentleman. It makes a change. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) did a sterling job in laying the foundations for a modernised health care system. I was very proud to serve with him and to follow in his footsteps.
    Clearly, we need to look extremely carefully at the relationships between the private and public health care sectors. It is not just about regulation: we must ensure not only effective regulation, but that, where there are arrangements between the NHS and private sector, they are not to the detriment of the NHS.
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I join others in welcoming the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities. I invite him to mark his appointment by telling the House when he expects the Government to redeem their election pledge to make proposals for the reform of the finance of long-term care in the independent residential and nursing home sector.
    Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments.
    We have fulfilled our election pledge by establishing the royal commission on long-term care for the elderly. However, we are considering its conclusions. I will make an appropriate statement after I have considered them.

    North-east London Health Economy
    Mr. Mike Gapes: When he next plans to visit Redbridge to discuss the north-east London health economy. [92588]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I intend to visit Redbridge on 18 November.
    Mr. Gapes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am delighted that a Minister will visit Redbridge. I would welcome the opportunity at that time to show him the serious pressures and problems that NHS staff face in King George hospital, which was originally designed to take 50,000 admissions a year and is currently taking 90,000 a year, and where the accident and emergency department is under great pressure.
    I welcome the additional resources that the Government have given to our local health service, but hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to see for himself the reasons why we need more help locally.
    Mr. Denham: I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency. I am determined to ensure that his
    242
    constituents, like patients throughout the country, benefit in full from the modernisation of the NHS. There are important issues to be dealt with, which are the subject of proper public consultation. They include increased co-operation and better sharing of clinical skills in my hon. Friend's part of London. However, we are already backing that up with substantial resources—nearly £2 million extra—to modernise A and E services for his constituents, and the health authority has received more than £2.5 million of funding over and above the health authority basic allocation from the London fund. I am delighted to have the opportunity to see the NHS on the ground and to discuss how we take forward the modernisation of services in that part of London.
    Mr. Simon Burns: When the Minister goes to Redbridge to discuss health in north-east London, will he bear in mind that—because of the previous Secretary of State's changing, or fine tuning, of the funding formula two years ago—north-east London has received about £1 million extra funding at the expense of north and mid-Essex? The consequence has been that, in the current year, mid-Essex has had a deficit of £2.4 million, three hospital wards are being closed, and waiting lists have soared. Will the Government re-examine the funding formula for north-east London and North Essex and restore that £1 million to north and mid-Essex?
    Mr. Denham: The health service in Essex has received significant increases in resources, as has every part of the health service across the country. As we announced in November 1998, there is dissatisfaction with the allocations formula, not only in north and mid-Essex, but in other areas. We therefore announced a wide-ranging review of the allocations formula, and said that there will be a freeze on amendments to it until the review is completed. Consequently, in coming years, in each part of the United Kingdom, the health service will be able to plan with some certainty and security, to meet the needs of patients.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Over the summer, the Minister's attention will have been focused on Redbridge for another reason—the exposure of the scandal of waiting list manipulation at the King George hospital, and subsequently elsewhere in the country. Will the Minister admit that the Government's waiting list initiative has been an unmitigated disaster for the NHS; that there are still 18-month waiters in the system; and that the Government's very modest progress on their targets so far has been achieved only by a massive distortion of clinical priorities, the creation of a culture of manipulation and deceit in the NHS, a doubling of out-patient waiting lists and the absurdity of forcing the sickest patients to wait the longest?
    Mr. Denham: No, I do not accept a word of that, because it is all wrong. We are absolutely determined that the public should have every confidence in the waiting list figures that we publish, and I support entirely the Redbridge health care trust in the tough and prompt action that it has taken against those responsible in that case. However, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has any evidence for saying that the waiting list figures that we published have been fiddled—they have not. Moreover, we are determined to ensure that the public have full confidence in them.

    243
    We shall deliver on our waiting list promise, and have already reduced waiting lists to 70,000 below the level that we inherited. When Conservative Members criticise that fact, they are criticising the fact that another 450,000 in-patients were treated last year. I have not yet heard Conservative Members say which of those 450,000 people should not have had that treatment.
    Although the Government will fulfil our waiting list promise, in doing so we shall ensure that conditions that deserve high priority—such as cancer and coronary heart disease—are given proper priority. We have already established a two-week maximum waiting time for breast cancer referrals, and that maximum will be extended to other cancers. In due course, we shall introduce the national service framework on coronary heart disease, which will demonstrate very clearly the priority that we are giving to treating that condition.

    Bowel Cancer
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What investment his Department is making in services to combat cancer of the bowel. [92589]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): We have invested £20 million in colorectal cancer services to improve access to diagnosis and treatment. Additionally, £10 million is being made available to support the two-week waiting time standard for all patients urgently referred with suspected cancer. The £93 million in England from the new opportunities fund will buy additional and replacement equipment for the diagnosis and treatment of all cancers.
    Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that, in far too many cases, cancer of the bowel is detected far too late. What can we do to encourage earlier diagnosis of cancer of the bowel to ensure that action will be taken speedily? What action can we take to ensure that the survival rate is the same across the United Kingdom, so that there are not survival black spots in some parts of the country?
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Screening can be effective in promoting the early diagnosis of other cancers. Pilot studies for colorectal screening were announced in March in order to see whether a national programme would be feasible or acceptable. My hon. Friend is also right that it is outrageous that people from low-income areas are more likely to die of cancer. That is unacceptable. The Government are prioritising cancer not just because it is one of the biggest killers in the country, but because it lies at the heart of deep-rooted inequalities in Britain.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: In welcoming the steps taken to advance cancer care, I urge the Minister to ensure that more money is spent on drawing the attention of the public to the fact that they could take greater care in detecting things and by going to the doctor sooner. Is there collaboration in England—similar to that involving City, Belfast and Johns Hopkins hospitals—to bring centres of excellence together to combat this scourge?
    Yvette Cooper: I am encouraged by the centre of excellence that the hon. Gentleman describes. The matter
    244
    is a huge priority for the Government. We are working with organisations across the country on a strategy that will look not simply at cure but at prevention and the action that individuals can take to improve their health. One of our most important acts in that regard is to ban tobacco advertising from this country.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: I deeply welcome the sharper focus on cancer care and coronary disease, although there has been some press speculation—probably idle—that some of the extra resources will be at the expense of public health initiatives. Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no dilution of public health initiatives that are aimed at preventing those diseases?
    Yvette Cooper: I can do that. In fact, the reverse is true: we are making cancer and heart disease a priority, although public health must be at the forefront of tackling those diseases. It is not simply about what happens in hospitals, but about what happens in every household in every street in this country.
    Dr. Liam Fox: I welcome any increased targeting on cancer, although the task is a difficult one that cannot be achieved by gimmicks, soundbites or the sort of double accounting that we have seen from the Government recently which has been worthy of the Home Secretary himself. There is a difficulty with the cancer pledge that I would like the Minister to address. In gynaecology, it would be ridiculous to refer every woman with post-menopausal bleeding. Likewise, it would be impossible to refer everyone with altered bowel habits simply because they may have cancer. What level of clinical suspicion is required to meet the time pledge, and what guidelines have been issued to GPs throughout the country?
    Yvette Cooper: We are working with GPs on the guidelines to ensure that referral takes place properly and according to appropriate clinical priorities, as it is a matter of clinical judgment for the doctors involved. It is a bit rich to be lectured on clinical priorities by a shadow spokesperson who believes that we should be encouraging more private insurance at the expense of the NHS and that we should be shunting people into private health care instead. I can think of no greater distortion of clinical priorities than rationing treatment according to how much people can afford to pay.

    Organ Transplants
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on Government policy relating to organ transplants. [92590]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Gisela Stuart): Department of Health officials hold discussions with officials in the Scottish Executive Health Department on matters relating to organ transplants. All countries of the United Kingdom continue to co-operate on transplantation to ensure the effective provision of services including maximising the number of organs available, and that patients receive the best-matched available organs.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I wish my hon. Friend well on her first appearance on the Front Bench? Is it not sad that

    245
    highly personal decisions on the donation of organs have to be made at the moment of maximum grief? That is not the right time to make them. In view of the change of heart by the British Medical Association, is there any change in the thinking of the Government on organ donation and on an amendment to the Human Tissue Act 1961?
    Gisela Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He is right to point out that decisions about organ transplantation have to be made at sensitive times. The current arrangements work on the basis of consent. It is a giving relationship based on a positive step. There have been suggestions that we should have an opt-out system so that decisions on organ donations were made without further discussion. Even countries that have such an opt-out have a system of consultation. We do not want to move away from that. A survey has suggested that 50 per cent. of the population are content with the current arrangements. More importantly, there is no evidence from European countries that have an opt-out that it would increase the number of organs available. The biggest hinderance to organ donations is the place where the death occurs, which often has to be in hospital.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: I welcome the hon. Lady to her appointment. Will she address her fresh mind to Government policy on transplantation not just north of the border, but in the London area? Does she recognise the immense merits of Harefield hospital in my constituency, which has an international reputation second to none on the transplantation of hearts and lungs—sometimes both together? Will she ensure that that centre of excellence is built up, not reduced in scale or scope as seems to be the present plan?
    Gisela Stuart: The current arrangements on transplantation and the availability of organs are still organised on a UK-wide basis, including Ireland. Every hospital in the country will have the best and most suited organ available, irrespective of funding. It is a question of matching. I am content with the systems that are in place.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: I also welcome my hon. Friend and the other sisters who have been promoted to the Front Bench in the recent reshuffle. Is she aware that, when I wrote to my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Health requesting information on transplantation policy, particularly for people with Down's syndrome, I received a letter saying that, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, I should write to the Scottish Parliament about the matter? My request has been addressed again and I have had a reply saying that it will be dealt with properly. Does my hon. Friend accept that the health service often has to provide for people across borders, depending on where a speciality lies? I have had constituents who have had to come to London for particular operations. Will she assure the House that there will be seamless availability of health service provision for people throughout the United Kingdom, particularly for those who suffer from Down's syndrome or some other incapacity?
    Gisela Stuart: It is right that health is now a devolved matter, so to some extent my hon. Friend was correctly advised to approach Members of the Scottish Parliament.
    246
    However, the legal arrangements for transplantation are unusual. While there is theoretically provision for different arrangements north of the border, we should be very concerned if there were not close discussions in preparation. I remind my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority and the Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority work across the United Kingdom despite devolution.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Andrew George: What assessment he has made of the provision of dental services in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly; and if he will make a statement. [92591]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I understand from the health authority that, at 40 per cent., registrations in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly are 7 per cent. lower than the England average. In recognition of the problem in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, the Government have approved 12 investing in dentistry bids and a personal dental service pilot to establish drop-in dental centres at various locations in the county. I am pleased to say that Cornwall will be at the forefront of modernising dental services. We are working on links with NHS Direct so that a phone call to it will put the patient directly in touch with a clinic that is able to accept them for treatment.
    Mr. George: But phone and go where? Does the Minister accept that, with only four practices out of 88 in Cornwall accepting new adult NHS patients, there is a crisis in provision there? Does he also accept that it is time for proper action to address the real problem of access to NHS dentists rather than initiatives that simply seek to grab headlines?
    Mr. Denham: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. The combined effect of the 12 investing in dentistry bids, when they have their full impact, should enable at least another 32,500 patients to register with an NHS dentist. The drop-in centres are expected to treat an additional 28,000 patients a year. That is not empty words for headlines but real action to give new confidence to the NHS dentistry service in Cornwall.

    Vaccines (Bovine Material)
    Mr. Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on the use of bovine materials in vaccines. [92592]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): No bovine material has ever been used as an active ingredient in vaccines. Some bovine material is used in the early stages of manufacture of some vaccines and as a medium for cell growth for some vaccines. Since 1993, all vaccines in use were manufactured without UK-sourced bovine material. In 1989, guidelines were issued by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines that advised manufacturing companies to switch to non-UK-sourced bovine material. No vaccines licensed since the guidelines were issued have contained UK-sourced bovine material. Vaccines already licensed in 1989 may have been using

    247
    UK-sourced bovine material in the manufacturing process, but by 1992 all manufacturers of existing vaccines had confirmed that they were sourcing bovine material from outside the UK.
    Mr. Baker: I am grateful for that full answer, but in parliamentary answers to me earlier this year the Government admitted that stockpiles of vaccines containing bovine material that may have come from BSE-infected cows were not recalled when such material was banned from the food chain, and nothing was done to prevent their use between 1989 and 1992 by the previous Tory Government. How many people have been injected with such vaccines, and what steps have the Government taken to monitor any long-term health consequences?
    Yvette Cooper: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the answer on the number of people who were vaccinated between 1989 and 1992. Responsibility for advising the Government on the licensing of vaccines rests with the Committee on the Safety of Medicines. In 1989, the risk from UK-sourced bovine material was considered to be "remote" and theoretical. The CSM's view at the time was that the risk to public health through the spread of serious infectious diseases was greater than the risk associated with the use of the UK-sourced bovine material. Therefore, in 1989, the decision was taken on the basis of that advice that the vaccine programme should not be stopped immediately.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: May I also welcome the Minister to the Front Bench? I also welcome the reassurances she has just given, which are good for public confidence in our immunisation programme. However, in view of the sharp fall in vaccinations for mumps, measles and rubella from the target figure of 95 to 87 per cent.—which places children at risk from a measles epidemic—will the Secretary of State lift the ban on single-dose vaccines and give parents back that choice?
    Yvette Cooper: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. The single vaccines have not been withdrawn for reasons of cost or to deny parental choice, but on grounds of safety. The action is not a blanket ban and we have acted under the Medicines Act 1968, restricted by the Medicines Control Agency, on several grounds, including the principle that an unlicensed medicine should not be imported when a safe and effective licensed alternative is available. A growing body of evidence suggests that the single-dose mumps vaccine, which was being imported unlicensed, is not effective in protecting children. No evidence exists to demonstrate that the use of single vaccines is any safer than using MMR.

    Medical Treatments (Prisons)
    Mr. David Tredinnick: What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary concerning the range of complementary and alternative medical treatments available in Her Majesty's prisons and Her Majesty's young offenders institutions; what was decided; and if he will make a statement. [92593]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The priority to be accorded to such
    248
    treatments and the suitability of particular complementary and alternative treatments in prisons and other custodial institutions were considered by officials from the Prison Service and the Department of Health earlier this year. It was decided that a limited number of complementary therapies of potential benefit to prisoners and regimes should be provided, subject to the prison doctor's assessment of individual health needs and resource availability.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does the Minister not think that it is nonsense that the number of treatments available in the Prison Service has been reduced from 24 to six, when more and more treatments are being made available in the national health service? Does not he recognise that many complementary and alternative practitioners use more than one treatment? Does not he think that it is fundamentally crazy that homeopathy has been dropped from the list of treatments available in prisons, despite the fact that it has been used in the health service since that service's inception and that a new homeopathic hospital is coming on-stream in Glasgow?
    Mr. Hutton: I am not sure that I want to echo the adjectives used by the hon. Gentleman. The decisions that have been taken are not crazy. They are sensible and well balanced, and take into account the obvious question of resources. We are trying to improve, across the range, the health care services available to prisoners. We are doing that, but we must take into account the priorities facing the prison population. We must also take into account the special mental health problems that arise in prisons, and improve mental health services to prisoners. We are continuing to make complementary treatments and therapies available to prisoners in the prison estate.

    Chiropody
    Mr. Eric Pickles: When he plans to bring forward regulations to govern the chiropody profession. [92594]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Gisela Stuart): Chiropody is currently regulated by the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. The Health Act 1999 provides for the making of an order to replace that Act and will establish a new health professions council. The chiropody profession will be among those to be registered by the new council.
    Mr. Pickles: I am grateful for that reply. The Minister is in the first few weeks of her new job, but is she aware of the considerable concern in the profession due to the delay in consultation on that order? Will she take this opportunity to reflect on the anxiety about whether the regulations will protect the title of chiropody? Does she agree that any body looking into matters of fitness to practise should be composed mainly of members of the relevant professions?
    Gisela Stuart: I am aware of those concerns and should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that a consultation process is in place. It is proposed that the process will start this month or in November, and we hope that the legislation will be in place in summer 2001. The hon. Gentleman appears to feel that there is an

    249
    extraordinary urgency about this matter, so it is quite surprising that nothing has been done about it in the past 20 years.
    I should also point out that the professions will be fully consulted. Under the new legislation, the health professions council will contain a majority element of professionals, and its membership will be broadly based. Above all, the professions will play a key role in formulating the proposals to be put forward.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on her promotion, and welcome her to the Front Bench? Is she aware that the previous Government's health cuts mean that elderly people in my constituency are no longer eligible to receive free chiropody treatment, even when they are badly in need of it? Will she look at the problem again, to see whether there is any way to make such free treatment under the national health service a national right for elderly people who may be having problems?
    Gisela Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. Of course, we will strengthen community services to make chiropody available to any age group, and especially to the elderly. Part of the NHS modernisation proposals is to put more funds into primary care. That will include the group referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I congratulate the Minister on her appointment, and wish her success. When she reflects on chiropody services, is the Minister aware of the remarks attributed in The Health Service Journal to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), in which he denounced all who work in the private health care sector? I shall not repeat the word that he used, but it begins with "b" and ends in "s". Does the Minister share that assessment of people working in that sector, or does she agree with me and other Conservative Members that the hon. Gentleman's description is deeply offensive, both to private chiropodists and to people who are illegitimate children?
    Gisela Stuart: I have some difficulty in sharing the hon. Gentleman's synthetic outrage. Fifty per cent. of the chiropody profession are in private practice and 50 per cent. work in the NHS. Both groups play a vital role in the provision of medical care.

    Casualty Modernisation Schemes
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: How many casualty modernisation schemes are planned to improve security for staff. [92595]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Of the 171 schemes currently under way to modernise and expand accident and emergency departments, 55 are concerned specifically with improvements to security for staff and patients. The other 116 schemes are more general and will also benefit hospital staff.
    Mr. Campbell: First, may I welcome my north-east colleague to his new post? His statement that he will save
    250
    the lives of cancer and heart patients should have been made from the beginning. I am beginning to warm to new Labour—[Interruption.] Before my colleagues get too excited, I am only saying warm.
    I appreciate what my right hon. Friend plans to do about casualties. It is hypocritical of the Tories to say that they will do all that they claim while cutting taxes at the same time. I cannot understand how they mean to do both.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to level that charge against the Opposition. Their agenda is very different from ours. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) clearly laid out the Conservative agenda when he told a fringe meeting at his party conference that he was an "unreconstructed Thatcherite free marketeer" and a "great believer energetically" in markets. He told his audience:
    "The biggest problem that we have in the NHS is that it is not a proper market."
    The hon. Gentleman went on to set out the real agenda behind the Conservative party's patients guarantee, saying:
    "what we are proposing could revolutionise private insurance in the way we revolutionised pensions in the 1980s."
    We all remember pensions misselling. The patients guarantee was, the hon. Gentleman said, a Trojan horse, and so it is. The Tories would privatise the national health service; we will modernise it.

    Accident and Emergency Unit Mergers
    Mr. Peter Lilley: If he will commission a study of the effect of mergers of accident and emergency units on clinical outcomes. [92596]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): In considering whether to merge accident and emergency services we review a range of aspects of service quality, such as the availability of specialist doctors and nurses, access to investigation such as CT scanning and specialist back-up in hospitals. We must take other factors into account, such as location and accessibility of service. It is essential to ensure that we modernise all our A and E programmes, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said, we have a programme to modernise every A and E department that requires such investment.
    Mr. Lilley: I thank the Minister for his answer, but think that it could have been put more tersely—"No." Can he confirm that although Labour opposed all hospital closures and promised before the general election to stop them, the Government plan no fewer than 80 closures across the country? The justification given for closing the accident and emergency unit at St. Albans, and for similar proposals elsewhere in Hertfordshire, is that it will improve the clinical outcome for patients. Before any more closures of accident and emergency departments, there should surely be a proper study to demonstrate that larger units do indeed result in improved clinical outcomes. Will the Minister carry out such a study?
    Mr. Denham: In every case, we will make sure that the measures that we take are in the interests of delivering the best quality of patient care. It is not only what happens

    251
    in accident and emergency departments that is important: events there link with what happens to a patient before he or she arrives at that department—including the quality of paramedic care—and the quality of support available in a hospital once a patient has been admitted. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Conservative Government who cut 100,000 hospital beds, so he is the wrong person in the wrong position to raise this matter. The changes that we bring about will be in the best interests of patients.

    Emergency Cases
    Mrs. Janet Dean: How many emergency cases were treated by the NHS during the years to the end of March (a) 1999, (b) 1998 and (c) 1997; and if he will make a statement. [92597]
    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Gisela Stuart): The numbers of emergency cases treated by the national health service are as follows: in 1998–99, 3,904,162; and in 1997–98, 3,783,350. The figure for 1996–97 is not included as that year was the first that data were collected for admissions rather than consultant episodes and the data are not as reliable.
    Mrs. Dean: I would also add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Front Bench. I wish her well and I thank her for her answer. We must all be concerned about the number of emergency admissions to the health service. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the Government are tackling that increase?
    Gisela Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks.
    It is the Government's long-term aim to provide alternatives to acute hospital admissions. While it is true to say that accident and emergency admissions have increased year on year, the increase of 3.2 per cent. in the last year represented a slower rate of increase than in previous years. The actions that we have taken include rapid response teams, which enable patients to stay in their homes while care packages are put together. More importantly, we should recognise that one of the Government's priorities is to invest in improved emergency services. To that end, we have invested about £150 million alone in the last year to improve facilities. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Queen's hospital in Burton has received about £1.6 million in the current year.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In congratulating the Under-Secretary and her colleagues as well as my right hon. Friends on their new posts, I understand that the hon. Lady is to see representatives from the West Surrey health authority shortly. A recent casualty watch has found a series of patients waiting more than 20 hours at the Royal Surrey County hospital accident and emergency department. Last week, two parents told me that after their children had waited an hour and a half for head injuries to be examined at the department, they were told that it would be better to take them home and hope that all would be well. The situation
    252
    has never been so bad in west Surrey. If, to the Labour party, tackling inequalities means driving through an unacceptable deterioration in services in the home counties together with hits on social services, the situation is not containable. The hon. Lady is driving people into the private sector and delivering an unacceptable level of care in the NHS.
    Gisela Stuart: I am afraid that I cannot accept the right hon. Lady's assertions. If she would like me to pick up on particular cases involving hospital and trolley waits, I will be happy to do so. In general, the Government have improved not only the amount of funding for accident and emergency provision but winter planning, with which I am involved at the moment, to ensure that over the winter hospital services are improved—that provision has been better planned and better organised than ever before.

    Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority
    Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the financial position of the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority. [92600]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The health authority has a recurrent deficit of £500,000. However, at the end of June 1999, the authority was forecasting a surplus of £600,000 for the current financial year. It is in the process of producing a recovery plan designed to bring it into recurrent balance in the year 2000–2001.
    Mr. Brake: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I am afraid that the financial position is worse than that he has outlined. The three local NHS trusts are all predicting large deficits. What reassurance can the hon. Gentleman give my constituents, many of whom are experiencing four to five hour waits at the accident and emergency unit at St. Helier hospital that in the coming winter months the level of service and care that they receive will improve rather than deteriorate?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question as it allows me to point out to him and his constituents that a £3 million programme is under way at the St. Helier hospital to modernise its accident and emergency facilities. I hope that he will join me in welcoming that.
    The hon. Gentleman expressed concerned about the financial implications that have arisen as a consequence of the trust's merger. As a direct consequence of that trust reconfiguration in his constituency, it is estimated that £1.5 million of additional resources will be transferred, as it were, from the back office to the front line to improve patient care for his constituents. I hope that he is also able to welcome that announcement. For his constituents and for everyone else in the country, the Government are committed to modernising the national health service to produce a first-class service that will provide timely and appropriate health care whenever a person needs it. I am sure that he would want to welcome all the initiatives that I have been able to outline.

Special European Council (Tampere)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Together with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. I attended a special meeting of the European Council from 14 to 16 October in Tampere, Finland. The main purpose of the meeting was to agree the priorities for action by the European Union and member states in justice and home affairs.
We agreed action in three areas. First, on asylum and immigration we agreed: a common approach to the way in which member states deal with applications for asylum, to remove the incentive for asylum seekers to shop around, and to ensure that asylum seekers are dealt with in the first European Union member state that they enter; effective action against illegal immigration, especially against trafficking in people; and a commitment by all EU member states to treat third-country nationals who are legally resident in their countries fairly and without discrimination. All EU countries are now committed to providing equal access to education, health care and other benefits, as we do already for long-term residents in the United Kingdom. Action was also agreed in relation to the six countries of concern studied by the high-level working group, set up last year. Those countries were Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Morocco, Albania and Iraq. We are using a broad approach involving all available policy instruments to tackle poverty and other root causes of migration.
Secondly, on judicial co-operation, we agreed that there were important areas where court decisions in one jurisdiction should be recognised elsewhere in the EU. This is needed to provide legal redress for individuals and companies when their problems, in business or leisure, originate in another member state and to co-operate better in bringing criminals to justice.
The British proposal that the cornerstone of policy in this area should be mutual recognition of court decisions, rather than the harmonisation of laws, was adopted unanimously. The European Council agreed that there must be drastic simplification of the present, slow and laborious arrangements for giving effect in one member state to the decisions of a court in another member state.
The European Council also decided that practical steps should be taken—for example, agreeing on common procedures for making small claims across internal European borders, together with making better information available to the public—in order to improve the access of all member states' citizens to justice throughout the European Union.
Thirdly, the European Council decided on a series of measures on combating cross-border crime. At our suggestion, there is to be a new task force of European police chiefs working alongside Europol, to plan and organise joint police operations across Europe. There was also agreement on our proposal to set up a European police college. A new body will be established, consisting of national prosecutors, magistrates and police officers, to assist and support investigation of organised crime and the prosecution of those involved. The principle of mutual recognition that was agreed should apply to judicial decisions in criminal cases, particularly those required to secure evidence and seize assets.
254
Action will be taken in due course to replace extradition with a simplified system for convicted criminals. We will also develop a fast-track extradition process for those accused of a serious crime. In addition, we agreed on a new focus among member states on youth crime, crime prevention and the protection of the victims of crime.
A comprehensive list of the action agreed by the European Council is to be found in the Council's conclusions, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
In addition to its main business, the Council discussed the situation in Pakistan, following the military takeover there. It also had a preliminary discussion of the prospects for EU enlargement, an issue that will be a major topic for the Helsinki European Council in December. It was unanimously agreed that our commitment to enlargement must proceed.
In the margins of the European Council, I made it clear to the Prime Minister of France and the President of the European Commission that France's failure to permit the sale of British beef was unacceptable, and that the French Government had to implement EU decisions.
The EU Scientific Steering Committee is due to complete its review of the French advisory committee's report before the end of this month. If there is no new scientific evidence, the President of the Commission has agreed with me that he will insist that France implements the earlier ruling, and will take legal action if the French Government fail to do so.
We will pursue every available avenue to ensure that British farmers can exercise their right under European law to sell beef throughout the European Union and, of course, it is only because of European law that we are able to do this with the backing of the law.
At the Tampere Council, we restated and safeguarded essential British national interests on asylum and immigration. We reached agreements with our European partners on law and order issues, which of their nature do not respect national boundaries, and on which international co-operation is vital. We restated the overwhelming scientific evidence on the safety of British beef and the fundamental importance of swift observance by the French Government of European Union law. In short, it was, I believe, a successful Council in which we engaged constructively with our European partners in support of British national interests.
Mr. William Hague: We welcome the progress made at Tampere on co-operation between EU member states in the fight against drug trafficking, organised crime, money laundering, fraud and theft. Clearly, progress was also made on improving co-operation on asylum procedures and the creation of a European police chiefs task force. Where such co-operation takes place between nation states within the European Union, we welcome it. The mutual recognition of court decisions agreed at Tampere obviously has merits and we await further details of that.
Is it not important to ensure that, with such co-operation, we do not give away the right of this country to make its own decisions? The Home Secretary tells us that we are not moving towards a single system of justice, but, these days, when the Home Secretary has been to visit, we all start counting the spoons. In the light of this, can the Government guarantee that none of the

255
measures to which they have signed up will undermine our own system of justice or lead to a corpus juris in Europe—something to which we should be implacably opposed?
The Prime Minister referred to the continuing ban on British beef in France. Can we ask him to try a new tactic to get France to lift the ban? Why does he not show his confidence in British beef by lifting his ban on beef on the bone here in Britain? What does he say to the French Prime Minister? "Please lift the ban on our beef? Mind you, I don't touch it myself if it has a bone attached to it." What a stupid position to be in.
We welcome the commitment to enlargement. Everyone acknowledges that this will require changes in the way in which Europe operates. The important question is what those changes will be. Is it not in the interests of Britain and of Europe to argue the case for a more flexible Europe of nation states co-operating together? Government committed to that vision would be pressing for treaty amendments at the next intergovernmental conference that would allow nations greater flexibility. Is that not necessary to make an enlarged Europe work? Is it not necessary to protect the great strength that nation states bring to Europe?
Is it not Britain's responsibility to stand firm for this vision of a flexible Europe? Is not the truth that, instead, our Prime Minister is going along with, and encouraging, a more centralised, more bureaucratic, more interfering Europe? Did we not see yesterday that agenda unfolding as his so-called wise men, including his own former Minister and current adviser Lord Simon of Highbury, published their report? It included a massive increase in qualified majority voting, the abolition of the national veto in key areas including even changes to existing treaties, a separate European defence capability, a written constitution for Europe, and substantial new powers to be taken from national Governments and given to the unelected Commission.
Is it not the right position for the Prime Minister of this country, in the interests of Britain and Europe as a whole, to put forward the alternative to those ideas rather than welcoming them and persisting with his fraudulent insistence that the advancement of any alternative proposals means withdrawal from the European Union? He would have told anyone arguing for the British rebate, for opt-outs from the single currency or for the social chapter that they wanted to withdraw from the European Union. Perhaps we should remind the Prime Minister that the only one of the two of us ever to have fought an election on a platform of withdrawal from Europe is him.
Does the Prime Minister recall that Romano Prodi was meant to concentrate on the heroic task of cleaning up the Commission? Now, he is spending his time saying that, for the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire, we have the opportunity to unite Europe. Talk about delusions of grandeur—from hero to Nero in a few short months. Why is the Prime Minister so content to be carried along with the tide to a single European state? What the great majority of the British public want from Europe is very straightforward. They want co-operation with other European nations on issues such as fighting drugs and many of the other issues rightly discussed at Tampere, but what they do not want is for ever more rights and powers of this country to be taken away slice by slice with our own Prime Minister wielding the knife. That is why the party that stands for being in Europe,
256
not run by Europe, defeated his party at the European elections a few months ago. Is it not time that he listened to that majority? He is not listening to the British people, so it falls to us to speak with clarity and consistency, and to speak up for the people of Britain.
The Prime Minister: It is no wonder that Norman Tebbit said that he had never felt happier in the Conservative party than today. The Thatcherites have won, have they not? They have taken it over. Not the back-seat driver any more, she has kicked the right hon. Gentleman out of the front seat. Now, she is going to be driving that flat-back lorry as it goes around the country. The only chance that the right hon. Gentleman will get to have a spin is when his L-plates are on.
I shall come back to that rant in a moment. First of all, in so far as the right hon. Gentleman had any substantial points on Tampere, let me answer those points. Will the agreement undermine— [Interruption.] Calm down. Will the agreement undermine the justice system of Great Britain? No, of course it will not; it is a very sensible set of proposals. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he actually opposed all those proposals when we negotiated this at Amsterdam. He opposed the very things that we have now agreed at Tampere, but I thank him for his welcome.
In relation to enlargement, and the wise men's report, let me point out, as the right hon. Gentleman attacks the President of the Commission, that the President was talking about uniting Europe and about enlargement. He was saying how good it was that eastern Europe, which used to be divided from western Europe, is now part of the European family of nations again. I would have thought that Conservatives could welcome that.
The report itself is an advisory report to the President of the European Commission, not a statement of the European Council. As we enlarge the European Union, from 15 to 20, or to 25, we shall have to look at the ways in which we take decisions in the European Union to make it more streamlined.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]— There is no hidden agenda. It is a sensible debate to have. The experts on qualified majority voting are the Conservatives in power. They agreed 42 different changes, allowing qualified majority voting. I do not criticise them for that. We could not even argue that the ban on British beef should be lifted were it not for qualified majority voting. We shall not agree to any lifting of the veto in areas such as tax, defence, or our border controls—again, something that we secured at Amsterdam, but I am perfectly prepared to look at it in other areas, if it is in the country's interest. That is a sensible position—not the sort of hysterical rant that we got from the right hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's actual policy, there are two points. First, he is saying that he will renegotiate the terms of entry for Britain into the European Union, and will block—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—Oh, yes. He is saying that, unless he is allowed to choose which areas he agrees to—other than free trade, or the internal market—he will block all European Union change. That is his policy; it cannot have changed just in the past two weeks. If the rest of Europe says no, then he will have no option but to leave. That is why his policy puts us on a conveyor

257
belt to withdrawal. [Interruption.] Do not take my word for it. This is what the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said. He said:
"The Eurosceptics in my party have been given a free rein. They have taken advantage of that to try and force the Conservative party to take more extreme anti-European views."
The former Deputy Prime Minister—
Dr. Julian Lewis: Who is he?
The Prime Minister: Who is he? Well, some of us are not going to airbrush the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) out of history. He said that the Conservative party
"is being taken down a road where the Eurosceptics have got a hidden agenda, which is beginning to emerge, called 'Britain Out'."
Chris Patten said:
"The Conservative policy now appears to stop enlargement unless we get our own way on opt-outs from everything that moves. I just don't understand where we have got to."
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said:
"The acid test of whether we go into the euro will, at the end of the day, be an economic test: are we being damaged by staying out?"
He called the sceptics policy "politically crazy". Douglas Hurd said:
"Judging from last week's speeches in Blackpool, Conservative policy in Europe is increasingly based on caricature, not on reality."
Malcolm Rifkind said that the Conservative policy is
"a call which is little more than a euphemism for us to quit Europe."
The Conservatives do not agree with any of those remarks, so let me tell the House what they do agree with—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is the new Conservative spokesman on education and employment shouts, but this is what he said previously:
"Renegotiation should start from the premise that we will stay in the European Union if we can strike a deal that is in our interests and pull out if we cannot."
As someone once said, "game, set and match".
The truth of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition has turned his party into a single-issue pressure group that is anti-Europe. He has turned his leadership over to the far-right Thatcherites. He might save his leadership and get some media backing, but he is playing a dangerous game of politics with the fundamental interests of Britain. The party that now represents mainstream sensible thinking on Britain in Europe is the Labour party.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: It is easy to agree to a great extent with the Prime Minister's sentiments—apart from the last one, with which some of us might take issue.
This European statement gives me my first opportunity to contribute from my new, lowly vantage point—my elders and betters are all behind me; I look no further than the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) when I say that. I beg your indulgence, Madam Speaker, in the hope that the Prime Minister and the House will take this moment to pay tribute to the consistent, coherent and principled
258
contribution made by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), not least on matters European.
Mr. Eric Forth: No.
Mr. Kennedy: On European issues, no is the only word that the Conservatives have.
Does the Prime Minister agree that much of the detail of the summit, especially in respect of crime and judicial matters, deals with issues that know no borders and respect no frontiers? If ever there were a classic reason why Britain should be in Europe and should be influencing Europe, it is that we cannot pull up a theoretical drawbridge and make ourselves immune from what goes on around us elsewhere in the Community and beyond its boundaries.
The difference between the real world and the unreal world on the other side of the Gangway is that there are those of us across parties and in all parties—including the Conservative party—who recognise that we have to make Europe work for us as a country, as well as for the broader interests and issues affecting Europe as a whole. In the more detailed discussions at the summit, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary were trying to influence the agenda towards improvement, rather than isolation, which is not an answer to anything.
I have some specific questions about judicial matters. There is a genuine citizens' issue regarding Europol, its accountability and Europol members' immunity from prosecution. Does the Prime Minister believe that there is scope to press further to try to ensure that that state of affairs is in the interests of individual European citizens rather than simply in the interests of the members of that force?
Finally, I refer the Prime Minister to the accursed issue of the French attitude to British beef. Can he give us some idea of the scope and time scale involved in pushing the issue hard? Being good Europeans means that, when another member state—in this case, France—flagrantly disregards the jurisdiction of the European Union, we can be in a stronger position to prosecute our case. Let us do so sooner rather than later.
The Prime Minister: I welcome the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) to his new position and I agree entirely with his comments about his predecessor. As to his elders, at least the right hon. Gentleman gets on with them.
As for the summit, cross-border crime is an area where we need greater co-operation. We must deal also with illegal immigration and try to iron out some of the inconsistencies in asylum rules that cause havoc across the European Union. That task will become even more important as enlargement takes place. As the borders of the European Union are pushed further eastward, it will be very important to have proper controls in place.
Europol will remain subject to ordinary judicial rules and principles. Europol is primarily an intelligence-gathering operation, but it will be subject to strict safeguards to ensure that citizens' liberties are protected properly. We think that it is important that Europol, together with the new police chiefs' task force, draws up an agenda of the changes that can be made within the European Union to try to tackle organised crime.

259
As to beef and the time scales involved, I think that the Scientific Steering Committee of the European Union will meet on 28 October. We will expect to receive a European Commission statement straight after that meeting and we will obviously progress the matter through the courts as quickly as possible. We have made that quite clear. I have told the French Government that, if the Commission and the Scientific Steering Committee decide, as I believe that they will, that there is no fresh evidence that casts doubt on the safety of British beef—all the evidence submitted recently was available previously to the committee—I hope that the French Government will abide by the decision.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the long-term question of our relations with Europe is a political matter and not something that should be viewed as simply meeting Treasury criteria? Is he aware also that the "patriotic alliance"—which gives the impression of being a shadow national Government—is being grossly inaccurate and deeply offensive in attempting to characterise those who take a different view as Conservative or extreme in their character? Many people, including me, who are good Europeans do not want to see the people of any European country—let alone those in Britain—denied the right to elect and remove those who make the laws and decide economic policy. European co-operation will not be durable unless it is refreshed continually through popular consent and support for those who govern Europe in the general elections of every country, including Britain.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
The Prime Minister: I accept entirely that people who hold the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) are perfectly sincere. I have read some of the comments made by both Conservative Members and the press and I believe that those who have joined the Britain in Europe campaign get as much abuse as those who oppose Britain's participation in Europe.
As for my right hon. Friend's comments—which enjoyed great support from the Conservative party, as he would have seen—he proposes that nobody should make laws other than those whom we elect directly and whom we can remove from office. Being a part of the European Union means pooling our sovereignty with that of other countries. Those who object in principle to any such pooling of sovereignty also object in principle to the European Union. We might as well be honest about it: that is the debate. Those who oppose this idea because they believe it to be fundamentally undemocratic—I do not happen to share their view—should state their argument openly. They should say what a large part of today's Conservative party wants: they want out of Europe. I am afraid that that follows logically from the position that my right hon. Friend has adopted from his perspective, and that many Conservatives adopt from theirs. That is a perfectly sensible debate to have, but I happen to be on the other side of it.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Prime Minister will know, I am sure, that, all over the country, people are pleased to think that the processing of asylum applications will be speeded up. However, is he aware that many of my constituents are increasingly
260
disturbed by the fact that, although we are spending much time and effort on new procedures to speed up asylum applications, law-abiding citizens are having to wait seven, eight or even nine months for a passport—if, that is, the passport has not been lost. This week, I have had the humiliation of having to write to a foreign embassy asking it to intervene because the passport of one of my constituents had been lost by our people, and only an intervention by the Turkish ambassador could allow that person to get back to Istanbul to see deprived and anxious relatives, who had suffered in the earthquake. That is no way to go into a negotiation with Europe, with disgraceful incompetence in our procedures.
The Prime Minister: We are reforming our procedures, precisely because we have a huge backlog of claims. I understand that the casework is now back to normal, but I accept that things have been very difficult for people. However, that does not detract from the fact that it is in our interests to ensure that there are common asylum procedures across Europe. As for our asylum procedures, and our ability to make our asylum system more efficient, the changes that we propose will achieve precisely that. In relation to the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised in connection with his constituents, we have been working extremely hard, and we believe that the casework is now back to normal—but we keep the situation under constant review.
Mr. Bill Rammell: I warmly welcome what the Prime Minister has said about our stance on the lifting of the French beef ban. Anyone who believes in the European Union also believes that everyone should abide by the rules. Clearly, the French are not doing that, so it is important that we are challenging the French Government. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that the very fact that we have a legal framework within the European Union, setting out rights and responsibilities, means that we have a method of legal redress against the French Government? If we had followed the advice of the Conservative party, which increasingly seems to suggest withdrawal from the EU, we would have no legal right of redress whatever.
The Prime Minister: It is true that it is only because we are part of the European Union that we can pursue legal redress. It is also true that opting out of everything, which is now the Conservative party's policy, would include opting out of aspects that were nothing to do with the issue. The shadow Foreign Secretary said that Community law should be concerned only with free markets and free trade. That would mean that, in respect of the environment, agriculture and a whole range of other things, countries could simply pick and choose, and do whatever they wanted. That would be used against us, to our detriment; that is what is so crazy about Conservative policy. As the European Union enlarges and more countries come in, it will be in our interests to ensure that a small country cannot block change that we want in the European Union—change that would be in our interests.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right to welcome the developments at Tampere, and to encourage the Prime Minister to be tougher with the French by using the Commission and the European Court of Justice in the

261
proper way, in Britain's national interests. He was also right to welcome the enlargement measures. However, will the Prime Minister acknowledge the fact that one consistent Conservative policy has always been that, within the European Union, to overcome the protectionist instincts of any one member country, we need qualified majority voting? That is the principle behind the Single European Act, and it will become more important as the EU enlarges.
Did the Prime Minister have time to discuss with his fellow leaders at Tampere the forthcoming world trade talks in Seattle? Again, there is evidence that, because decisions are not taken by qualified majority voting, it may be difficult to reach a common position for negotiating on behalf of European Union interests in those talks, at a time when the Americans are showing more and more protectionist instincts.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right about qualified majority voting, which is why I do not criticise the Conservative Government for negotiating to have many matters decided by QMV. If they had not done so, a series of changes could never have been put through in Europe.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about the World Trade Organisation talks in Seattle. We take the forward end of the free trade position. There are varying degrees of enthusiasm for that in the European Union. It is important that Britain has a leadership position in the European Union, so that we can help to push the EU towards the most open policy that it can possibly have at Seattle. The hon. Gentleman is also right about protectionist sentiments in the United States. The worst thing that we could do from a European perspective would be to echo those sentiments rather than to confront them.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I was the leader of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Peru, and we were told that Peru produced more coca leaves and raw material for drugs than any other country in the world. President Fujimori and many others in a position to know, including the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, said to us that Peru was doing its best—"look, you have seen our gunboats on the Amazon and the dogs that smell every bit of luggage"—but, as long as the west has anonymous, numbered bank accounts, drugs operators will get away with it. What can be done about anonymous, numbered, drugs accounts or the suspicion that such accounts exist? It is not easy.
The Prime Minister: That is a good point. It is precisely for that reason that, at Tampere, we discussed the problem of money laundering. We agreed to draw up a list of action to take against secrecy and illegality that make it difficult to trace where much of the drug money goes.
I should point out to my hon. Friend that, as a result of Europol intelligence gathering and the co-operation that we have now established between police forces across the European Union, we have a better chance of taking action in those areas. However, it would be foolish to pretend that we have anything other than a long way to go.
Mr. Michael Howard: The presidency conclusions refer to a new agreement to give
262
residents of European Union member states, as well as their citizens, the right to move to, and work in, any other member state. How is that new right consistent with keeping control of our own borders?
The Prime Minister: That is not correct. Residents will get the same rights as they do in the member state: their rights will not be pushed beyond that, so we will be able protect our borders. I should also point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, under the Amsterdam agreement, we still have an exclusive right to protect our own borders. Whatever issues are raised in the legislation that is agreed, we will be able to protect our own borders.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: That is an opt-out.
The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right. As a result, even were the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) right, that would not affect our border controls, because we would still have the right to protect the integrity of our borders.
Mr. Howard: I am referring to what the presidency conclusions say.
The Prime Minister: No, they do not say that. They refer to residents having the same rights as in the member state. That does not mean that they have the freedom that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Stuart Bell: May I build on the drawbridge analogy made by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy)? Some of us do not believe that we should construct a new Hadrian's wall across the English channel. In his discussions on the margins, did my right hon. Friend tell his colleagues in the European Council that 57 per cent. of our trade is with the European Union, that 3.5 million jobs in this country, including many on Teesside, are because of our participation in the European Union, that the Government have no intention of renegotiating the treaties or withdrawing from the EU, and that they have majority support in the House and in the country?
The Prime Minister: That is right, and that is why it is important for Britain not just to remain in the European Union, but to be positively engaged in Europe. Some 3.5 million jobs are dependent on our membership of the EU, 800,000 jobs are as a result of inward investment, and 30 per cent. of such investment in European Union countries comes to Britain. Every day, we put and sell into the European Union £320 million worth of goods and services. That is why it is important for Britain to remain part of the European Union. More than that, however, all the decisions that are made in Europe affect our own ability to operate these rules successfully. If we end up without influence in Europe, or sidelined in Europe, or marginalised in Europe, we end up being unable to defend this country's proper national interests.
Mr. John Butterfill: I am sure that we would all agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is entirely desirable for us to have a system whereby the law can be enforced across the Community, and we can

263
work together to prevent drug smuggling, the dissemination of pornography and other awful things; but can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the system of common judicial authority will work, particularly in the absence of a common system of law? For example, what is an offence in Greece may not be an offence in this country. Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage circumstances in which a Greek judge could require the arrest of a British citizen, and require that citizen to face trial in Greece, for something that would not constitute an offence here?
The Prime Minister: No. The proposal is in respect of serious crimes that are recognised across Europe. The purpose is to ensure that judgments can be enforced quickly, without there being, as there are now, great delays and problems in the courts. It is a perfectly sensible idea.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Many will welcome the discussion that the Prime Minister said had taken place about the serious situation in Pakistan. Will he give us some more information about that discussion? Will he also confirm that his Government, like the rest of the Commonwealth and the vast majority of the international community, will do everything possible to ensure that that country returns to democracy as speedily possible?
The Prime Minister: We will do all that we can—independently, through the Commonwealth and through the European Union—to try to ensure a return to stability and democracy in Pakistan. The discussion around the table of the European Union showed total unanimity on that point.
Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Prime Minister veto any attempt to introduce corpus juris?
The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, no one has suggested that we have a corpus juris, and I have made it absolutely clear that we do not want a corpus juris across the whole of Europe. There is not even a proposal for that. We will always oppose anything that we believe to be contrary to this country's national interest, and trying to introduce one legal system across Europe would be. [Interruption.] I have already said that we would oppose any such attempt; what is more, no such attempt has ever been made. Why do these people raise these scare stories? They do it because they are so obsessed with being anti-Europe that they allow their dogma to blind them to the proper interest of this country, which is to be in Europe—and not just to be in Europe, but to be constructive, to engage and to lead in Europe, rather than being at the margins of Europe, which is where we found Britain two years ago.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Could a common approach on asylum mean that, in the future, applicants arriving in this country via another EU country will have no rights in the United Kingdom under the United Nations convention on refugees, even when courts in this country have taken a different view and rejected the view taken by the country from which the applicants have come? If the Prime Minister regards that as undesirable, does he agree that we need common approaches not just on
264
procedures but on standards, and that we must avoid establishing common standards across Europe by sinking to the level of the lowest common denominators?
The Prime Minister: We are trying to achieve proper standards, but it is important for countries to protect their own boundaries, and to protect themselves against illegal immigration—and, indeed, unlawful asylum. What is required is a balance. We want to establish proper standards in regard to the way in which people are treated and received, but we do not favour harmonisation. What we favour is the adoption of some common procedures, and the introduction of proper minimum standards; but, as a result of what we negotiated at Amsterdam, we retain integrity over our own borders.
Mr. William Thompson: I welcome the Prime Minister's initiative to try to get France to take in British beef, but does he recognise that its refusal to do so is strictly against the spirit of the European Common Market? Furthermore, such action turns people away from wanting to be closer to Europe.
When the Prime Minister raised France's refusal to accept not only beef into France, but lorry transit through the country, did he also raise the severe allegation that France is subsidising its pig farmers behind the back door and is giving other subsidies to its farmers?
Why have we to wait for another meeting of the Scientific Committee before France takes in British beef? If it can get away with that, why cannot another country raise another objection, which would mean that we would have to wait further?
The Prime Minister: The only proper recourse is through the law. The hon. Gentleman has said that the French action is against the spirit of the law. It is against the letter of the law. That is why we are taking the action that we are taking. As I said earlier, it is only because we are part of the European Union that we have any power to take action against the French.
In respect of transit, as a result of the temporary agreement that we have secured with the French, transit is now allowed, so that obstacle has been cleared, but that does not alter the fact that we still do not have clearance of British beef in Europe. We will carry on fighting the case until we win it.
Mr. Denzil Davies: In view of the Prime Minister's fairly recent answer on that pompously named project the corpus juris, I hesitate to ask another question, but will he please tell me whether, during the deliberations on crime and justice, the corpus juris was discussed at all and whether the recommendation by those who wrote the project that there should be a European public prosecutor was discussed?
The Prime Minister: No is the short answer on corpus juris. There are people who talk about having a European public prosecutor. That is essentially to root out fraud in the European Union, but we have not agreed to that and there is no active proposal on it.
Sir Peter Tapsell: When the Prime Minister was at the European Council, did anyone draw to his attention the fact that, since he told the House

265
last summer that he was planning to sell more than half Britain's gold reserves because so many other countries were planning to do the same thing, 15 European central banks, supported by the United States Treasury and the Bank of Japan, have pledged not to sell any gold for the next five years or longer, with the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sold the first two tranches of British gold at an all-time low price at the end of a long bear market, involving the British taxpayer in heavy losses?
As Germany holds 3,400 tonnes of gold and has said that it will not sell any of it, will the Prime Minister now abandon his Government's plan to reduce Britain's gold reserves to less than one tenth of that amount?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is back to the old gold conspiracy again. We took the decision for sensible reasons. As for selling Britain's reserves, the one party that I will not take lessons from in the matter is the party that gave us the exchange rate mechanism debacle, where we lost more reserves in one day than this country has ever known.
Mr. Mike Gapes: It was reported in the press that, during a break in the proceedings at Tampere, some of the Heads of State and Government visited the Lenin museum in Tampere. Is the Prime Minister aware that that museum contains one of the few surviving documents—the treaty of Brest Litovsk—that was signed by Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky? Can he think of any three Conservative politicians who will be able to sign any document jointly?
The Prime Minister: No is the answer to that. I should also say that I was not one of those who visited the Lenin museum.
Madam Speaker: On that note, we shall move on to the next statement.

Paddington Rail Accident
4.15 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions y>(Mr. John Prescott): Madam Speaker, I wish, with permission, to make a statement about the horrific railway accident that happened at Ladbroke Grove junction on the approach to Paddington station on 5 October, when, at 8.11 am, the Great Western train from Cheltenham collided with the Thames train leaving Paddington. The House will be aware that, last week, my noble Friend the Minister for Transport made a statement in another place.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those who lost their lives and hoping for the fullest possible recovery of those who were injured.
Immediately, we asked how such an accident could happen and how we could prevent such a thing from ever happening again. The latest casualty figures are 30 fatalities—including both drivers—and 245 injured. It was the worst rail accident in Britain since the Clapham Junction accident in 1988, when 35 people died.
Once again, the vigour, courage and professionalism demonstrated by our emergency services—fire, police, medical and health and safety staff—were outstanding. The emergency services' reaction was the product of constant training and planning, enabling them to perform in a manner of which I know that the whole nation wants to express its appreciation.
A striking feature of the appalling event was the remarkable reaction of ordinary people who were nearby at the time. Railway workers, staff from the local supermarket, others working nearby and, of course, survivors of the collision rushed to help those in distress without regard to their own safety. In the midst of horror, their selfless behaviour was a testament to human courage and willingness to reach out to others during a crisis. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to them all.
In addition to investigations by Railtrack and the railway inspectorate, there is to be a full public inquiry into the Paddington crash, under the chairmanship of Lord Cullen. I am pleased that Lord Cullen has agreed to take on the task and begun his work so promptly, visiting the site on the day of his appointment. He will, of course, soon have the benefit of the Southall inquiry, to which we attach the highest importance.
Lord Cullen will be examining the causes of the tragic accident, and also the wider issue of the overall safety regime in the railway industry. He will, inevitably, take some time to complete his work, but the Government will do all that we can to remove any obstacles to progress and ensure that we avoid the type of delay that the Southall inquiry experienced.
On Friday, 8 October, Her Majesty's chief inspector of railways issued interim findings on the causes of the crash. Subject to final confirmation, we now know that the Thames train passed a red signal before travelling a further 700 m into the path of the Great Western train. The automatic warning system on board would have applied the brakes if it had not been cancelled by the driver.

267
The chief inspector of railways has made it clear that, whatever the immediate causes of the tragedy, they should be considered as symptoms of a more general problem in the organisation of an effective railway safety regime.
I am determined to ensure that the industry takes firm and urgent action to reduce greatly the number of signals passed at danger—so-called SPADs. There has been considerable concern about SPAD incidents. Although the number of such incidents had been falling—from almost 1,000 in 1991, to just under 600 in 1997—last year it increased to 643. Consequently, last month, the railway inspectorate published a report detailing actions companies were required to take to strengthen safety systems. The chief inspector has my full support in that.
On 7 October, the railway inspectorate wrote to the train operating companies, instructing them to re-brief all drivers on the location of suspect signals and ways of avoiding passing signals at danger, and to review their driver training and arrangements for monitoring performance.
On 8 October, the inspectorate issued three enforcement notices. The first prohibits the use of signal SN109—the signal passed at danger by the Thames train—until Railtrack takes effective action to prevent further trains from passing it at danger. The second requires Railtrack to introduce by 6 November additional controls at 21 other signals passed at danger more than seven times in the past eight years. The third requires Railtrack by the same date to produce plans to reduce the risk at all other signals with a recent history of being passed at danger.
Meanwhile, I have asked for a weekly report to be sent to me on the number of SPADs. The chief inspector of railways has reported to me that, in the seven days after the accident, there were 16 SPAD incidents on the network. That is consistent with the average weekly numbers for October over the past three years. I have asked the railway inspectorate to produce a monthly analysis of SPADs which will be placed in the Library of the House.
The concern about SPADs has been increased by last night's incident at Lewes, where a Hastings passenger train collided with an empty train. There were 11 passengers plus driver and guard on the Hastings train, and all were safely evacuated. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Railtrack promptly informed the Health and Safety Executive, and an inspector from the railway inspectorate arrived on the scene.
The initial report from the HSE indicates that the train left Lewes station against a red stop light, and although the signaller at Lewes put out an emergency general stop call via the cab secure radio network, he was unable to prevent a collision. The likeliest explanation is that a number of errors by the platform staff at Lewes and the train crew combined resulted in a signal being passed at danger. The railway industry intends to carry out an internal inquiry. Meanwhile, the HSE is continuing to investigate, and we await its conclusions.
These incidents have led to a lot of discussion about train protection systems. Indeed, the inspectors consider that the Paddington accident would have been prevented had the train protection and warning system been installed. In 1989, the Hidden inquiry into the Clapham crash recommended the network-wide fitment of automatic train protection, although no workable system
268
was available in Britain at that time. No decision to implement this recommendation was taken, except on a pilot basis.
When this Government came to office, the Health and Safety Commission—aware of my close interest in the area—expressed concern that the industry was not making sufficient progress on either of the two key rail safety issues of the day: namely, the development of train protection systems and the withdrawal of mark 1 slam-door rolling stock.
We made it clear to the HSC in January 1998 that it should bring forward whatever regulations it considered necessary to improve safety on the railways and to reduce the incidence of signals passed at danger. Those regulations—signed by me on 30 July—will introduce train protection across the network and will bring forward by two years the elimination of mark 1 rolling stock.
The regulations require the early introduction of the TPWS and the continued use of ATP where it is already operational. The regulations do not preclude the introduction of further ATP, especially on our high-speed rail network. In fact, ATP is already operational on the Great Western line, the Chiltern line and the Heathrow express. It is being introduced on the channel tunnel rail link and the west coast main line, together with the east coast main line and the midland main line when they are upgraded. There is a balance of systems on our railway network.
There has been much discussion in the media and elsewhere about different types of train protection systems, and a great deal of misinformed opinion and differing technical advice has added to the confusion. I want to identify the safest and most appropriate options for use on our railways. I have therefore asked Sir David Davies, president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, to assess and report back to me on the effectiveness, practicability and cost of train protection systems, and also on how best to reduce the present number of SPADs.
The Paddington incident has of course given rise to a large number of other questions not related to signals being passed at danger. They include the safety of the rolling stock and emergency equipment in case of fire; the behaviour of automatic central door locking; the type of diesel fuel; and the design of the track configuration and signalling.
We would all like instant answers on those issues. They will be examined thoroughly and properly in the investigations into the crash. I trust that the House agrees that it would be wrong to leap hastily to conclusions. Of course, should right hon. and hon. Members wish to raise any specific points, I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of those conducting the investigations and the public inquiry.
Concerns have been expressed since privatisation about fragmentation leading to a blame culture. Particular concern has been expressed about the wide range of responsibilities that reside in Railtrack's safety and standards directorate.
Last year, at my request and in line with a recommendation of the Transport Sub-Committee, the HSC began a review of the issue. Its interim report reached my office on the day of the Paddington crash. The report raises serious concerns about the rail industry, largely relating to priorities and decisions on safety standards, approval of the operators' safety cases,

269
safety audit, incident investigation and the adequacy of strategic research. It states that those issues should be explored further.
As a consequence I acted immediately, and at my request the Health and Safety Commission has appointed a specialist team to investigate those concerns and advise on any action required. I am glad to say that Railtrack has publicly welcomed that initiative.
I am minded to transfer the main functions of Railtrack's safety and standards directorate out of Railtrack, but where those functions are best located requires careful consideration. The answer must be one that ensures greater coherence on safety and does not, through disrupting safety management, result in an increase in risk.
The chief inspector of railways is keeping me informed of the progress of his investigations into the Paddington crash. He hopes to have sufficient additional information from the various tests and examinations now under way to be able to make a second interim report shortly.
I asked for an early report on action undertaken by Railtrack to improve safety on the approach to Paddington station, both in the short and longer terms. Although the emergency services have completed their work and the track has been cleared, Railtrack will reopen Paddington station only when the railway inspectorate is satisfied that it is safe.
There will be some restrictions on services, in particular at peak times, notably because of the closure of the approach to signal SN109. The actions that I have taken since the Paddington crash have been designed to enable the fullest possible investigation of the causes of this appalling accident and the best ways of preventing it from happening again. They should ensure that the decisions that need to be taken will be properly informed, thoroughly considered and as prompt as possible. In the meantime, whenever it becomes clear that a measure needs to be taken, we shall take it. Neither shall we hesitate to introduce legislation to the House, should that be required.
I have summoned the managing directors of all the passenger and freight operators, the shadow Strategic Railway Authority, the Rail Regulator, Railtrack and the general secretaries of the rail unions to a meeting next Monday to thrash out any immediate and additional steps that can be taken to improve safety. In particular, we shall discuss the HSE reports on SPADs and Railtrack's safety and standards directorate.
The Ladbroke Grove junction rail crash touched the heart of the entire nation. It must be a watershed for railway safety. We must make it so. We must emphasise to everyone concerned that safety comes first, second and third on Britain's railways.
The lasting legacy and the outcome of all the urgent actions now in progress must surely be a more open, more responsive, more rigorous culture of safety across the rail industry. We owe the victims and their loved ones nothing less. I am sure that the House agrees.
Mr. John Redwood: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. On behalf of the Opposition, I send my deepest sympathy to all the
270
relatives of those who died near Paddington. The House is united in a feeling of shock and grief and we all send our best wishes for a full recovery to those who were injured. We shall all find it difficult to put behind us some of the scenes that we saw, particularly those of us, including me, who represent constituencies along that ill-fated railway line. We are all united in thanking the emergency services for all that they did after the crash to take care of those suffering.
Safety is above party. We all want safer railways. From the moment of the crash, the Opposition have stressed two points. First, we must have a full and speedy inquiry into both Southall and Paddington, and we welcome the news on that. Will the Secretary of State give us some firmer idea of the timetable that he has in mind? It is dangerous to leap to conclusions before knowing the full causes of the crashes, but we wish to press on with the issue because of the fear felt by the travelling public. Secondly, the Opposition will support any sensible measures that can make such dreadful crashes less likely in the future.
It is my unwelcome task today to ask some of the questions that the nation wants answered—that is the role of the Opposition—but I do so with a heavy heart. Many people have been shocked to learn of the number of red signals that have been ignored. When did the Secretary of State first become aware that the number of signals passed at danger has been increasing? He has demanded a weekly report of red signals passed, so is he telling us that he can do something as Secretary of State to ensure that it does not happen in the future? That would be most welcome. What action could he take following yesterday's collision, for example?
We all want swifter progress with the Paddington inquiry than took place with the Southall inquiry. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition wish to co-operate with any reasonable change that may be necessary to allow public inquiries to proceed in parallel with other legal processes? We feel that that is most important.
Will the Secretary of State publish all the evidence and advice that has persuaded him to strip Railtrack of its safety responsibilities before seeing the inquiry findings? For example, does he intend that the same staff currently doing the job should perform the duties in a new body, or should they be dismissed and new people found and trained? Will the instructions to the new body be the same as the instructions to Railtrack, or does he now think those instructions were inadequate and part of the problem? Why does he wish to give Railtrack responsibility for a significant part of the London underground when he does not think that it can be trusted with safety responsibilities?
We wish to know what the Secretary of State has decided about the remit of the Southall inquiry. Will he meet the legal representatives of the families caught up in that tragedy, as the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow transport Minister and I did this morning, to ensure that their concerns about the scope of the inquiry are met? They are deeply felt concerns, and we were deeply moved by the requirements that their legal representatives put to us today.
Is it true that the HSE has said that Paddington is unsafe and that the station definitely cannot reopen tomorrow? The confusion surrounding the reopening of Paddington is doing nothing for the feelings of those affected by the tragedy or for the confidence of the travelling public.

271
They all deserve better. I hope that the Secretary of State will return to the House soon with a plan of action, based on inquiry findings, for better technology and better train driving, so that travellers can be assured that he and the industry have done everything they can to learn from this series of tragedies. He will find the Opposition very willing to help.
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for the remarks of support for the organisations involved in that terrible tragedy. We are united in wanting to improve safety, and I readily accept that questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman were not raised in a critical tone, but as a proper function of the Opposition in such situations. The House wishes to ensure that we have the best and safest railways, but I have made it clear from the beginning that I have avoided making political points, although it would be easy to do so. They do not help in such situations. People want us to get on with the job, because they are concerned that the railways are not as safe as they should be. They want the Government and the House to work together to improve matters, and that is our intention.
I met some of the relatives of victims of the Southall crash and discussed their concerns. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I do not wish that inquiry to be delayed or held up while the Cullen inquiry takes place. It is important to get the conclusions of the investigation of the Southall crash before us as quickly as we can. Those conclusions will be relevant to consideration of the automatic train protection system and will have much to teach us about what went wrong that day. That is the purpose of inquiries. Indeed, I have asked Sir David Davies to make his engineering expertise on automatic train protection systems available to the inquiry. It is important that the Southall inquiry should not be delayed; I disagree with the lawyers who argue that it should be delayed until the Cullen inquiry starts. However, that is a difference of opinion. I think that the House would want that report to be concluded. It has been too long in preparation: people want to hear its conclusions, and they want to do so now.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked when I knew about the increase in SPAD incidents. Almost my first action, in the first month after I took office, was to call for a report on rail safety. Three or four months later, I called in the Health and Safety Executive to discuss precisely how we were to end the delay in the introduction of an automatic train protection system. The advice that I was given was that something like 70 or 80 per cent. of such incidents could be avoided. Naturally, I told the Health and Safety Executive, "Get on with providing the system—bring me the regulations." If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the dates of the relevant decisions in this matter, he will see that I acted promptly, within weeks of coming into office.
The reason why I acted so quickly is simple: I have always been concerned with safety, and have felt that not enough was being done in that regard. That attitude characterised my actions in my early days as Secretary of State with responsibility for rail safety.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what actions we have taken since the inquiries were instituted. Of course we will act on the inquiries' recommendations. The Southall inquiry is a very important matter for us. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the inquiries are crucial in allowing us to learn the truth. We must not try
272
to guess what happened, and then act on emotion. The purpose of public inquiries is to allow reasoned consideration and a thorough examination of what needs to be done.
However, that is not to say that we can do nothing. Indeed, the country would not thank us if we were to say that we should do nothing while awaiting the inquiries' outcome. That is why I have called representatives from across the industry to a meeting on Monday, and why I have made it clear, through the Health and Safety Executive, that there is more that we can do.
I am not convinced that we cannot reduce the number of SPAD incidents, and I believe that more could be done about driver training. More responsibility should be borne by the industry and those who govern it, and there is more that they can do. That is what the public feel, and what I feel, and I intend to make that absolutely clear at the meeting on Monday. I believe that, by working together, we can improve matters. I hope that we can achieve that on Monday.
Everyone agrees that the Southall inquiry should report very quickly. I hope that it will be ready in December, and that we will be able to judge some recommendations then. That is relevant to my previous point: I believe that Sir David Davies can give us some good advice on the technical information that is available. There is a lot of confusion about such matters. Press reports maintain that people are not sure about automatic train protection, but I was asked—as I think were the previous Government—to adopt a system that was not proven to work 100 per cent. of the time. If we are to order safety systems, it is our responsibility to ensure that they work properly and well.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned transferring the work of the safety and standards directorate, but the conclusions of the report from the Health and Safety Executive were clear. He knows that that report has been published, so he has had access to the evidence that I received. The report suggested that there should be further discussions on train and station operators' safety cases being accepted directly by the HSE. It also suggested the transfer of the oversight of railway standards development to an existing appropriate organisation such as the British Standards Institution, which is an independent body. Other suggestions included the relocation of some safety audit functions, and the development of new mechanisms for strategic research to achieve better incident investigations.
Those are serious charges to be made against a body with responsibility for safety such as the safety and standards directorate. Nevertheless, I have told the Health and Safety Executive to send in an independent body and find out what it has to say about the criticisms. We will report back at the appropriate time and make a proper judgment. I think that that is the proper way to proceed. I await the report, and all the measures that are taken will be presented to the House. That is evidence of our desire to achieve greater safety on the railway system.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend pass on the appreciation of the people of Reading for the many messages of support and condolence that they received following the awful news of the Paddington train disaster, not least the messages from him, the Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen?

273
Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents are right to feel angry that such a disaster—I refuse to call it an accident—occurred so short a time after Southall? Does he agree that Railtrack does not have the confidence of the travelling public and that that problem has been compounded by what has occurred in Lewes? Does he agree that the shambles of the reopening of Paddington has compounded matters further, as have revelations that drivers' warnings about lack of visibility regarding signal 109 were ignored, and that drivers' warnings that the infrastructure for the Heathrow express was causing confusion and blocking sight lines were also ignored?
Will my right hon. Friend consider implementing one more recommendation, made by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in March last year? The Committee's report said:
"The Government would be well advised to consider whether it could better obtain its strategic objectives by taking an equity share in Railtrack."
Would it not be of some comfort to the travelling public if they knew that someone on the board of Railtrack had wide responsibility for community safety rather than just a legal responsibility to a group of shareholders?
Mr. Prescott: I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's remarks about the gratitude felt by many of his constituents. I understand the anger expressed by people in Reading and in other areas. I was pleased to meet hon. Members last week who told me of their concerns.
We must be careful not to jump to conclusions. My hon. Friend has apparently already concluded that the Lewes incident was due to Railtrack, but I am not sure that he can so readily jump to that conclusion. That is the whole purpose of inquiries. The inspectors have already told me that that incident possibly involved a driver passing a red light. I do not want to blame anyone, but we should not jump to conclusions.
I understand why my hon. Friend feels as he does, given all the other matters that he mentioned. However, I must be guided by proper investigation and inquiry that provides a thorough examination of the facts before I can come to conclusions about action needed to improve safety. That is what inquiries are for, and they have played a tremendous role in improving safety in Britain. I am quite a fan of inquiries; they have done an excellent job.
My hon. Friend's point about buying an equity share in Railtrack is interesting. In fact, the Government hold some shares in Railtrack for various reasons, but it amounts only to a small part of the company. I believe that that is not the way in which to control safety. We need properly to apportion the responsibility as between the companies that must implement safety measures and the public authorities that have the duty to interpret and impose safety standards on the industry. The balance of responsibility between those bodies provides the best safety operation.
I believe that there may be a conflict of interest in Railtrack over safety and operation, a point that has been strongly made. The point is not, I am bound to say, unique, as the inquiry conducted by Lord Robens concluded that we should make great efforts to ensure that there was no conflict of interest. Several departments had their safety functions removed on those grounds and there
274
has been a massive safety improvement across the board as well as in the rail industry. I shall take care to ensure that we strike the proper balance between safety authorities and the industry.
Mr. Don Foster: May I associate the Liberal Democrats with the sympathy expressed by the Secretary of State for all those affected by the tragedy of the Paddington rail disaster? In addition, may we associate ourselves with his comments on the courage and efficiency of the emergency services and, as he was right to point out, of the members of the public who also assisted?
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's consideration of a separation of safety issues from Railtrack. Will he confirm that he accepts that Railtrack—a for-profit company—must not be judge and jury on rail safety issues? If the public are to regain confidence in our railways, Railtrack must not have the power to set and monitor its own safety standards.
I welcome the Secretary of State's desire to introduce measures intended to ensure the speedy introduction of effective systems to prevent trains from passing red signals. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, modern technology is more than capable of preventing trains from crashing into each other. The public will not understand it if that technology is not used to make our railways safe or not introduced as quickly as realistically possible.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while contractors for the installation of the train protection and warning system—TPWS, to which he referred earlier—have been asked to speed up the time scale within which their bids are entered, Railtrack has not speeded up its process for letting the contract or allowing contractors on site? There must therefore be doubt as to whether the system will be in place within the agreed time. Will the Secretary of State agree to investigate that issue and report back to the House?
Finally, the Secretary of State said that cost is not to be the issue where safety is concerned. Will he therefore clarify who exactly is to foot the bill for safety improvements and assure us that other vital investment in the rail industry will not suffer as a result?
Mr. Prescott: I welcome the hon. Gentleman as the new spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party on transport and the environment, albeit on a sad occasion. I am certainly grateful for his warm words of support for all those involved in this terrible tragedy.
On Railtrack, I agree that there is a problem—it was expressed in the industry and it was certainly expressed in the HSE report to which I referred. Railtrack appears to have the role of both judge and jury with its standards department. That is why the Select Committee recommended that the functions should be separated. I think that when the relevant Bill was before the House both Opposition parties opposed the measure. I have therefore asked the HSE committee, which is an independent body, to study the accusations that have been made about that conflict. We expect a report shortly and I shall deal with it. However, I have a word of warning for the hon. Gentleman—I am not as yet sure to what single body the role should be transferred. No doubt we will debate that.
On the system itself, on contracts, the introduction of TPWS and concerns about automatic train protection systems, it is true that we should use the best technology.

275
Perhaps we have not been as effective in using the best technology to improve safety on our railways by comparison with some European railways. At the end of the day, we want a technological system that works and is effective. It is not solely about money. Indeed, the various sums mentioned in connection with automatic train protection systems and TPWS could be financed, and properly so. In talks, Railtrack and other bodies have understood that it could be done in that way. Of course, it should become an essential requirement of the industry's charges that they should cover a safe railway system. People in this country are concerned that there should be some form of train protection system. I think that that is a minimum requirement if we are to restore confidence to the travelling public.
I will investigate the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Indeed, the Davies report should give us some good engineering advice, which might deal with some of the conflicting concerns that have arisen in relation to types of technology in automatic train protection systems. I will certainly look into the matter.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The whole House will welcome the focus and urgency of the actions of the Secretary of State on the matter. This is indeed a watershed in railway accidents. People will need to be reassured that the railway system is still among the safest means of transport in the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend mentioned moving the safety unit out of Railtrack. It is essential for it to be a free-standing body. The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs took evidence that made it clear that that could be part of a first step towards an independent safety authority. There is no criticism to be made of the railways inspectorate, or indeed of the Health and Safety Executive, but some worry exists about the HSE's enforcement powers. Will my right hon. Friend study how quickly it can get responses not only from Railtrack but from the train operating companies when they make recommendations?
Will my right hon. Friend also ensure that Railtrack introduces as soon as possible a confidential reporting unit—it could already have announced that—to enable train staff and drivers and anyone else connected with the railways to give confidential evidence about companies or incidents that break the law or safety rules? It is clear from my postbag that there is a nasty atmosphere in some of the companies, with bullying meaning that people are frightened to speak out. The public will be protected only when people are openly able to report on what is happening and on what is endangering lives.
Finally, the House expects not only Railtrack but all the train operating companies to produce new programmes for signalling, to respond by introducing new rolling stock and no longer to talk about bringing new installations into play only when they are given new franchises. That sort of tacky bargaining will not work any more.
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. She is right to say that this is a watershed for safety in the railway industry. I congratulate her and her Committee on the good sense of their recommendations on these matters. I find myself constantly following them, whether in respect of the Strategic Railway Authority, the proposals for a separate, independent safety authority, or
276
those for a hotline or confidential line where people can talk with the confidence that they will not be exposed about the pressures that they feel they are under—and then have them properly investigated. People tend to think of that arrangement only in respect of the air industry, but it has been working quite well in Scotland, where it is financed by the companies themselves. Introducing such a scheme to the English railway system is one of the issues that I will discuss with them at the meeting on Monday.
My hon. Friend's Committee is right to propose an independent safety authority. I want to see independence associated with safety and a reduction of the conflicts of interest that, I fear, exist in some areas. I have yet to make up my mind. I appear before my hon. Friend's Committee on Thursday and we may have further exchanges on that, but I certainly want independence; there is an argument only about the sort of body needed. The Committee is again leading the way on that.
I agree with my hon. Friend on whether the TOCs should be as concerned as others in the signalling system and railway safety. In the new franchise negotiations, we have always considered what safety standards and what kind of technology and signalling should apply. The industry is making some steps towards operating nationally rather than as a fragmented body, as we have seen in the past 12 months. Bringing the companies together on Monday will remind them of their national role and of the fact that acting nationally and co-operatively, not in the fragmented way of the past few years, is the way to achieve the best standards.
Mr. John MacGregor: I join the Secretary of State in expressing my deepest sympathy to the families of the bereaved and my admiration and gratitude for the work of the emergency services. I agree that the highest importance should be attached to safety, not only in the railway industry but in all transport sectors. It is in the interests of the industry itself that it should have that attitude, not least in attracting and retaining confidence with the increasing volume of passengers and freight on the railways.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right not to reach hasty, immediate conclusions on many such matters without the evidence and views of those conducting the inquiries. As he knows, these are never easy matters to resolve. I am grateful for his recognition that it was as much the technical and viability worries as anything else that led the previous Government not to adopt the automatic train protection system.
In the Secretary of State's consideration of what he might do about the safety and standards directorate, will he bear in mind the utmost importance of ensuring that nothing is done to undermine, reduce or take away Railtrack's management, operational and day-to-day responsibility for safety?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. In looking up the history of this whole business, I had occasion to read several of his statements as Secretary of State for Transport dealing with these difficult issues of automatic train protection. It is right that we need to get the best system as soon as possible. Cost is not the only consideration; safety is our highest priority, as he has emphasised.

277
On whether there is a conflict of interests in respect of Railtrack and whether safety standards interfere with the operation of the railway system, we must always balance the best operation against the highest safety. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that even if we separate the safety and standards responsibility from Railtrack, which I am minded to do, Railtrack will still be left with the responsibility under present law to operate a safe railway system.
Ms Karen Buck: As the Deputy Prime Minister is aware, this terrible crash took place within the borders of my constituency. I am grateful to him for his warm words to local residents for their part. Indeed, as he said, staff at the nearby supermarket and primary school and many local residents not only were among the first on the scene but provided vital support for the emergency services during the course of the day.
Will my right hon. Friend spare a word and a thought for the residents of a number of blocks of flats which directly overlook the site of the crash? Emergency workers have had the grisly task of taking part in the recovery for two weeks, but in addition hundreds of residents—many of them very vulnerable people—have had to confront that sight every day for a fortnight.
Will my right hon. Friend respond to this morning's news reports that an independent safety panel found that there were still severe visibility problems at 24 signals in the approach to Paddington? Can he reassure me that the Health and Safety Commission and the railway inspectorate will examine that evidence as well as all their other findings before Paddington is allowed to reopen?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope that she will pass on the feelings that I, the Opposition and all Members of the House have expressed about the tremendous contribution made by the local residents. Anyone who visited the site was struck by the fact that it was narrow, and access for the emergency services was difficult and depended a great deal on the co-operation of local residents. We are all extremely grateful for the role that they played in this terrible tragedy. Their help ranged from helping to get people out of burning coaches to going around offering coffee to members of the emergency services. It was remarkable and I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on the feelings of the House.
As for the 24 signals at Paddington, the various reports are being studied by the HSC and the railway inspectorate. The Paddington line will not be reopened unless the HSC is satisfied that it is a safe operation.
Mr. Nigel Jones: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his courtesy in keeping me informed of developments since the tragic accident and especially for inviting all hon. Members with constituencies along the route of the 6.03 from Cheltenham to the briefing last Monday, which was very useful.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about speed limits in the area of the accident in view of the estimated combined impact speed of around 180 mph? Will he put pressure on Railtrack and the operating
278
companies to upgrade the whole of the south-west region to replace single-track lines and introduce electrification so that never again will we see head-on accidents resulting in diesel fireballs such as that which occurred on this occasion?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we, the Health and Safety Executive and the railway inspectorate are looking at how it is possible to achieve the best form of track layout for the railway system. The accident has obviously brought that very much more to mind and the matter is highlighted at Paddington, but there are other pinchpoints in the system that could perhaps be better designed. They are being studied, particularly with regard to signals, by the HSC and the railway inspectorate.
It is difficult to know exactly what speeds were being done at the time of the crash. The black box in the cab of the Thames train was recovered, but in a much damaged state. There was also one in the back of the train, from which some information has been obtained. The other one has been returned to its country of origin for investigation to see whether we can get anything more from it. Until the inquiry gives its judgments on the matter and the HSE completes the second interim inquiry, it is difficult to tell the exact speed of impact. Various estimates from 120 mph upwards have been made, but we must wait to see what the inquiry has to say.
Mr. George Stevenson: While I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend, does not a further profound question need to be addressed? Can the fragmented structure of the present railway system deliver the sort of railway that he has outlined? Does he share the widespread concern that, in spite of the dramatically increased profits of Railtrack, a recent report by the Rail Regulator suggests that the rail infrastructure is deteriorating?
Is it not time to look at whether, under the powers of the proposed new Strategic Rail Authority, enough emphasis is given to exactly how much responsibility it will have in the provision of rail infrastructure in this country?
Mr. Prescott: These matters are of concern; there has been much comment about them. The Booz-Allen report was critical about the amount of money going into rail infrastructure and about Railtrack. Indeed, Railtrack has since argued that it has accepted the criticism of the Booz-Allen report and has improved. An effective infrastructure is very important; we are looking into that at present. I have no doubt that these matters are all part and parcel of what we might call the safety culture or regime in the industry, and that Lord Cullen will address himself to them.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Deputy Prime Minister has placed great emphasis on the early use of a train protection and warning system. However, on 8 October, in the first interim report from the Health and Safety Executive, it clearly emerged that automatic train I protection equipment was part of the pilot scheme and was fitted to the Great Western train. However, the equipment has a great history of unreliability and in this instance, it was switched off. Could the Deputy Prime Minister please make it an early priority to ensure

279
that that equipment and the train protection and warning system are tried and tested, and operational as early as possible?
Mr. Prescott: Since that terrible tragedy—which Professor Uff is investigating at the moment, and we must await his report—actions have been taken to ensure that those systems are properly implemented and not isolated in the way that was suggested. However, we must await the report, as it has also been suggested that the driver was not familiar with that kind of system and that it had been isolated for a good period. That is another example of the fact that the automatic train protection system is not necessarily 100 per cent. operative on what we call the bolt-on system.
If ATP is put on new track—as has been done in many parts of the continent, especially on the French railways, on our own new European rail link and on the Heathrow connection—where it is specifically designed, it works very well. The difficulties tend to come with the bolt-on systems that we have. That is a difficulty that all Secretaries of State for Transport have had to face—how to balance the high-speed automatic train protection that we want to see brought in against other factors. In some cases, even if there was a workable system and I tried to bring it in, it would take 10 years to do so, whereas the one that we are now dealing with—the TPWS—can be introduced by 2003 and will reduce 70 per cent. of these incidents. I think that is a good decision to take.
Fiona Mactaggart: I represent a constituency in which five people who were killed in the incident worked, and the people of Slough are concerned to ensure that lessons are learned fast. They appreciate the message of sympathy and the speed with which the Deputy Prime Minister has acted in the matter.
However, we should not focus only on technology. I had a meeting with representatives of a local train operating company only two weeks before the episode, and learned that many drivers and signal operators had only quite recently been recruited, because of the difficulty of recruiting people to these posts in south-east England. Will my right hon. Friend examine the training of new appointees to the train operating companies to ensure first, that there is sufficient expertise and secondly, that sufficient attention is paid to the safety ethos of the railways?
Mr. Prescott: We should not be over-concerned with technology, although it does have a role to play. What we want is an effective rail system. Even with the best technology in the world, we require to take into account human error, caused either in servicing or working the system. Indeed, in a perfect world, the automatic warning system on a train would stop that train, because the warning has to be cancelled and if it is not cancelled within a few seconds, it will stop it. However, incidents still occur when drivers cancel it and there is a collision—for whatever reason. There are various systems that, if implemented, could actually stop the train itself—that is why we talk about automatic train protection systems.
However, my hon. Friend makes a very sound point about the training and recruitment of drivers. She will be aware that, when the industry was first privatised, an awful lot of drivers were taken out of the industry and there were considerable redundancies—largely because it
280
was thought that there would be a decline in the rail system for one reason or another, but the opposite occurred. Now, there is a desperate need to increase the number of drivers—indeed, we came to an agreement with the industry on getting 800 new drivers this year.
The time it takes to train a driver is also an important question: under British Rail, there was a single training period, but now there are varying training periods and different systems used throughout the industry. Those factors cause me concern, although I make no judgment about their safety, and it is an issue that I shall take up with the industry on Monday.
Mr. Norman Baker: I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister will join me in thanking the emergency services for their speed and efficiency in attending the incident in Lewes. I am relieved that, unlike the horrific accident at Paddington, no one was killed in last night's incident. However, the fact is that two trains crashed at Lewes, and my constituents will be horrified to learn that there have been 643 incidents of trains passing a red signal—almost two such incidents a day—in the past year. My constituents in Lewes and elsewhere expect a safe train system, but they do not believe that they have one.
When will measures be in place to ensure that no train anywhere on the British network will be able to pass a red light, as happened in Lewes last night and on many other occasions over the past year in this country? According to the press release issued this afternoon by Connex, the train operating company that runs trains through Lewes, not only did a driver pass a danger signal, but
"a safety device to remind the driver to check the signals was not used."
What steps will the Deputy Prime Minister take to ensure that, once the necessary safety systems to make drivers aware of red signals have been implemented, drivers cannot override or cancel those systems and that the systems will be fail safe? We cannot have drivers cancelling signals that are there to protect them and the public at large.
Mr. Prescott: I am sure that the whole House identifies with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents in Lewes, and wishes to express great appreciation of the emergency services. From speaking to people involved in such accidents, I have learned that, terrible though the circumstances are, the one comfort is the knowledge that the emergency services will be there quickly to help. That does real credit to those services and I am delighted to have another opportunity to express our appreciation. The circumstances in Lewes were difficult, and we are all pleased that no one was injured there.
The 643 so-called SPAD incidents are a source of great concern, and it is no comfort to know that that total has come down from more than 900 incidents. We must do all we can to reduce that number. I shall place a report on the incidence of SPADs in the House of Commons Library, but it must be seen in perspective. Approximately 70 per cent. of incidents involve distances of less than 50 yd, and sometimes the train has gone over by only one, two or 10 yd, whereas the safety margin built into the system is something like 150 yd. I want to give the House a precise picture of the seriousness of the problem.
I want to prevent every such incident from occurring, and I am sure the House does as well. That is why we paid such close attention to the Health and Safety Commission's

281
report, which contains 22 recommendations to Railtrack and the train operating companies on ways in which to improve the record. On Monday I shall discuss with the industry how those recommendations can be implemented and how we can get something done.
During my inquiries into automatic train systems, I have been told that if the signal has gone red—even if that is a failure of the signal—the train cannot be moved if the automatic train system is on; therefore, sometimes such systems have to be isolated to enable the train to be moved. There are circumstances when technology fails, but the train has to be moved. We have to avoid the easy option of simply cancelling a warning system and getting into the habit of thinking, "It's yellow, it's yellow, so it's bound to be green." Sometimes, the signal is yellow, yellow and then red, and that is when problems arise. We have to do all we can to avoid such difficulties.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I have only a brief question, unlike many of those asked today. When will we stop the system of penalties and fines that operates between the train operating companies and Railtrack, which clearly has implications for safety?
Mr. Prescott: We are reviewing several penalties and fines, and the new franchise negotiations are seeking to find a better way of dealing with those kinds of problems. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority has been appointed to provide an overall system that meets the requirements of a better railway rather than simply talking about sanctions, fines and penalties. However, make no mistake, any breach of safety will be met with heavy fines for companies. If companies are not operating proper rail safety systems, they must face the possibility of losing their licences.
Mr. David Rendel: The Deputy Prime Minister said that drivers may occasionally override and pass through a series of yellow signals before coming to a red signal and overriding it also. Is that scenario not made more likely because the warning that the driver receives in his cab at a red signal is precisely the same, both audibly and visually, as the warning for a yellow signal? If the warning given to the driver for a red signal were made different from that for a yellow signal, it would surely make the sorts of accidents to which the Deputy Prime Minister refers much less likely.
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for repeating what he said to me a week ago. I promised then that I would report his comments to the authorities and I have discussed the matter with the Health and Safety Executive, which had considered it from time to time. There is a different warning sound for green, but the same warning for yellow and red signals. That can create a great deal of confusion in the cab, with all kinds of sounds and signals. The Health and Safety Executive has promised to consider the issue, which we shall certainly put before the Cullen inquiry.

Business of the House
5.11 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Madam Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a short business statement as an addition to my pre-recess business statement—in other words, it is not a substitution for the normal weekly business statement.
The business for Thursday 21 October will now include, at the beginning, a motion to approve the 10th and 11th reports of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The business for the remainder of that day will follow as announced previously.
Sir George Young: The Opposition are content with the proposed change to business on Thursday. On that day, we would like raise the more substantive issue of the future business of the House.

NEW MEMBERS
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath or made the Affirmation required by law:
Bill Tynan Esq., for Hamilton, South
Neil Turner Esq., for Wigan

Military Expenditure (Conscientious Objection)
5.14 pm
Mr. John McDonnell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give taxpayers the right to direct that proportion of their income tax which would otherwise be spent on military purposes to a fund for international aid.
I come to the House directly from the funeral of my constituent, Brian Cooper, the driver of the Great Western train in the Paddington rail disaster. I take this opportunity to send the condolences and the sympathy of the whole House to his family.
The central purpose of the Bill is to give taxpayers who have a conscientious objection to war the right to direct to the Department for International Development or to a non-military security fund the proportion of their income tax that would otherwise be spent on military purposes.
I shall briefly explain the detail of the Bill, and then set out the rationale for its enactment. The Bill would give all taxpayers the opportunity to express on their tax return their conscientious objection to the expenditure of their taxes on preparations for war or the prosecution of war. Taxpayers would be able to express their desire for that proportion of their income tax that would otherwise be spent on military purposes to be spent instead on the prevention of war—to be invested in the search for peace rather than the pursuit of war.
Tax revenues would be diverted either to the Department for International Development, to assist areas of the world deemed at risk of conflict, or to a non-military security fund. The fund, which would be established by the Bill, would have three purposes. First, it would support research into non-military conflict resolution and peace building. Secondly, it would establish a United Kingdom mediation and arbitration service, for use at an early stage in areas of potential conflict. Thirdly, it would support international peace-building organisations, including the United Nations. The fund would be managed by trustees, appointed by the Government, with experience of non-military security, who would report annually to Parliament on the disbursement of the moneys allocated to the fund. I envisage that the simplicity of those measures would enable the scheme to be introduced as early as the tax year 2001–02.
The rationale behind the Bill is as follows. The right of conscientious objection has been acknowledged in this country for centuries. In the late 17th century, the Government sought to induce Quakers to engage in military activities. They refused, and went to prison in a body. Subsequently, in the Militia Ballot Act, Quakers as a body were excluded from military service.
The general right to refuse on the grounds of conscience to participate as a combatant in military service was included in the Military Service (No.2) Act 1916, which introduced conscription for the first world war. Bonar Law said in the Chamber that conscientious objectors were no less filled with patriotism than others fighting in the trenches, and the legislation provided alternative ways in which individuals opposed on religious or ethical grounds to fighting could serve their country in a pacific rather than an aggressive way.
284
The right to conscientious objection has also been recognised in the United Nations declaration on human rights and the European Union convention on human rights. More recently, the legal right to act in accordance with one's conscience has been placed firmly on the statute book by the Government through the Human Rights Act 1998.
My Bill seeks to give meaningful recognition to the right of conscientious objection and to bring the practical exercise of that right up to date. Modern wars are no longer fought with conscript armies in which a conscientious objector can refuse to serve; they are fought with high-tech weapons paid for with our taxes. Today we are not conscripted to fight; instead, our taxes are conscripted to pay for the high-tech weapons of modern warfare and the trained professionals who fire them.
For those who object to war, there is little moral difference between actually firing lethal weapons and paying for someone else to do so. The Bill gives meaning to the right of freedom of conscience in the modern world. If the right of conscientious objection is to have any real meaning today, it must be the right not to support the pursuit of war with our taxes. We must allow those who object to war the right to have their taxes used for the prevention of war.
Bonar Law acknowledged the heroic humanitarian contribution made by many conscientious objectors during wartime, and modern conscientious objectors should be allowed to make their contribution to society by investing their taxes in the peaceful service of our community.
The Bill is not an attempt to allow people to avoid paying taxes, or to reduce anyone's tax burden. Any taxpayer who wished to exercise the right under the proposed legislation would pay the same amount of tax. The only difference would be that the proportion of their tax that would have been spent on military purposes would be diverted from waging war to waging peace by developing non-military security initiatives.
Organisations such as the United Nations and the European Union already invest in non-military security work, but that is undermined by the lack of funding and a lack of political support. The Bill could release additional resources to enhance peace building and conflict resolution, thus preventing potential conflicts and addressing their root causes without resorting to military force.
In recent years, there has been a tragic failure to invest in conflict resolution at an early enough stage, and that has resulted in bitter and bloody wars, with all the resultant human suffering. Ireland, Palestine, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and now Kashmir represent a litany of failures of the civilised world to invest its resources in preventing conflict. They reflect our disastrous propensity to watch disputes fester and grow, only to intervene belatedly and militarily.
Non-military security involves a flexible, imaginative, interventionist approach to securing peace. It is based on prioritising mediation and other peace-building techniques as a way of avoiding armed conflict. It requires resources and the development of an independent arbitration service ready for use at the earliest possible stage of any potential conflict. It includes the monitoring of the implementation of agreements between parties to a potential conflict, which necessitates the creation of an independent

285
peace-monitoring service. It involves the stabilising of areas of potential conflict by promoting the establishment of democratic structures, civil authorities and an independent media structure to protect human rights and build social cohesion.
Where conflicts have occurred, the Bill would enable the release of resources to invest in the rebuilding of the social and economic infrastructure of a conflict zone, including the clearing of landmines and the rebuilding of homes, hospitals, schools, workshops and factories. Those resources could also support the conversion of industry from military to civil production, and could be used to retrain people in the skills needed to rebuild their communities and their economy so as to secure long-term peace.
Various arguments have been used against the measures proposed in the Bill, and some have expressed opposition to the principle of the Bill, but the right of conscientious objection has been accepted in principle in Britain for a considerable period. The Bill does nothing more than put that principle in a modern setting.
The Treasury initially raised some practical objections to the operation of the Bill's proposals, and argued that it broke the Treasury's sacred rule of opposing hypothecation of taxation. With the introduction of the system of self-assessment for individual taxation, there are no practical hurdles left. As for the alleged offence of hypothecation, the Government have introduced hypothecation of taxation in their congestion charging proposals.
Another charge is that the Bill would set a precedent for others to direct their taxes, thus opening the floodgates to other objections to Government expenditure programmes. Although many may wish to divert their taxes for political reasons, the right to refuse to kill or to pay others to kill on our behalf uniquely rests on a basic human right that is recognised in domestic and international law.
286
Last year, this country budgeted for more than £21 billion of military expenditure. That represents about 8.5 per cent. of the Government's total expenditure and an annual contribution of roughly £500 per taxpayer for military programmes. With such large sums, a relatively small number of taxpayers opting to exercise their rights under the Bill would result in a major investment of resources in preventing conflicts in the world by promoting peace-building measures.
The campaign to extend the right of conscientious objection to taxation has been waged across Europe and the United States. By enacting the Bill, the Government, who have been elected on a commitment to an ethical foreign policy and to putting human rights at the heart of government, could establish themselves as a world leader for peace.
In 10 weeks' time, we shall celebrate the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ and the start of a new millennium. It may be worth reminding ourselves of Christ's words in the sermon on the mount. He said:
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall he called the children of God."
The Bill could assist us all in becoming peacemakers, and would make a small contribution to ensuring that the next millennium is a millennium of peace.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John McDonnell, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Audrey Wise, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Tony Benn, Dr. Rudi Vis, Ms Jenny Jones, Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. Cynog Dafis.

Military Expenditure (Conscientious Objection)
  MILITARY EXPENDITURE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION)
  Mr. John McDonnell accordingly presented a Bill to give taxpayers the right to direct that proportion of their income tax which would otherwise be spent on military purposes to a fund for international aid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 November, and to be printed [Bill 151].

Office for National Statistics
[Relevant document: First Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 1998–99, Office for National Statistics (HC 43), and the Government's response thereto (HC 267).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
5.25 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on her appointment. I am sure that she will do very well indeed. I also congratulate the Treasury Sub-Committee on its excellent report on the Office for National Statistics. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) is present, because he and his colleagues have done an excellent job. The present Chairman of the Sub-Committee, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), has taken over the right hon. Gentleman's work very ably.
There is no doubt that the report has made the Sub-Committee a significant player in the debate. The Sub-Committee's remit is to scrutinise the Departments and agencies for which the Chancellor is responsible. It has a big programme, and it has done very well so far. It has produced reports on the Office for National Statistics and the Inland Revenue; a report on the Valuation Office Agency is expected, and a report on Customs and Excise is in progress. There are also to be hearings on the management of the Government's cash and debt. I believe that only three bodies remain uninvestigated, and they will certainly have been investigated by the end of the current Parliament. The Sub-Committee is making an important contribution to the Committee's work, and, indeed, to parliamentary accountability generally.
The first reaction of most Members to the word "statistics" is probably "very boring", but statistics are also very important. They are certainly key to the running of modern Government, a modern economy and a modern society. In paragraph 8 of the report, the Sub-Committee says—rightly, in my view—
"There are three key uses for statistics: forming and implementing policies and targets, providing information to enable Parliament and the public to assess the actions of Government, and contributing to efficient resource allocation and improved competitiveness of the economy as a whole."
Not only Government use statistics. At the back of the report is a list of witnesses, including a business user group, a health statistics user group and an education statistics user group. A host of bodies needs to be certain that the Government are producing statistics of integrity.
Statistics need first to be technically accurate, and secondly to be produced in an independent way. People should be able to rely on their integrity. In particular, they should be free from political interference. Let me give an example of technical accuracy. Last year, there was a major problem involving the average earnings index. The index was clearly of great importance to the running of the economy, for the Monetary Policy Committee used it as one of its key indicators. Although the committee never said so specifically, there is no doubt that its decision to raise interest rates last June—or, rather, the June before that—was influenced by the rise in average earnings. It is true that no one quite knew what would have happened
288
otherwise; the MPC might have made the same decision in any event. If it is to do its job properly, however, it must have proper statistics in order to run the economy.
Perhaps more controversial is the question of political interference, Conservative Members may have their own examples, but I remember that, in 1992, there was some controversy about whether the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, had massaged the public sector borrowing requirement figures just before the 1992 election. That was a key issue. The then Treasury Committee, asked questions about that. Again, it is important that statistics should be politically independent. We should have faith—trust, as the slogan says—in our statistical system.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am sure that the recommendation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is recommendation (d) of the Select Committee report, which says:
"For 'National Statistics', where integrity is of the utmost importance, we recommend that the ONS take responsibility rather than home Departments."
Does he agree that, in the light of the controversy over the Home Secretary's remarks to the Labour party conference about 5,000 non-existent new police officers, it is disappointing that the White Paper makes no suggestion of reforms relating to the Home Office?
Mr. Radice: I said that each side would have its own versions. I repeat: it is important that statistics should be free from political interference.
When the Sub-Committee looked at the whole issue of statistics, it had in front of it the Government's Green Paper and it wanted to influence what came out of the White Paper. It therefore laid down certain criteria in its recommendations: that there should be more effective, more accurate statistics; that national statistics, the concept of which we welcome, should be authoritative; that the head of the statistics department or body should have real authority, including access to the Prime Minister to discuss not just integrity but resources; and that the whole system should be underpinned by legislation.
No doubt, the right hon. Member for Fareham will correct me if I have paraphrased his suggestions and proposals inaccurately, but that is what the Sub-Committee said in broad principle. This is not the occasion for me to speak at length, except in praise of the Sub-Committee.
We have to test the White Paper by comparing it with the Sub-Committee's proposals. I am delighted that the White Paper was published in advance of the debate. Perhaps that is one argument for having such debates. It is no criticism of the present Minister, I hasten to add, but some might think that it would have been good if the White Paper had been published a bit earlier. I am pleased that it has been published, so I will not be curmudgeonly about it. We have the document in front of us, so we can read it. Some of us received it yesterday, when it was published, and have read it. My overall judgment on it is that it is a good start, but that there is some room for improvement.
I propose to refer to three or four themes. I welcome the post of national statistician. It is a good idea to have an important figure in charge of national statistics. It is important that we choose a top-rate person to do the job.

289
We have to ask: has he or she sufficient authority to do the job properly? In relation to the national statistics, I would say yes, because his or her professional responsibility for national statistics will be separate from that of Ministers, and that seems to me to be an important step forward.
In relation to departmental statistics, the situation is more ambiguous. What should we deem to be national statistics, and how might we resolve the argument? The White Paper is ambivalent on that point. Although the national statistician will necessarily be involved in resolving that argument, I should like to know how we are to do so in relation to national crime and health statistics, for example. If Ministers are sensible, they will realise that they will have far greater authority if they can say, "I can cite national statistics on crime and health, which state the following."
The people chosen for the statistics commission must be highly distinguished. However, I have no quarrel with the idea that not every commission member should be a professional statistician, as one or two non-statisticians may be able to bring other qualities to bear. Nevertheless, the majority of commission members should be professional statisticians. Members of the Monetary Policy Committee—to use that model—are appointed because they are highly qualified in monetary policy.
We have to ask whether statistics commission members will be independent and sufficiently competent and authoritative for their pronouncements to carry weight. I welcome the Government's commitment to the commission's independence—of which Ministers are making much—and welcome the commission's ability to make not only spot-checks on quality, but an annual report to Parliament. Any body that can make an annual report to Parliament is starting out on the road to independence. Once a body is able to make an annual report to Parliament, it can make statements independently of Government, which is an important development.
I agree with the Sub-Committee that we should enshrine in legislation the statistics commission's independence, as we did for the Monetary Policy Committee. Although there is pressure on legislative time, I am glad that Ministers are at least keeping an open mind, and that the statistics commission has been given the task of reviewing the issue.
I welcome the statement in the White Paper that national statistics should be scrutinised by Parliament. Although the commission's report to Parliament will provide a focus for such scrutiny, I hope that Select Committees—particularly the Treasury Committee—will continue to have a role. The Select Committee has already shown that we can do a job of scrutiny, and we should continue doing so.
On national statistics and the Government's new model, the proof of the pudding will certainly be in the eating. The choice of national statistician will be very important. If a really impressive person is chosen, it will send a signal to those who understand about statistics. Moreover, if potential national statisticians think that they will not be overruled by Ministers, they will go forward for the job. There may also be a role for confirmation hearings,
290
which the Treasury Committee has pioneered, in ensuring that those who are chosen for the statistics commission are impressive people.
The White Paper contains only very broad outlines, and we shall need to see some of the detail. The framework for national statistics will be very important. Treasury Committee and Treasury Sub-Committee members will be watching developments with great interest.
5.40 pm
Sir Peter Lloyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) for his kind words about the Sub-Committee report, and for selecting some of the most significant points.
Although, alas, I am no longer a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury—which the right hon. Gentleman chairs with tolerance and skill—I was lucky enough to be the Chairman of the Sub-Committee which produced the report on the Office for National Statistics. I am sure that I speak for my erstwhile colleagues in expressing gratitude for the help that we received from the expert individuals and organisations that gave us written and oral evidence, and in saying a word in appreciation of our astute and immensely energetic Clerk, Jennifer Long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that members of the Committee would want to cheer that.
I welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to her post, and I wish her well. Although I shall be critical of the Government, I realise that she arrived well after the die had been cast, and that the Government's shortcomings are not hers. I hope that she will be able to remedy some of them in the months ahead.
It was no accident that the Sub-Committee, which was set up last year to look in turn at all the Departments and agencies for which the Treasury is responsible, made the ONS the subject of its first inquiry. It was plain to us that sound, comprehensive statistical data which everyone could understand and rely on were increasingly essential for good government, and that the services provided by the ONS and the Government's statistical service were central to effective policy formation by Ministers, and to the ability of the public at large—as well as Ministers themselves—to judge their success.
It seems that the Green Paper, "Statistics: A Matter of Trust" reflected the same view, and that the Government were determined to make a fundamental change in the structure of statistical services. We hastened our inquiry in the summer of 1998 with the intention not of pre-empting the Government's Green Paper consultation but—having listened to our expert witnesses—of providing a set of criteria which we felt the new arrangements that were to be produced by the Government last autumn should satisfy.
We need not have hurried. The White Paper was finally published only yesterday—a year later, on the last day of the recess and one day before this debate, making it certain that most Members will not have had a chance to read it and that none will have had the opportunity to study it. It is deplorable that the Government should have contrived to ensure that Members had the minimum of opportunity to reflect on the White Paper before the one day of debate on the subject. The timing of the publication, and of the debate, is effectively in the

291
Government's hands. It is as if the Government are ashamed of their White Paper and do not want it talked about.
Having read the White Paper, I am not clear why it should have taken so long to produce. It sticks more closely to the status quo than the Green Paper appeared to presage. Perhaps the delay and the disappointing content are both explained by the difficulty of finding agreement within Government for the more thoroughgoing change that is required. At this point—time to study it apart—it is difficult to know, as the right hon. Member for North Durham said, what to make of the contents, as much waits to be spelt out in another paper, "The Framework for National Statistics".
A number of major points need to be made now in the light of the Sub-Committee's recommendations and the existing White Paper. The proposal for an independent statistics commission is certainly welcome, as far as it goes. It makes sense that such a commission should be comparatively small and coherent but—apart from the important task of monitoring the methodology and standards of ONS outputs—its role appears to be solely advisory. It may be more wieldy, but it seems to be little different from the advisory committee which the Government have recently disbanded. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House why the Government disbanded the advisory committee when they did. Would it not have been valuable to have the informed comment of that committee on the White Paper? At a time when the Government needed the committee's advice, they got rid of it.
The Sub-Committee set much store by the recommendation that the commission, rather than Minsters, should decide what statistics should be included in the scope of national statistics if the desired level of integrity—real and perceived—for important statistical series is to be achieved. Hospital waiting lists and school league tables are obvious candidates, as so much store is set by them in terms of policy formation and the public's judgment of the Government. The White Paper makes it plain that Ministers will continue to have the last word.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he says is relevant to issues such as police numbers? The integrity of the statistics is vital and there is a huge cloud over the Home Secretary's recent speech.
Sir Peter Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend that all Government statistics should be absolutely reliable, although however reliable they are—even if they are produced entirely honestly and clearly and launched in that way by the ONS—politicians on both sides will cherry-pick them to bolster their argument. One sees that at party conferences sometimes, and my hon. Friend has picked a good example.
We recommended in particular that, because it is of such central significance, the retail prices index should cease to be the sole responsibility of the Chancellor and should be a candidate for ONS management. However, the Government made it clear in an earlier response that the RPI was too important and too widely used for the Chancellor to let it go. That reply makes nonsense of pious rhetoric to the effect that key national statistics should be seen to be expertly and independently produced. The RPI is apparently too key. If it needs the Chancellor's
292
protection, why is not the earnings index, which is so significant for the Bank of England when it sets interest rates? The Chancellor was rightly bold when he passed responsibility for interest rates to the Bank of England. He should show the same qualities by passing responsibility for the RPI to the ONS in due course.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation is slightly worse than that? If the Chancellor can manipulate the inflation figures that underlie his target, that target is in his own hands, so he is making nonsense of his policy of delegating monetary control to the Monetary Policy Committee.
Sir Peter Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily good point, with which I entirely agree. He will understand that I am trying to be as cross-party as possible and am sticking to supporting the recommendations of the Sub-Committee rather than laying on with a trowel the reasons why they are even better than some of us thought when we made them.
During its inquiries, the Sub-Committee became very aware that the director of the ONS and his senior colleagues had had a difficult task in building an effective organisation following the merger in 1996 of the Central Statistical Office, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and a range of responsibilities and statistical outputs from a number of Government Departments. We felt that the ONS had made commendable progress, but I should like to quote recommendation 48, which puts the issue in the proper context:
"We recognise that Dr Holt"—
the director—
"faces many difficulties arising from the newness of the organisation, the problems it has inherited and the limitations of the present governance structure. We believe that the combination of roles and responsibilities which the ONS Director is required to fulfil are, as presently constituted, more of a hindrance than a help in dealing with these problems. We recommend that the Government accord a high priority to ensuring that the 'Head of National Statistics'"—
the national statistician, as he will now be called—
"role is managerially workable and supported by sufficient powers to co-ordinate the production of official statistics as well as ensuring that the Head has the required freedom from political interference."
Alas, there is little sign in the White Paper that the Government have fully comprehended that problem. It looks increasingly as though the national statistician, like the director before him, will sit at the top of the ONS with the commission, to whom he is not directly responsible, looking over his shoulder. The ill-defined responsibility for the standards of statistical work done in Departments will continue, without the national statistician having the authority to act if and when necessary.
The Sub-Committee also expressed concern at the lack of strategic vision across the range of official statistics, which we mostly attribute to the organisational structure of the ONS. We feared that the White Paper might not deal with that issue, and our fears appear to be confirmed by yesterday's publication. That issue may be covered in the framework document, but the White Paper gives no grounds for optimism; nor does it encourage us to believe that we are moving beyond the Rayner view that official statistics should be provided primarily to meet the management needs of Government. The needs of local government and business are compelling and should be

293
far better served, not least by better coverage of the vast and growing service area. We recommended that the ONS should publish a document setting out the criteria that it will use to assess the competing demands of Government, local government and business. The Government may have it in mind to do that, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that point later.
As part of KPMG's efficiency review, it was commissioned to make a report. It recommended that great savings would be made by contracting out much of the collection of raw statistical data, releasing resources to improve the service generally and—importantly—releasing the demands on top management time which could then be devoted to strategic and customer concerns, both of which need more attention than they receive at present. Why did the Government not take KPMG's advice?
The Sub-Committee's most important and difficult recommendation is in paragraph 10. I shall read it in full so that its meaning is clear:
"Canadian Statistician Ivan Fellegi has argued that 'A key end objective is to help the public policy process to discern the relevant "policy levers" that are likely to be most effective in moving us toward the achievement of desirable social and economic objectives' and cautioned that 'We cannot assume that the traditional policy levers are necessarily the most important ones.' For example, he suggested that life expectancy might be affected as much by family income as by medical intervention. We asked Dr Holt, the Director of the ONS, about its role in identifying statistics which would improve understanding of a particular policy area. He replied that 'It is a perception that this aspect of Government statistics is not well developed' and that he expected the issue to be raised in the Green Paper consultation. We recommend that in its response to the Green Paper the Government shows how the independent expertise of the GSS and ONS can be better used to translate politically determined objectives into meaningful targets and indicators."
Everybody can think of examples of that. For example, the reliance on waiting list statistics which, even if accurate, may help to distort rather than improve the provision of health care, and the reliance on class sizes, in statistical form, as a key measure when evidence suggests that others are probably more relevant to raising educational standards and ensuring that educational budgets are spent most effectively.
Elected Ministers must of course set policy, but it is in their interests—and certainly in the electorate's interest—that they have the best statistical assessments to help them find the ways to achieve policy goals. Those ways will not necessarily be the obvious ones, those most readily to hand or those to which Ministers committed themselves in opposition.
I am in good company in being critical of the White Paper. The Royal Statistical Society was extremely disappointed with it, and I suspect that few will give it many cheers. If the Government had been less inconsiderate in the timing of its publication—if I had had the opportunity to study more closely its every detail—I might have found cause to welcome at greater length its promise of higher standards of methodology and more coherent and user-friendly forms of publication. I note, too, that the Sub-Committee was grateful that the Government promptly published the reports that they commissioned during the examination of the Green Paper, although it would have just cause for complaint if the Government had not published them.
294
It is disappointing that the Government have not yet given any sign that they have the courage and wisdom to recognise that they would help themselves if they created a competent structure and handed to it the responsibility to perform a thorough, independent and professional job on all the main statistics that they use and by which the public judge them. However, I draw encouragement from the fact that the commission will be in a position to report publicly on those matters and that the Government have committed themselves to review the case for legislation should the commission recommend it in two years' time. I hope that the commission will use its opportunity well and that more of the Sub-Committee's recommendations will be put into practice than the White Paper portends.
5.57 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on her promotion. I also congratulate her on her wisdom in producing the White Paper the day before our debate. I do not wish to be churlish, and I recognise that this is the first day back for Parliament. It is welcome that the White Paper has been published, albeit that we have not had time to study it in as much detail as we would have liked.
I also add my thanks to the former Chairman of the Sub-Committee, the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), for his leadership. I suspect that he will know that that is not an empty courtesy from the other side of the House, but is said with genuine affection and respect. I identify myself with many—I can probably statistically say most, though sadly not quite all—of the remarks that he made about the White Paper.
We should acknowledge that the Government have taken other steps besides the White Paper to improve the quality of national statistics. The White Paper is entitled "Building Trust in Statistics". It is unfortunate that that title was necessary. We have to rebuild confidence in Government statistics because some notable failures, especially the collapse of the earnings index, have gone to the heart of policy making. That could have—in some ways, it already has had—an effect on the decisions of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee and it might have brought those decisions into technical disrepute. I think that it is extremely unfortunate that that episode occurred. One of the aims of this debate, and of the Sub-Committee's recommendations, is that there should be no repetition of that event. The Government are clearly set on correcting those difficulties.
I welcome the fact that, over the summer, the Government appointed two new directors of the Office for National Statistics. I especially welcome the appointment of Mr. Pullinger, with his expertise in census and small-area statistics. That will be warmly welcomed by many of our colleagues in local government. I welcome also the appointment of Mr. Goldsmith, with his extensive commercial background. As the whole House recognises, and as the Sub-Committee's recommendations make clear, there need to be considerable improvements in the quality of British commercial and economic statistics. For example, we are engaged in a major endeavour to raise the level of productivity in this country, but we simply do not know enough about it.

295
In that connection, I welcome also the Government's decision to produce an index on services and distribution. That will go some way towards filling another gap in statistics that the Sub-Committee discovered and listed in its recommendations. I regret that it will be some time before the series of statistics on services will be robust enough to provide a solid basis for making policy. However, it is important that we know more about the service sector of the economy, and about the banking and financial services on which so much of this country's expertise and wealth now depend.
I do not wish to introduce a sour note into the proceedings but, although I acknowledge the very important role played by Dr. Holt in creating the Office for National Statistics in 1996—a not inconsiderable task, to which the House ought to pay tribute—I believe that he could and should have used his right of access to the Prime Minister as soon as he became aware of the deficiencies in the earnings statistics inherited from the former Department of Employment. It is important to make that clear, as future Government national statisticians must regard their right of access to the Prime Minister as an important right in the defence of the public interest. It is not simply an icon to be kept in the cupboard.
Dr. Holt became aware of the deficiencies early in 1996. If he had gone to the Prime Minister at that time, or a little later to the present Prime Minister, we might have avoided the collapse of the average earnings index in 1998, in what were difficult and potentially troubling circumstances. I hope that future holders of the position will bear in mind what I have said, and that they will use their right of access to the Prime Minister in a solid, proactive and meaningful way, on behalf of Parliament and the British public as a whole.
I turn now to the White Paper's proposals to create a statistical commission, which will have clear duties to defend the public interest and patrol the integrity of Government statistics. Clearly, those proposals are to be welcomed, as they represent a considerable step forward. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will say how some of the potential difficulties will be resolved.
The White Paper states that Ministers will be able to block the access of the statistical commission and the national statistician to the work of their Departments. The House is entitled to seek an assurance from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary that that blocking ability will be used sparingly, that its use will be reported to Parliament—not least in the annual report of the statistical commission—and that, if right of access is blocked, a full, serious and comprehensive explanation will be given to Parliament. We must operate on the basis that the ability of Ministers to block access by the national statistician and the statistical commission to statistics being prepared in Departments will be used only in the most exceptional and unusual circumstances.
Mr. Letwin: I subscribe entirely to the hon. Gentleman's view, as far as it goes, but can he imagine any circumstances under which it would be legitimate to block the access of the national statistician?
Mr. Cousins: It is unwise in debates such as this to engage in flights of fancy or to exercise one's
296
imagination, but I can envisage circumstances in which Ministers might wish to block that access. However, as a Select Committee member of long standing, I am not sure that I should endorse or register approval of the possible exercise of that power to block access.
We are all conscious that this is a new Government, who have embarked on some serious and new projects that will require much stronger statistics than were inherited from the previous Government. We will require much more solid information to guide us in tackling matters such as health improvement and health inequality. We will require better small-area statistics to guide our colleagues in local government and enable them monitor their work.
The Government, too, will require better statistics to determine what really can be made of employment zones, health action zones, education action zones, the sure start initiative, and the like. It is important that the right statistical basis to support such policy initiatives and to measure their achievements is available. Sadly, that is not the case at present, and we look to the statistical commission to help bring it about.
It is extremely important that the Government consider again the need for legislation that would defend and entrench the rights of the Office for National Statistics, and of the proposed statistical commission and office of the national statistician. It is absurd that the quality of small-area statistics in this country depends on a curious quirk of the Census Act 1920, which says that there must be full cost recovery. It is ridiculous that that ancient provision should impede the development of proper small-area statistics, given that the House, local government and the devolved Parliaments all need them in their work. I hope that the Government will reconsider that matter.
It is important that the code of practice in national statistics, which is what we shall have to rely on for the integrity of Government information, should be entrenched and defined in law. It is important that the right of access to information—by Members of Parliament and by our fellow citizens—should also be entrenched in law. Parliament will soon consider freedom of information legislation, so it is important that that concept be brought to bear on the information and statistical work of the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will look at that matter again.
In addition, I hope that my hon. Friend will assure the House that the statistical commission and the Government national statistician will have right of access to the service agreements between the Bank of England and the Office for National Statistics that underpin much of the work of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. Parliament should be aware of the dialogue between the Bank of England and the Government in that respect. It should know of any exchange of information between the Bank and the Government, and of any anxieties that may exist about the quality of the economic information being dealt with.
I share some of the anxieties expressed by other hon. Members about the fact that responsibility for the retail prices index will remain with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that the Chancellor would be far more comfortable if responsibility for the RPI were passed to the statistical commission and the national statistician. My right hon. Friend would benefit from

297
passing over that responsibility and would find that remarks—such as those he apparently intends to make tonight about average earnings—would be reinforced if he operated against a background in which no one could dispute the independence or integrity of the information that he intended to deploy.
There is current and active concern in the House over whether the RPI properly reflects the needs and conditions of pensioners. That cannot be dealt with in a political way as it requires independent and robust investigation. I ask the Minister to consider these matters. We, and the Government, might be better served by legislation that entrenched the right to independence of the statistical commission and the national statistician.
Finally, we have to deal with the devolved Parliaments. The Government address the Parliaments in the White Paper and have also produced within the past few weeks a memorandum of understanding on statistics between the devolved Parliaments and the UK Parliament and Government. The devolved Parliaments clearly have their own duties and their own understandings of priorities. No one wants to stand in the way of that.
However, it is of fundamental importance to citizens of the UK that on some basic measures of public information—waiting lists or economic information such as measurements of productivity—statistical unity should remain. There must be a common base for statistics. The UK must not be prised apart by a growing disconnection between statistical bases deployed for policy making in the devolved Parliaments and the Westminster Parliament. I hope that the Economic Secretary will address that point, and I know that the Government would wish to ensure that statistical unity was maintained.
Our debate is informed by a Select Committee report on an important matter of public interest. We acknowledge the serious consideration and importance that the Government accorded to their response and the position that they have taken in the debate. We welcome publication of the White Paper, which in many ways goes towards meeting the anxieties and recommendations of the Treasury Committee. However, the White Paper remains deficient in some vital respects. We invite the Economic Secretary to consider views expressed across the House about those deficiencies. I am sure that she will at some time and in some form consider those matters again.
6.14 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: I, too, welcome the Minister to the Treasury Bench. I look forward to our debate today and debates over next year's Finance Bill. I am sure that she looks forward to that as much as I do.
I congratulate the Treasury Committee on its work and its report. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on their speeches, although I felt that they did not do full justice to their report. In many ways, I felt, they hid their feelings of disappointment about the White Paper. They were critical of it, but pulled their punches.
I had the privilege of speaking today to the president of the Royal Statistical Society, which is incredibly disappointed by the White Paper. The society was
298
encouraged by the Green Paper and the Government's consultation process. It agreed with many of the Treasury Committee's recommendations. However, it feels that the Government have let the side down in the White Paper, the last-minute publication of which seems to reflect a new Government attitude. The society fears that the Government will not be as open and transparent as they had implied during consultation and that they will not deliver on their promises.
We have seen the same happen before under the present Government. They promise a sea change and a modernisation of the whole approach to the government of the country. However, when they try to deliver, they fail significantly to do so. The White Paper is another example of that.
The society would make two major points if it could speak to the House. First, it is concerned about the scope of statistics that will fall to the statistics commission. The commission is to be given control of national statistics, but not of other statistics produced by Departments. Decisions about whether the commission should have access to information will, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central said, be taken by Ministers. He called that a right to block, and I believe that that position is unfortunate.
The second key weakness of the White Paper is that there will be no legislative framework. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government remained open-minded about that, but it is noticeable that they will remain open-minded until after the next general election as they do not promise legislation before it. It would be nice to have an independent statistics commission before then to judge the Government on their election pledges last time round. We could see whether the statistics that the Government are producing on hospital waiting lists and class sizes are correct, and judge whether the pledges have been kept. The House and the country would feel more confident about all the statistics the Government publish if the figures came from a statistics commission. The failure to legislate is a great weakness.
I want to link those two points to the Government's failure on freedom of information. Citizens and Parliament will not know what statistics and what factual information lie behind the Government's policies. They will have no access to that information under the draft Freedom of Information Bill, even after the changes announced during the summer recess. The blanket exemption will apply to statistics, and that is much to be regretted.
On the detail on the scope of statistics to come under the commission, the Treasury Committee's first report stated, at paragraph 13, that
"in order to achieve the desired levels of integrity, real and perceived, it will be crucial that the Head of National Statistics or of any statistical commission decides which statistics are included within the scope of National Statistics rather than Ministers, and for the distinction to be strongly enforced."
However, the White Paper, written on the basis of the Committee's recommendations, states at paragraph 4.5 that Ministers will decide whether any changes to the scope of national statistics are appropriate, publishing their response. That has caused consternation among the country's top statisticians.

299
The Royal Statistical Society, in a press release yesterday,
"expressed its extreme disappointment at the very limited scope of the Government's proposals to guarantee the future integrity of National Statistics. Only the statistics currently produced by the Office for National Statistics will automatically come under the new arrangements."
The society adds:
"National Statistics has been defined much too narrowly."
During my conversation with the president of the society, she said that the narrow definition went against all the soundings that the Government had given during the consultation period. It is her belief that the vast majority of respondents favoured a much broader definition of the statistics that the commission is to control. The Government have not delivered on what they were promising the respondents to that consultation process.
Other models were debated during the process, such as the Select Committee model, whereby it would be up to the commission to decide what statistics it should have access to. One might have considered a purchaser-provider split, with Government Departments purchasing statistics from a commission that was in charge of all national statistics, which were defined as covering everything. The Government should study those models. I hope that the Economic Secretary will tell us that this is not the last shot and that the Government will reconsider whether they are prepared to widen the scope of the statistics that will come under the new commission.
The importance of statistics in public policy debate cannot be underestimated. In the Select Committee report, we see how they can be used to make decisions about the allocation of resources and to measure the Government's performance so that we can scrutinise Government properly. In recent years, they have been used to measure the objectives and targets of Government, which is relevant to the debate about waiting lists.
Unless the Government are prepared to ensure in legislation that such statistics, which are crucial to public policy, are made available independently, they will not rebuild the confidence of the British people in the statistics that we debate. Under the previous Government, we had an annual discussion about the unemployment statistics and whether the various definitions were correct, which brought the whole process into disrepute. Many people did not believe that Government when they said that unemployment was coming down. There was a huge argument about which way it was going and about what the real level was. On the one hand, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) might have put it at 3 million, 4 million or even 5 million, while other politicians put it much lower even than the Government. That brought the whole debate into disrepute and made it rather sterile.
It is so important for the Government to get this matter right. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central talked about pensions. He is right; that is a topical debate. As we know, the retail prices index figure for September was low at 1.1 per cent., which means that pensioners who rely on the basic state pension are looking forward to an increase of only 75p a week next April. The important question is whether that is the right inflation measure. Should we use the underlying rate, or should we consider a special pensioner RPI? Those statistics could be made available by a statistics commission. It could give
300
Parliament public advice about the most appropriate RPI. Pensioners in my constituency will not be terribly happy if the current RPI is used to make the decision.
Deciding the right statistic is also important. We note that the Government have ensured that they will keep total control over such decisions. One might argue that subjectivity is involved when one is commenting on and deciding between different statistics—that that is always subjective and should therefore be a political decision. I believe that if such a decision is based on authoritative advice, the Government can be held far more accountable for it.
When the Government present their information, in particular when it relates to election pledges and key political targets, they are always likely to try to manipulate the figures. I do not think that any of us could say hand on heart that if our party were in government, we would not be up to the same tricks. Of course we would and that is why the Government must try to ensure that independence is enshrined in the system.
Debating statistics in the House is always difficult; the truth is often complex. One isolated statistic can give one picture, but when others relating to it are considered, one can draw a completely different picture. That is why we need the statistics commission to give that sort of high-level advice—commentary, if one likes—when it provides statistics for the Government. Judging from the White Paper, I do not see that sort of role being given to the commission.
There are many other problems, but because of lack of time, I will mention only three. The first is that so much is resting on the document, "The Framework for National Statistics", as the right hon. Member for Fareham pointed out. I have it on authority that the Royal Statistical Society would like to be consulted on that framework document. I hope that the Government will not publish it as soon as possible, as they state in the White Paper. Before it is published, many people, including in the House, should have a chance to have an input. If the Government fail to do that, they will be breaking faith with their previous excellent consultation process.
The second problem is that the accountability proposals in the White Paper should be reviewed. The Government seem to want to ensure that the statistics commission reports to the Treasury. They want to maintain that structure. As the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) said, it is time that we ensured that such bodies report to the House—to Select Committees. If we could develop the informal process of confirmatory systems into a statutorily based system of confirmatory hearings, we could ensure accountability and strengthen the integrity and independence of such commissions.
The third and final problem is that the commission is being given the huge task of auditing, collecting and presenting. According to the White Paper, the commission will be relatively small. Unless it is given serious backing, in terms of both resources and support, it will find that too hard a task. As we approach the census, that is extremely worrying.
The Government started on this process with the best of intentions. They talked about ensuring independence, rebuilding trust, maintaining and developing integrity and improving quality. Although some of the recommendations of the White Paper go that way, by ducking out and not ensuring that an independent statistics

301
commission can comment on and be involved in all statistics if it so chooses, and by failing to ensure that its independence is enshrined in law, I am afraid that the Government will fail to meet their own objectives.
6.28 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I was pleased to serve on the Treasury Sub-Committee under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who was always a wise and good-humoured guide in our deliberations. What he omitted to say about our choice of the Office for National Statistics as the subject for our first inquiry is that the members of the Committee suspected that it would be a fairly straightforward issue—a gentle dipping of our toes into the water. Little did we suspect that there would be the great national explosion of the failure of the average earnings index in October, which would concentrate the attention, seemingly, of the world on the work of the investigation and of the ONS itself.
In defence of the Government—I ask myself why I should defend them, but I choose to do so—and as regards the timing of the publication of the White Paper, following what happened with the average earnings index we had two investigations into the index, a further review of the efficiencies of the ONS and the deliberations of our Sub-Committee report—all of which feature strongly in the White Paper, which is good to see, as matters that have been taken into account. Those also include the work of the Select Committee. That is all pleasing and a reasonable defence of the timing of the production of the White Paper.
Information is power, and statistics are a component of that for policy advisers or makers in the public, private or voluntary sectors and for the public at large. Everyone is interested in possessing accurate statistics and information. I shall use the story of the average earnings index to show what happens when official statistics are compromised and what the possible causes of that might be. The story of the AEI shows two pressing needs for the work of the Office for National Statistics. First, there should be strong management capable of clear strategic thinking. Secondly, the management must have robust independence from political interference.
The right place to start the story of the AEI is in the spring of 1998. The earnings growth figures that spring were worrying. The Monetary Policy Committee had delivered itself of the opinion that average earnings growth in excess of about 4.5 per cent. would be inconsistent with meeting its inflation target without having to raise interest rates. That spring, earnings growth was about that figure. Everyone knew that bonuses influenced the figures but people wanted to know whether they represented one-off payments as a reward for the past 12 months' performance, in which case they could largely be discounted as an inflationary pressure, or whether there was something more to them. In spring 1998, the Bank of England asked the ONS to work on analysing the bonus-related element. In April and May that year, the ONS did some work on that and passed its findings to the MPC.
In June 1998, the MPC announced another rise of a quarter of a percentage point in the base rate, to 7.5 per cent. That decision surprised forecasters and, in explaining its
302
decision, the MPC said that it had had regard to the average earnings growth figures. The figure available was that from the ONS for March 1998, which had risen to 4.9 per cent., clearly above the 4.5 per cent. that the MPC had stated was consistent with not raising interest rates. Given the MPC's thinking, it was no surprise that it raised interest rates at that months' meeting. The MPC was heavily criticised at the time for that rate rise, for giving too much emphasis to only one economic indicator. In defence of the MPC, although the indicator that it was relying on was earnings growth, it did not rely only on the figures from the ONS. It had access to other information such as that produced by the Reward Group, business surveys and its contacts with the business community. Nevertheless, that was its decision.
We returned to the average earnings index in October 1998. The public's attention was attracted to the index by two sets of startling revisions in a short space of time. First, on 6 October, the earnings figures for May, June and July were slightly revised. There were no great shocks there, but on 14 October, the whole back-run of data was heavily revised without any warning to the markets interested in the statistics. It was a stunning event and everyone was shocked. There was huge criticism of the MPC's decision back in June because the revised data suggested that the peak in earnings growth in spring and summer had not been as high as the MPC had been led to believe. One national newspaper carried a banner headline saying that the MPC's blunder had cost the country 10,000 jobs. Little wonder that the Chancellor was described as being incandescent with rage.
The director of the ONS, Tim Holt, announced that he was suspending the index forthwith and that an independent inquiry was to be undertaken by Southampton university into what had gone wrong. He said that it was right to suspend the index from publication because everyone had lost trust in the statistics. At the same time, the Chancellor announced a separate inquiry into what had gone wrong with the index, led by Andrew Turnbull from the Treasury and Mervyn King from the Bank of England. They directed Martin Weale of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research to conduct a second inquiry especially for the Chancellor. Both inquiries produced reports this March, when the average earnings index was rehabilitated and reinstated.
It is interesting now to look back at what the reviews concluded was the state of earnings growth back in spring and summer of 1998. The reviews showed that the original figures, prior to any revisions, were about correct; if anything, they were slightly overstated. It was a case of "as you were". It could be argued that the MPC had been vindicated but, alas, there were no banner headlines to that effect.
During the furore of the reviews, the Treasury also announced a new efficiency review of the ONS. KPMG was to report to a Treasury-appointed steering group with recommendations for making further efficiency savings in the costs of the ONS. That review led to several recommendations, three of which I shall cite as examples. It said that the number of ONS offices could be reduced, that more support services could be outsourced and that there should be changes at the top of the management. The collective result of the recommendations would eventually be annual savings of £20 million. In announcing that it accepted most of the report's recommendations, the Treasury said that the £20 million would be recycled into improving the rest of the ONS's services.

303
I fear that all this demonstrates the potential for political control of statistics. The Government set the ONS' s budget and are its major customer. On this occasion, the Government appointed their own review into what had happened with a particular set of statistics and put in train their own efficiency review. Those are the sort of things that we as politicians should guard against in protecting national statistics. As the Green Paper said, it is a matter of trust.
As the right hon. Member for Fareham said, the ONS has many other customers, not only the Government of the day. As my example showed, the Bank of England is an important customer. The nations and regions of the United Kingdom, local government, business and the public at large also all want accurate statistics.
When the Government responded to the Treasury Select Committee report, it seemed that there was agreement between the Committee and Government on two things that should be improved in the ONS: improving the statistical base and capacity, and prioritising services to users of the ONS. That offers some encouragement as to how we go from here.
I want to consider the White Paper. No one has mentioned that our report draws attention to the international comparison of the costs of the ONS with those of similar bodies in other countries. We get our statistics remarkably cheaply. Who am I to say whether those countries are spending too much on the provision of statistics or we too little?
Despite several speeches this evening which showed ways in which doubt could be cast on statistics, the people producing them or the Government standing behind them, it has to be said that the evidence received by the Select Committee was that by and large the statistics produced by the ONS are among the best in the world in terms of their reliability and the processes by which they are produced. It is important to make that point to redress the balance of the tone of the debate so far. There is no reason why we should not have it as our ambition, White Paper or not, to make the statistics produced in this country world leaders. Indeed, that phrase appears in the foreword to the White Paper.
Some of the vital issues to be discussed as a result of the White Paper have already been mentioned by other hon. Members. In deciding what statistics are national and what are not, I stand by the recommendation of the Select Committee. It ought to be the job of the national statistician, the statistics commission or a combination of the two. It is not the job of Ministers who want to defend their departmental interests. So in that area, the White Paper needs further development.
Mention has also been made of the right of the director of national statistics to go to the top—to the Prime Minister of the day—to complain about any infringement of the integrity of national statistics. As two hon. Members have mentioned already, the Select Committee recommended that in addition to being able to go to the Prime Minister about the integrity of national statistics, the director ought to be able to go to the Prime Minister on the question of resources. Resources are the Achilles heel of the White Paper. There is no explicit mention of the mechanisms by which anyone can decide whether we are spending the right or the wrong amount on producing national statistics. That needs to be corrected.
304
Four components are essential to our future statistical service. The first is quality management. That is dealt with in the White Paper. The second is political accountability—not interference in management. To some extent, that is dealt with in the White Paper, but not to my satisfaction. I make it clear that that is my own opinion. The third is adequate resources, which I have now mentioned twice. It is important to stress a third time that, when used by some people such as exporters, accurate and timely statistics may have an influence on the wealth of the country. So if we need to spend more money to produce greater wealth, that is a consideration to which we ought to have regard. The fourth component is customer involvement. It is important for the commission to take on the role of ensuring that the views of those who want good statistics are heard right at the top of the tree.
I said at the beginning of my speech that information is power. I hope that what we are about tonight is helping to form a view on how to create a statistical commission and national statistician that produce statistics that contribute to the power and wealth of our country. I suggest that statistics ought to be impartial, reliable, accessible, timely and economic to produce. When right hon. and hon. Members read Hansard tomorrow, they will see that the first letters of those words spell irate. I suggest that Members of this House will be very angry indeed if we do not produce a statistical service of which we can all be proud.
6.44 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I begin by echoing the welcome given to the Economic Secretary in her new post by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I also welcome the debate. In many ways, it shows the House at its best. We have heard measured comments from hon. Members of all parties. We are debating a Select Committee report that firmly shows the House of Commons trying to fulfil its age-old task of holding Governments to account and insisting, in the terms used by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), that the public, experts and democracy as a whole have the power to understand what is being done to them and on their behalf. Statistics, therefore, are not a byway. They are one of the centrepieces of democratic society. Without faith in accurate statistics, we stand in imminent danger of beginning at any time on the slippery slope to totalitarian rule. I do not mean that we are anywhere near it today or have been at any time in our history, but it behoves us, and it is right that we take the responsibility seriously, to concentrate without the slightest complacency on whether our statistics are accurate and our systems for making sure robust. Otherwise, the threat to our democratic liberty will be very great.
I welcome the Select Committee report. As several hon. Members have mentioned, there is no doubt that recommendation (b) goes to the heart of the matter. It has been quoted already. I merely remind the House that it states clearly that it should be the head of national statistics or any statistical commission who decides what is included in the national statistics and hence what is subject to the rigours of the new commission.
The White Paper has been much discussed in the debate so far. It is headed "Building Trust in Statistics". It was introduced with great acclaim by the Government.

305
The Economic Secretary told the world in her press release:
"This White Paper marks a new era for official statistics."
I am bound to say that I am not a great believer in Government hype, whatever Government are in power. I am afraid to say that this Government have been rather better at Government hype than most in our history, but hype is least appropriate when it is least true. I accept the infinite delicacy of the comments of Government Members in attacking the White Paper. Labour Members have been careful to avoid outright attack, and I understand entirely that I should do the same in their position. But the mood of the House this evening has shown clearly that the Royal Statistical Society, to which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred, was right.
The White Paper does not mark a new era for official statistics. It is perhaps at best the beginning of an idea of what, later, if put in legislative form and much enhanced in various ways, might be a somewhat better way of arranging official statistics. I admit that that does not quite carry the same soundbite characteristics as
"a new era for official statistics",
but it is alas the truth. It is the truth not least because, as various hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), have said, the crucial recommendation (b)—that the decision about what goes into national statistics should be independently made—is precisely the one that is by implication turned down in the White Paper.
We have to attend to just how much of a problem there is here. The Chairman of the Select Committee, who carries some weight in the matter, said that there was some ambiguity about who would decide what went in and what stayed out. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. I do not think that there is any ambiguity. The Select Committee talked in terms of decision, but section 2.10 of the White Paper on page 5 makes it clear that the new commission will
"advise on the scope of National Statistics".
As if that left any ambiguity—I suppose that it might be argued that the phrase by itself was ambiguous—the White Paper says in section 4.5 on page 13:
"The Government will ask the Statistics Commission to keep under review the scope of national statistics and make periodic recommendations"—
again, in advisory mode—and
" … Ministers will decide".
I think that it is pretty clear that we are dealing not with an independent body that will decide what things it vets but with a wonderful combination of Ministers. The Minister is undoubtedly a human being and hence probably prey to the temptations to which we are all subject. That certainly applies to all of us on the Opposition Front Bench. How convenient not to admit into the fold of national statistics any series of statistics that may be dubious because of the character of the collection.
Collection is a difficult matter. Economic judgments, as many hon. Members have said, often depend on judgments about how accurate statistics really are. However, any Minister may also wish to conceal a series that is politically embarrassing.
306
I wish I could say that, from my own experience of working in a bureaucracy, I had any confidence that our civil service would always provide a bastion sufficient against that temptation. However, I fear that the structure of our government makes it systematically unlikely that the civil service will do so. On the whole, civil servants are entirely decent people trying to do a good job, but the job that they are asked to do is to serve the Government of the day—not Parliament and not the electorate. It becomes extraordinarily difficult for them to resist a Minister who finds it inconvenient to have a particular piece of information released.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have any experience of government—most of them have vastly more such experience than I have—will know what I am talking about when I say that one cannot rely on the home Departments to vet their own statistics. That was the conclusion reached by the Sub-Committee and that was very clear and right. It is extremely to be deplored that the White Paper says nothing as to how we can avoid that problem in the future. That is what the Royal Statistical Society is on about.
It is also relevant to remind ourselves of which sort of statistics are involved. Some of them have already been mentioned this evening: waiting lists and crime statistics—and police numbers, which are so topical. However, the most interesting question of all relates to those statistics that never appear. I feel morally confident—I am absolutely sure that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, who, in a previous incarnation, played a distinguished role as the Opposition spokesman on education, would echo what I say—that buried somewhere in the Department for Education and Employment are fairly large numbers of surveys and a fair number of statistics as to how effective or ineffective the new deal is turning out, and that they have not been revealed. I say that because it was always the practice of the DfEE and its predecessors not to reveal surveys and statistics that they did not find convenient. I am sure that Ministers have sought to inform themselves as to those matters and have revealed—perfectly honestly—those things that they think are convenient, and have concealed those things that they think are inconvenient. That is not the way to convey to an electorate or to Parliament a proper picture. It is not special to this Government; it has been true of Governments for ages past. Now there is an opportunity to change it by consensus. The Select Committee has given us that opportunity; the White Paper should be rewritten to give it to us properly.
We turn to the home Department that is the most important; that is what I want to add to the debate. That Department is of course the Treasury—Her Majesty's Treasury—the august body that is the subject of the Select Committee's whole endeavour and which produced this splendid, or not so splendid, White Paper, and which is responsible for enormously important statistics.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham has already referred to the inflation figures. I restate the point that I made in an intervention to him; if there is a single set of exogenous statistics that matter most, it is the inflation statistics. Those statistics are not merely a piece of information; they are an operator. As the Chancellor has chosen to set the targets of the Monetary Policy Committee in a series of statistics, the choice of the series itself and the governing of the way in which that series is

307
compiled are matters that quite directly affect policy as well as information. Clearly, that is intolerable. It is not possible for a Chancellor of the Exchequer honestly to claim that he has subcontracted the control of monetary policy to another body under a clear and transparent target, if the target is in fact not clear and transparent, but opaque, and run by his own officials in ways that he does not declare.
I admit that, in principle, the national statistician could come along and say, "But Chancellor, I do not really believe you, I should like to see exactly how this is made up". Earlier, we heard an exchange on that matter. However, the poor old national statistician—be he ever so distinguished a statistician, as I hope and believe that he will be—will not stand much chance against a Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Chief Secretary, a Financial Secretary, an Economic Secretary, a Paymaster General, a Permanent Secretary and a head of the economic service, all of whom tell him, "We don't really think you ought to have this".
I do not speculate in this matter—or if I do so, it is based on recent experience—because, in dealing with certain matters to which I am about to turn, I asked whether I could go to see Professor Likierman, the head of the financial management, reporting and audit service to ask him some questions. First, a record of my telephoned request was lost. Secondly, it transpired that we had to send a request by fax, so I did so. It then transpired that my request could not be answered, but had to be referred to the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was referred to that office and a long delay ensued. We were then informed that I could not see Professor Likierman about the national accounts, because I could only do so if a Minister was present and it was not felt that a Minister should be present.
Mr. Radice: I can remember a similar occasion when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power and I wanted to see the chief inspector of the then HMI. I was told that I could not do so unless the Secretary of State for Education was also present—he was Sir Keith Joseph. I thought that that was not appropriate, so I arranged to meet the chief inspector at a party.
Mr. Letwin: I admire the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity. I may adopt the same tactic, although my social sphere is not yet as elevated as his. Indeed, my point is not about the Government; it is not a party political point. The truth is that all Governments have an institutional tendency to conceal. I fear that there will not be much chance for that ever-so-distinguished chap to break through that veil.
Mr. Cousins: I have already expressed myself on the substance of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes; I agree with him. None the less, we should record that neither the Sub-Committee in its investigations of the Office for National Statistics, nor the main Committee, when it considered resource accounting and budgeting—we shall come back to that—found a shred of evidence that the Chancellor and the Government had exercised the kind of influence to which the hon. Gentleman refers and which he rightly fears.
Mr. Letwin: I am terribly grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he moves me on to precisely the topic
308
that I now address: the belief—at least on our part—that there is some evidence of that problem, in respect not of exogenous statistics, but of the most important statistics of all, which are those under the Government's operational control. I refer to the national accounts.
if there is one set of statistics that matters most, it is those that relate to the fiscal balance. Alas, that is also the area in which there is the greatest scope for any Government to engage in subterfuge. I have to say that the present Chancellor and his colleagues have raised that subterfuge to a fine art. We are dealing with a sort of Mr. Mephistopheles, who has managed to conjure the most extraordinary results from the brilliantly illuminating 189-page document that is the Red Book. One of the nation's leading experts told me that for years he had felt that he knew little about life, but he knew one thing: how to make sense of the national accounts at last—until the Red Book and its predecessor of the previous year appeared on the scene. At that point he more or less gave up.
Why is that? Some of those matters must be conscious, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an extremely intelligent man, with a bright set of officials and colleagues who work with him. It cannot be an unconscious act that the working families tax credit—billions of pounds of public expenditure on any normal definition—has famously disappeared into an accounting adjustment. If it is unconscious, I suppose that is a resigning matter, but I do not believe that for a moment. It was a conscious adjustment—an adjustment of an adjustment, so to speak—in order to make us wholly unaware of what was going on, except that it was so obvious that most people caught up with it eventually. It did take a couple of days after the production of the Red Book, but eventually people caught up with it.
Alas, as one goes through the whole document, one finds dizzyingly many minor examples of misleading or ambiguous arrangements of statistics, which make it extraordinarily difficult for someone trained in ordinary accounts or finance to penetrate the document. Some of those may be the result of error, some may be unconscious and some may be conscious—I genuinely do not know which is which. We struggled mightily to find out but, not least because of our failure to meet Professor Likierman, we have been unable to do so.
Mr. Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that how to present the working families tax credit is an interesting problem: should it be presented as expenditure, or in some other way? He should give the Government some credit. The way in which the presentation used was arrived at is comprehensively set out in the Red Book, and further documents were produced to reinforce the presentation in that document. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to disagree with that presentation, but it is undeniable that the Government have made it entirely clear how the presentation of the working families tax credit in the national accounts was arrived at.
Mr. Letwin: In a way, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, in that if one reads all the fine print, one can eventually work out what has happened. I also agree that how to deal with the tax credit—indeed, with tax credits in general—is an interesting question: are they expenditure or negative income? There is no case for calling them an accounting adjustment; the only reason

309
for doing so was to ensure that we did not notice for a little while. That is not a good way to present such matters.
Let me move on to some other examples. Table B27 in the Red Book registers the current budget surplus as 0.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. Yet, in table B25, something ostensibly similar called surplus on current budget is labelled as £6.2 billion. Those are both 1998–99 figures. With GDP at rather less than £900 billion, it is extraordinary difficult for the ordinary man to make those two figures match. There might be a perfectly good explanation for that, but as the Red Book does not provide it and one cannot meet the man who drew up the figures, it is difficult to tell what it is, which is probably why the press does not have the slightest idea what has happened. I rang a couple of expert commentators, who told me that I had a good point and that they could not work it out either.
The question is not merely one of figures and principles of accounting; we are dealing with a sort of definitional glory. I have never seen so many definitions as have been produced, changed and reproduced over the past couple of years. We have current expenditure, net capital expenditure—although of what it is net is an interesting question in itself—and general Government expenditure. Then, we have total managed expenditure, which is not to be confused with annually managed expenditure or with net departmental outlays, which a common man might have thought bore some relationship to it. We have net borrowing, which is quite different from net cash requirement and from the surplus or deficit on the current budget. Most mysterious of all, we have other financial transactions, which are wholly different from miscellaneous financial transactions.
I could bore the House by going on for another 20 minutes with other definitions, but I shall please the House by not doing so. The fact is that it would all be a joke—if it were not so serious. What makes it serious is that a 189-page document—which is 186 pages longer than a set of company accounts, containing straightforward profit and loss, balance sheet and cashflow figures—has been produced, partly in an effort to inform and partly in an effort to conceal and obfuscate. Nobody has the slightest idea which component of the item in question is generated by which of the two motives, and I strongly believe that it will not be long before the Treasury itself loses sight of the distinction.
In the end, it will be the Government—and, of course, those who elected them—who will suffer from not understanding their own rhetoric expressed in their own statistics. That is the very fate that befell regime after regime in circumstances in which there was not the same degree of public accountability as we in a democracy are used to. It became genuinely impossible for decent people trying to run a country such as Czechoslovakia to understand their own accounts, because they had been so concocted that those who concocted them had lost sight of the motives and techniques of concoction. That is a fate to which we have not yet succumbed, and we must never succumb to it.
Mr. Cousins: We have been having a most interesting debate within the debate. The hon. Gentleman offers the example of Czechoslovakia—I do not know whether that
310
is intended to upset us. One of the interesting features of the former communist regimes in eastern Europe is that they drew no distinction between capital and revenue, but neither did British public sector accounts until the innovations made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Those are the very innovations which the hon. Gentleman criticises, and he makes heavy weather of the resulting difficulty in presentational terms. However, does he disagree that the current Government were entirely right to bring about a long overdue revolution in British public accounts by introducing a distinction between capital and revenue, which all of us—every enterprise, company and household—make as a matter of daily routine?
Mr. Letwin: No, I do not disagree at all. It is entirely right that the resource accounting process, which began under the previous Government and has admirably been continued under the current Government, along with the national asset register, the effort to create some principles, including the fundamental underlying principles of the golden rule, and the distinction between capital and current, are all common currency—I should not say that—and are all commonly accepted on both sides of the House. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the methods of presentation are such as to make matters clear, or to keep matters obscure. I maintain that they are not such as to make matters clear.
The remedy is to have an independent body, statutorily established, that creates firm and clear definitions, just as the accountancy profession has, for hundreds of years—since the 13th century—in one way or another established definitions for private sector business. That is the appropriate way to set the standards for fiscal accounting. I do not claim perfection for previous Governments of either party. The situation is not unique—we have merely reached a pinnacle of obfuscations during the current Government's tenure—but there has been a lacuna for many years and it needs to be resolved.
Alas, the concern of the Sub-Committee was not with that matter. Even more regrettable is the fact that the White Paper says nothing about it. I hope that the Select Committee will continue its good work—[Interruption.] Notwithstanding the sedentary remarks of the right hon. Member for North Durham, I have read what the Committee has so far produced and I accept that it is moving in the right direction. However, I do not accept for a moment that the Government have shown the least sign of moving in the right direction.
The Government should strengthen the statistics commission and the role of the national statistician and increase the rights and powers of those bodies to ensure that matters that they think should be documented in certain ways, not things which Ministers think should be documented, are so documented. The Government should also establish an independent commission that will govern the definitions and principles of national accounting, so that we are never again faced with an incomprehensible 189-page set of statistics that diminish democracy and the ability of Government to govern.
7.8 pm
Sir Michael Spicer: I think that it was Disraeli who coined the aphorism:
"lies, damned lies and statistics."
Much of today's debate has underscored the political warning implicit in that statement. Disraeli would have enjoyed the fact that the first subject debated in the

311
spillover Session is statistics, although that probably has more to do with lack of demand from other quarters than with any obsession with statistics on the part of the business managers. However, there is no doubt that statistics deserve Parliament's close attention, for at least two reasons that have already been touched on.
First, statistics are often—not always—useful props to Government propaganda, and sometimes they are of critical importance. Examples have been quoted by hon. Members on both sides of the House of the way in which unemployment, health and education statistics have been presented. Such statistics have formed part of the propaganda of Governments from both sides. Secondly, statistics sometimes—but not always—play a vital role in the formation of policy. Some examples have been given this evening, the most obvious current example being the retail prices index and the average wages index and their effect on the interest rate policy of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee. I shall come in a moment to other examples, including European trade statistics and statistical decisions that might or might not be made about the single currency, which can have policy implications.
As has been said, a national statistical service has two requirements. First, it should be independent and, secondly, it should be open—especially when matters are subjective and when the methodology upon which the statistics are based is changing.
The report of the Treasury Sub-Committee—I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) and his colleagues on their achievements—states clearly that neither independence nor openness apply fully to national statistics in general or to the Office for National Statistics in particular. Several relevant examples have been given in this debate.
On the question of independence, the RPI—which is crucial to policy determination and propaganda—remains within the power and gift of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The report's recommendation (b) addresses that issue in particular.
As to openness, the report documents fully the average earnings debacle. It is a nice coincidence that we are debating this issue on the day that the average earnings index has apparently reached 4.9 per cent., which was the same figure cited in June 1998. That was an overstatement and the real figure was apparently much lower. The report states clearly that there has been no openness in describing national statistics in a way that the public can understand.
The real question that we are debating tonight is what will happen as a result of the Treasury Committee report, the publication of the White Paper and this debate. The omens are not good. The White Paper—which is, perhaps significantly, black rather than white—was produced yesterday without any real notice. I am told that Treasury Committee staff did not know about the imminent publication of the paper until fairly late on Friday. That is quite extraordinary, especially given that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues had worked on the paper for a year. I am told that the document was produced at a press conference at which journalists were controlled unusually tightly: only six journalists were permitted to attend and they were allowed to ask questions for only 10 minutes. So much for open government and so much for the aspirations of the black paper.
312
At the beginning of the paper, the Prime Minister says:
"In the consultation document 'Statistics: A Matter of Trust', the Government emphasised its intention to seek a new relationship with citizens based on openness and trust. I believe that having access to official statistics which we can all trust is essential in any healthy society."
On the facing page, the Economic Secretary begins her contribution by saying:
"The Government is committed to establishing public confidence in official statistics."
A nice photograph of the hon. Lady accompanies those comments. She may not have had much of a chance to influence policy decisions, but there was obviously time to print her picture—which is rather better than the slightly indifferent photograph of the Prime Minister that appears on the other page. The aspirations in the Economic Secretary's comments and throughout the black paper do not square with the way in which the paper was produced.
As to openness, the fundamental point that has been made in this debate is that vital statistics—the RPI and information about hospital waiting lists and educational performance, for instance—remain under direct ministerial control. That is contrary to the basic proposition advanced by the Treasury Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pointed out clearly that the pivotal point in the Select Committee's recommendations has been refused. Therefore, there is no question—as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), said—that the White Paper flies in the face of the Select Committee's recommendations. Not only was it produced at the last moment in a manner that was pretty discourteous to all those involved, but, in essence, it contradicts the main recommendations of the Select Committee.
As to the future of the ONS and the way in which it operates, nothing seems to have changed since the average earnings debacle. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said that he was tossing a new thought into the proceedings and I shall toss a new piece of information to the House about openness and the way in which the ONS explains its statistics. I refer to correspondence initiated by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch this summer on the question of European trade statistics. He wrote to Dr. Holt about those trade statistics on 14 September and, in essence, said:
"When … the 1999 Pink Book is compared with … Economic Trends in December 1998, it becomes apparent that very substantial re-allocations have been made between countries."
He then instances this case and states:
"Income in respect of EU '14': it appears that Credits have been increased (compared with the figure given in December 1998 Economic Trends); while Debits have been decreased, resulting in a 'swing' in aggregated Balances over that period of £37.6 billion … In other words, the 'picture' suggested in the December 1998 Economic Trends breakdown, of the UK having a more-or-less structural 'Income' deficit with the rest of the EU … now turns out … not to have been the case. The new Pink Book appears to indicate the opposite: that the UK has an on-going 'Income' surplus with the EU".
That is quite important information. Dr. Holt replied to that letter on 4 October, and said:
"Dear Lord Pearson"—

313
I shall quote key extracts from the letter—
"First, let me say that estimating portfolio investment and associated income flows across international boundaries is one of the most difficult parts of national accounting statistics … The statistics we publish are therefore subject to wider margins of error than most of our other statistics.
This problem is not confined to the UK. Other countries face the same difficulties. Indeed, it has been a matter for international discussion for many years. In 1992, a committee under the auspices of the IMF felt that to address the problem there should be a survey … The results of this survey, although only partial thus far, are the cause of much of the revision you refer to in your letter."
The fact that the IMF has sponsored an international survey on those statistics is revealed, and some rather complicated arguments ensue. That disclosure was prompted by a letter; none of the information was forthcoming when the statistics were produced—even though they are profoundly important when making policy decisions.
For instance, policies towards monetary union and the single currency may hang to some extent on such trade statistics. To come out blandly with figures on trade flows for one year that say the opposite to what was shown for the previous year, and then—only when prompted—to add that all the statistics are very subjective and difficult, and moreover are subject to international surveys, IMF reports and so on, does not square with the objective of openness.
The Committee has been nosing around those matters for a whole year now, and the ONS and its head must have known that questions would be asked about openness, and about describing what the methodologies were, and when they were required. There have certainly been definitive questions about subjective judgments. All those ideas have been floating around, and have been the subject of intense questioning by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and his colleagues on the Committee. What is so difficult to understand is that, even this summer—this month, indeed—we have still heard examples of bland assurances and remarks that prove that the need of people outside to know and understand why statistics have been produced in a particular form is not taken seriously. All that seems to continue, despite the work that my right hon. Friend and others have done.
The obscurantism is profound; the latest information that one can glean suggests that it is still there. The problem needs to be addressed, yet I understand that Dr. Holt is to leave his job before Christmas, and no replacement has yet been made.
The White Paper says that there will be a statistics commission. I hope that colleagues both on the Committee as a whole and on the Sub-Committee will take a strong interest in that prospect, because this cannot be the end of the matter. We now have the White Paper, but it has denied the essence of what the Committee wanted. It would seem that the people producing the statistics are still carrying on with their bad old ways. For all the reasons that have been given in the debate, we must continue to watch the matter carefully, and I hope that we shall do so.
7.23 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I add my congratulations to those of my colleagues to the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury. May I reassure her
314
that we are in no doubt that she is a human being? I also congratulate the Committee on its excellent report, which recognises the growing role of statistics in the political process.
Nowhere is that more true than in health, the subject on which I speak, and which I would like to draw into the debate. Statistics are critical in measuring performance, determining the allocation of resources and setting policy targets—all uses of statistics that were singled out by the Select Committee.
A Government's performance on health is seen as a barometer of their overall success or failure, so the use of statistics to demonstrate relative success or failure will have an important effect on the future electoral chances of any Government. I therefore argue strongly the case for health statistics to be taken into the ambit of the Office for National Statistics.
As we know, the ONS does not collect centrally data on health or expenditure on health. As a relatively new politician, I say that there is a need for independent collation of statistics, so as to allow more objective assessment. There are many areas in which the Department of Health does not publish national data, despite the fact that we are talking about a national health service. As a former member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I inquired about the booking system for the maternity services required at the time of the new millennium, and the crisis that we may face at the end of the year. When I asked about the additional number of bookings for women due to have babies at the time of the date change, I was told that the information was not available centrally.
I found that frustrating in my work, because I was trying to assess whether there had been a rapid increase in demand for maternity services at that time, and to assess the sort of provision that had been made in our national health service.
Many other important health statistics are not collected centrally. So as to be even-handed, and in case my point about the lack of centrally collected data might appear partisan, I did a little research on questions asked by Members from other parties.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) asked a question about MRSA. I shall not attempt to pronounce the full version of that term, but it is a drug-resistant infection by the staphylococcus bacterium. When the hon. Gentleman asked for the basic statistical information about the number of infections by that bacterium, the response was:
"there are no centrally held statistics on deaths from this cause."—[Official Report, 5 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 352.]
That would have frustrated him in his work as a Member of the House in trying to get to the bottom of the subject.
Another important national issue is the high rate of abortions in this country, about which questions have been asked by Members in all parts of the House. Specifically, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) wanted to know the cost to the national health service of abortions carried out in the first trimester. She received the same sort of reply—that the information requested was not centrally collected. That is another example of an important area of the national health service's responsibility in which it is difficult for Members of Parliament to carry out their work and make assessments based on nationally collected data.

315
Another important question—indeed, it was raised by the Opposition during Health questions today—is the rise in the instance of autism, and whether there is any correlation between that and the introduction of the triple vaccine for mumps, measles and rubella. The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) once asked how many health authorities held a database with detailed information about how many people had autism. Again, she received the dry reply:
"The information requested is not held centrally."—[Official Report, 9 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 539.]
All those examples show how difficult it is for Parliament and parliamentarians, whether they are on the Government or the Opposition side, to carry out their work when data concerning our national health service are not centrally collected.
As several hon. Members have said, statistics about patients waiting for treatment in the national health service have become something of a political football. In that regard, the trust in statistical information that has been mentioned has been called into question. There is a huge temptation for Governments to manipulate statistics to meet political targets.
In closely examining the use of waiting lists, we have discovered that not a little use of smoke and mirrors is being practised. It transpires that there are main waiting lists, subsidiary waiting lists and lists of people who are not on any lists at all. Only the main list counts, and it concerns the time that somebody waits between seeing a specialist and getting treatment.
The officially collected statistics on the waiting list of patients in the national health service take no account of the number of people who are waiting to get on the waiting list. According to the Government's own statistics, that number is about 190,000, which is an increase of 140,000 since they came to power. That staggering increase in the number of out-patients who are waiting to get on to the list has arisen as a direct result of the Government's attempts to reduce the main waiting list. It creates great confusion for people who are waiting for treatment and whose experience does not match the vaunted claims about falling waiting lists.
There has been a policy of removing certain patients from the list, and that has been done by creating a subsidiary list. There are several examples of that practice around the country, but I shall just use one of them, which is sufficient to make my point. A memorandum from the Bradford Hospitals NHS trust states:
"Following new NHS guidelines, patients on waiting lists for operations to remove metalwork are not to be included in the monthly returns. To enable us to identify patients more easily, a new list '05' has been set up."
One wonders what list 05 is. One thing is for certain, it does not appear in the headline figure for the waiting list of patients by which the Government invite the electorate to judge their performance. That causes me considerable disquiet as a parliamentarian, because the people on the 05 list have disappeared from the national statistics that we have received from the Government and that have been used as a measure of their performance.
Certain operations are being collated on an alternative list, which does not count in the overall tally. It is significant that this ruse started in June 1998, which was the month when the numbers on the main list supposedly began to fall.
316
We are also beginning to see the use of time-efficient operations—as opposed to more complex operations—to manipulate the figures. The trouble is that, if the target is to reduce statistically the number of patients on the list, that will have a huge impact on clinical priorities. It is a fact that to reduce the numbers on the main waiting list, there has had to be an increase in the number of minor conditions that are treated. If all cases of in-growing toenails are treated quickly, that will reduce the size of the list, whereas if the operations that are carried out are for cardiac by-passes, which take longer, are more expensive and reduce the budget, the wait will be much longer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) pointed out that this use of statistics distorts priorities for health care. Not only do we deplore that, but, in the decision of the new Secretary of State for Health to have what he called a change of tack and to put fresh emphasis on the treatment of cancer and heart disease, we detect a recognition on his part that clinical priorities have been distorted by attempts to reduce the waiting list statistically.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only clinical priorities that have been distorted, but the figures for NHS personnel? Will she comment on the British Medical Association's discovery yesterday that the announced additional 400 consultants are already in the system?
Mrs. Spelman: I was going to come to that, because it is another example of the "Jack Straw style of creative accounting" to show the number of people working in a public service.
The statistical debate on waiting lists has obscured the facts about how long people are actually waiting. That is all that matters to a patient. They do not want to know how many people are in front of them or behind them on the waiting list: they want to know how long it will take. It is hard for an ordinary person to get that information. That is yet another case for having health data collected, collated and published through the Office for National Statistics.
There has been a large increase in the number of people waiting more than a year to be seen. The figure is up from 30,000 to 48,300 since the election, which is an increase of 61 per cent. in two years. During the past two years, the number of patients waiting to be seen after being referred to a specialist has also increased.
MPs have recourse to the House of Commons Library and, if requested by our constituents, we can obtain information. In March 1999, in response to a request from a constituent, I asked the Library about the number of people waiting more than 13 weeks for treatment. The figure given to me was 248,000. By June 1999, that figure had risen to 485,000, so between March 1999 and June 1999 there was an increase of 84 per cent. That statistic shows what happens when clinical priorities are distorted so as to produce a reduction in the headline figure for the main waiting list.
The House of Commons Library has also given me the figure for the number of patients still waiting for more than 13 weeks. The number of people who have waited 13 weeks or more has increased by 115 per cent. The average waiting time is a more useful statistical measure of the performance of the national health service,

317
and closer to people's experience of treatment under the NHS. The average waiting time between being referred to, and being seen by, a specialist has gone up from six to seven weeks. Without an independent official statistical source, it is difficult to get such information into the public domain.
Although the Government have said today that, with only 30,000 to go, they are on target to meet their promised reduction in the in-patient waiting list, the number of people on the out-patient waiting list is steadily increasing. It will be easy for the Government to achieve their target and to pronounce that their early election pledge has been fulfilled, but it will not reflect the true position or people's real experience of having to wait longer to be seen and, on average, to be treated.
Other statistics for the health service have been quoted, such as the 400 extra specialists. The new Secretary of State was quoted in The Guardian as saying that they were extra resources, but only a day later that was denied by the BMA. In fact, those specialists are already training in the system. The correction of such information by the profession concerned does nothing to build trust in the use of statistics by Departments.
The use of statistics in a misleading way can undermine trust. The new Secretary of State announced that the £15 million was new money, but it is not new money: it is part of the £21 billion allocated to the health service in the spending review that was announced by his predecessor. The money is new only in the sense that it will not be borrowed from other NHS departments. That nuance is lost on the public. When it becomes the subject of a debate about the truth of the matter, public confidence in the initial statements is undermined.
I want to make a strong case for the inclusion of health statistics in the remit of a reformed Office for National Statistics, rather than leaving their publication to the Home Department. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) said that the collection of statistics should be free from political interference. Nowhere is that more true than in the health service.
I could not agree more with the recommendation that the decision about which data the ONS ought to publish should lie with a statistician outside Government. A cursory reading of the White—or black—Paper led me to identify only one item that troubled me greatly. I read very clearly that it was the Minister who would decide, and that leaves me dissatisfied. I fear that insufficient independence will be involved in the remit for data collection—in decisions about what should be collected, and about how it should be published—if the final decision rests with the Minister. I fear that the temptation will be too great for the Home Department to restrict access to information which, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pointed out, could prove inconvenient to Government if it came out.
For that reason, although we wholly endorse the Government's pursuit of a method of collecting statistical information that will build trust, we are anxious to hear the Minister's latest thinking, in the hope that it will give us a degree more assurance than the White Paper gives us that the long arm of Government can be kept well clear of the collection of information that must be accurate,
318
accessible and reliable if ordinary people are to be able to assess properly the performance of a Government and the public services within their care.
7.42 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I thank all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have welcomed me to my new post and given me their kind good wishes. I also thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for his hesitation on the question of my humanity, which was welcome. I note that he did not agree with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who clearly thinks that I am human—another example of the Opposition's failure to arrive at a common policy.
Mr. Letwin: I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not want anyone who was not present earlier to be in the slightest doubt when they read Hansard. I fully recognise the Minister's humanity.
Miss Johnson: I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's response, but I realise that he had to make up for his earlier comments about a common currency, and that he is very much on message now.
I thank the Treasury Committee and its Chairman, and the Sub-Committee and its Chairman, for producing the report and providing the subject of today's debate. I am delighted to be able to announce that yesterday we published a White Paper entitled "Building Trust in Statistics", although I am sorry that the timing has caused consternation to some. We can now deliver—and are delivering—on yet another of the Government's manifesto commitments: the transparency of the arrangements included in the White Paper will further our aim of making government more open.
The then Economic Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), launched the process at the beginning of last year, when we published our Green Paper "Statistics: A Matter of Trust". The Green Paper stimulated a wide-ranging debate about how we should proceed, and the White Paper is very much a result of that. Following our consultations, we have decided that the best way in which to secure the independence of the statistical service is to create a statistics commission, which will be independent of the users and the producers of statistics. It is worth noting that that is what 70 per cent. or more of respondents to the consultation requested, in the context of independence and accountability. A number of Members on both sides of the House asked about that.
The commission will report to Parliament annually, if that is Parliament's wish, which will create a very different environment. It will play a key role in strengthening quality control of official statistics, ensuring that they are trustworthy and that they respond to users' needs. The overriding aim is to establish public confidence in official statistics. Not all members of the commission will necessarily be statisticians; users may also be represented.
A good deal of time was rightly spent on the question of appointing a national statistician. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) spoke of the importance of the calibre and authority of such an individual—and, indeed, we want to appoint someone of

319
international calibre, given that that person will bring about a key development in terms of the transparency and accountability of national statistics in the future. We see that as a major professional responsibility.
The White Paper also sets out the roles and responsibilities of Ministers, of the commission and of the national statistician, and—as I have said—suggests that Parliament may wish to consider how it deals with questions relating to national statistics in the future. In response to comments made by the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), let me also say that we consider this to be one of the ways in which we can involve leadership in the process.
The Office for National Statistics is and always will be at the heart of national statistics in this country. Today's debate has raised many of the points discussed in the recommendations of the Sub-Committee's report; the White Paper meets those recommendations, and goes even further by providing a sound base for the delivery of public confidence in our official statistics.
Mr. Letwin: I thank the Minister for giving way again. She said that the White Paper had "met the recommendations" of the Select Committee. Is she asserting that recommendation (b)—that the national statistician, rather than the Government, should decide which statistics are governed by the new commission—has been met by her White Paper?
Miss Johnson: I would prefer to come on to my answers to that point later. I am trying to weave into my speech the many points that have been made during the debate, as well as addressing other points that remain to be addressed.
The new arrangements reflect the strong consensus that emerged from the consultation exercise. Those arrangements will deliver quality-assured statistics of integrity and relevance. They will be implemented on a non-statutory basis to secure the benefits as soon as possible. It is important for me to emphasise that that is one of the reasons for implementing them on a non-statutory basis at this stage. As is clearly explained in the White Paper, however, that matter will be the subject of further consideration by the new statistics commission. We do not rule out legislation, but we hope that it will not prove necessary.
I am conscious that the debate was probably prompted in part by the average earnings index scrutinies which exposed some shortcomings on the part of the ONS. Several lessons can be learned from the scrutinies, and I assure hon. Members that they have, indeed, been learned. Indeed, they can go a long way to promoting future success and countering complacency. A major lesson is that, no matter how highly its products are regarded, there will always be room for the ONS to improve, to innovate and to examine its statistical procedures. It is doing just that, and some of the procedures that are now in place result from the average earnings index scrutinies.
The ONS has a long-standing continuous programme of improvement, and is now doing, and will continue to do, even more. For example, many changes were made to the AEI before its relaunch. Many of the issues that were raised in the Turnbull and King report were addressed before the relaunch of the index. Those changes are critical as they will deliver quality more widely across Government statistics.
320
To my grief, several hon. Members have given the impression that there is something suspect about some ONS statistics. Statistics that are produced by the ONS are already of high quality. We aspire to even greater quality, but the ONS already offers a sound base for many of the decisions that are made in government.
We have published the efficiency review—of which many hon. Members are aware—and both reviews of AEI in response to the Committee's recommendations. Last December, my immediate predecessor as Economic Secretary wrote to the Committee to give details of the timing and responsibility of the AEI work. That is all in the public domain.
As I have said, the ONS is well regarded internationally. It produces timely, relevant data of high quality: the national accounts that it produces are equal to the best produced by our European partners. For a long time, the ONS has been regarded as an inward-looking organisation. That is all changing: today the ONS makes more extensive use of external expertise from universities and elsewhere. That will ensure that any improvements include best practice methodology.
To respond to user needs, which are continuously changing, an organisation needs to be flexible and attuned to those needs. It needs to prioritise continually. Therefore, the ONS is developing a comprehensive system to assess the views of users; the value of statistics in policy making; and the contribution of statistics to the economy and society. That addresses generally some of the points that the hon. Member for Meriden made. It will ensure that the ONS gets its priorities right, and that they stay right.
As I said, in terms of legislation, we took the view that implementing the new arrangements was the priority, but it is worth pointing out that several concordats and service-level agreements are already in place with regard to the future work of the ONS. The service-level agreement with the Bank of England has already been completed and signed.
Mr. Cousins: Can the Minister confirm that the statistical commission will have full access to those service-level agreements and concordats with the devolved Parliaments, and that it will review them, maintain their integrity and report on their significance, unencumbered by any difficulty in getting Treasury Ministers' approval to do so?
Miss Johnson: The arrangements on devolution are that we have service-level agreements with the devolved Administrations. The ONS in any case has direct responsibility for Wales. However, as envisaged by the working party and in the memorandum of understanding to which my hon. Friend referred, we anticipate that arrangements will be made to protect the integrity of national statistics and to enable the devolved Administrations to receive the figures that they require to work on a devolved basis. The ONS hopes that, as a result of all that, customers and users will be able to be involved in prioritising and in the quality-assurance process.
We share the Committee's view that high-quality official statistics would be improved by increased timeliness and accessibility. It is widely accepted that the vast range of statistics produced by the ONS is extensively used by Government and the public alike: indeed, it is important that there should be a wide range of users.

321
Statistics give us a picture of the fabric of the nation, and inform policy decisions both inside and outside Government. That is one reason why a review of release practices is under way at the ONS. and will be published shortly, but the ONS has already made much progress in getting its first releases available on the world wide web. All first releases appear on the ONS website within five minutes of release, and the office is looking to improve the arrangements for the remaining releases.
Several of the Committee's recommendations proposed changes in ONS's internal arrangements to improve management and research capabilities, and the White Paper addresses the workability of ONS management arrangements to secure those objectives; the lack of strategic vision in some aspects of past ONS work; and the need for strong leadership. In particular, the White Paper stresses the need to strengthen management at the ONS to give much greater emphasis to quality issues. Several hon. Members have recognised the importance of that particular dimension of change. Following the efficiency review and scrutiny of the average earnings index, the Government have accepted proposals from the ONS director to strengthen the senior management structure.
The new management includes new directors of economic and social statistics, who will promote a more coherent set of national statistics not just within the ONS but across national statistics generally. That will help to plug gaps in coherence and coverage across government as a whole.
Quality control of national statistics and the research capabilities of the Government statistical service in general need to be beefed up. That was clear from the AEI review and the Committee's recommendations, so we are creating a new director of methodology and quality post at a senior level.
The right hon. Member for Fareham referred to the way in which the ONS considered criteria for determining priorities. I should make it clear that the plan is that a guide should be developed that explains the process and the factors involved in the consideration of priorities. That will build on the existing method, whereby pressures—for example, from new users—are balanced against resources for planning. That is an important element of the way in which we proceed in deciding which statistics are to be developed and paid for, and which we regard as not important in terms of overall information.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked for a commitment that there would be consultation on the framework document. We have had a long consultation period and the whole process, including publication of the White Paper yesterday and the debate today, has been long drawn out, as hon. Members have commented. We now want to move forward as quickly as we can. The hon. Gentleman's wishes might be reasonable in an ideal world, but at this point we want to get on and implement the new system.
Mr. Edward Davey: Does the Minister realise that I was passing on a question to the Government from the president of the Royal Statistical Society? Is she not disturbed that the president is disappointed at the Government's White Paper and believes that they should
322
accept the Select Committee's recommendation (b) that the statistics commission, not Ministers, should decide on the scope of the statistics to be covered?
Miss Johnson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will come shortly to the question of the scope of the statistics, but if we go through a further consultation, which—with all due respect to the Royal Statistical Society—would have to include other organisations, we will have a much more elongated process. In that case, I imagine that hon. Members would wish to grill me at some future date about why we had not made more progress.
On the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on access by the director, or the national statistician, to the Prime Minister, the Government agree that access to the Prime Minister on integrity matters is important. That is why we have maintained it in the White Paper.
The ONS is responsible for statistics arising from the registration of births and deaths. Those statistics result in the calculation of death and infant mortality rates, which are used to monitor policy and to allocate resources. The statistics also include the cause of death—such as cancer or heart disease—the number of abortions and teenage pregnancies, and cancer rates and survival rates.
Mrs. Spelman: As I said in my question on MRSA, data collection methods do not recognise the category of death. Therefore, although the number of deaths may be collated, the statistics will tell us nothing about the trend in different categories of death.
Miss Johnson: Perhaps I can best deal with the hon. Lady's point by elaborating on some of the other points that I should like to make.
Currently, there is not a very clear distinction between national, Government statistical service and departmental statistics. Let me give a couple of current examples of the confusion surrounding types of statistics which should be dealt with in discussions on scope and framework.
Some major statistical surveys, and particularly one-off surveys, are not published under the ONS logo. Currently, even the annual Department of Health survey for England is not published under the Government statistical service logo. Moreover, as Northern Ireland has its own civil service, statisticians in Northern Ireland are not part of the Government statistical service and, consequently, their output does not appear under its logo.
We have a patchwork of arrangements. The source of statistics and the methodology used to produce them are not always obvious from the statistics themselves or from the credibility that they are accorded. However, the statistics commission, and the preceding discussions on the framework, should help us to strike the best balance.
I appreciate the frustrations expressed by the hon. Member for Meriden, but longer-serving Members experienced the same frustrations when the previous Government were in office. Labour Members have a long history of being in opposition, although we have no intention of returning to it. All the problems cannot be blamed on the Office for National Statistics.
We believe that the issues of who will bear the cost of producing statistics and who will categorise them will not only be addressed in the framework discussions but will become major features of the commission's work.

323
The hon. Member for Meriden asked which statistics will be collected, and how they will be collected. As I said, the current system is a patchwork, and the priorities will have to be discussed with the commission, with Departments and with the House. One matter that will have to be dealt with is the fact that, in many cases, Departments pay for the statistics that they collect. The statistics that the hon. Lady would like us to collect would also involve a cost.
Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister is obviously reaching the end of her speech. Will she confirm that the statistics that are currently controlled by Ministers—statistics, for example, on the RPI, waiting lists and education performance—will still be controlled by Ministers? If that is the case, what is the Minister's comment?
Miss Johnson: I shall address all those issues. This has been a very useful and good debate, with many worthwhile speeches and thoughtful comments. We believe that the scope will be dealt with in the discussions on the framework, and by the new commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central asked about the commission's work. The key words in our proposals are transparency and openness. Those words are not said lightly, and they will be backed by our actions. The commission will have full powers to comment on, and even to criticise in public, any proposals. It will also be able to decide on its programme and to make proposals of its own. We envisage that there will be an annual debate on the commission's report.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham asked about Ministers' role. There will be a public debate on ministerial views on statistics, and Ministers will be entirely accountable for their decisions. That is a vast improvement on the situation that pertained when the previous Government were in office—and, indeed, has pertained hitherto—in which all those decisions were made in private.
Mr. Letwin: If the hon. Lady is about to answer this question, I apologise for asking it once again. Has she not just admitted that Ministers will decide—that the crucial recommendation, recommendation (b), is not being fulfilled and that Ministers will continue to control most of the essential statistics?
Miss Johnson: The commission will be able publicly to say what it wants to say about any proposals or set of statistics. Ministers will be able to say whether they would like something to be included. Nevertheless, the matter will be for the commission, since if statistics are to qualify as national statistics, the way in which they are collected and audited will have to meet all the criteria established by the commission. The quality of statistics produced will have to be decided on the basis of the criteria for national statistics. If a Minister and the commission disagree on statistics, there will be a debate about what should be done with those statistics.
Mr. Letwin: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being most courteous, but I really do want to press the point. If the commission believes that it, rather than the Treasury, should control the definition and collection of data on the RPI, will its view or the Chancellor's prevail?
Miss Johnson: I shall deal with the RPI in a moment.
324
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made a very interesting speech on all the central issues surrounding the average earnings index. He made the point that international cost comparisons are fraught with difficulty. It is clear, however, that United Kingdom statistics are among the most highly regarded internationally and in Europe. Nevertheless, we must strive for further improvements. I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. He also mentioned what he regarded as the lack of a mechanism for determining ONS resources. On the contrary, the White Paper makes it clear that Ministers will determine resources. That will be done publicly, following advice provided publicly by the statistics commission, which will be more accountable for decisions.
The right hon. Member for Fareham asked why the advisory committee had been disbanded. I am told that that was done on the advice of the director of the ONS, in anticipation of the statistics commission being set up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central referred to the development of a monthly index of services, which is an exciting and important development. Services represent over 70 per cent. of the UK's gross domestic product and it is right that we have frequent and up-to-date information on this key sector. The UK will be one of the first industrial nations to achieve the compilation of that statistical series. That confirms our interest in the matter and our ability to be ahead of the game.
A number of hon. Members referred to the RPI, which is of special importance to the UK economy—as no hon. Member would dispute. It is worth while explaining how it is produced. The ONS is responsible for the compilation, presentation and publication of the index, its sub-groups and subsections. To listen to the hon. Member for West Dorset, one might imagine that it is produced by the Chancellor in a matter of moments. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the ONS is responsible for producing the RPI. That is a long-standing arrangement, as is the arrangement that the RPI remains ultimately under the authority of the Chancellor.
The detail is produced by the ONS, and any changes to be made to the RPI would have to be announced to Parliament. The Chancellor is answerable to Parliament for those changes, and that is the most direct form of accountability for something of major statistical importance.
Mr. Letwin: Does that not amount to saying that, although the technicians are provided by the ONS, all the critical decisions about the compilation of the index are made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Can she genuinely maintain that that is in any sense a fulfilment of recommendation (b)?
Miss Johnson: The Chancellor remains directly accountable to Parliament for what is done with the RPI. There is no evidence—nor has there been any suggestion—of any political interference. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to egg me on, I can contrast the present situation with what happened to the claimant count under the previous Government: over 18 years it was amended 30 times. Strangely, the vast majority of those amendments led to a large drop in the claimant count. I do not recall the Conservatives objecting to that.
Mr. Edward Davey: Why should the RPI be treated differently from every other statistic? The whole purpose

325
of having an independent statistics commission is to get reliability and integrity back into statistics for the reason to which she referred—the abuse of unemployment statistics by the previous Government. Why should the RPI still be under political control?
Miss Johnson: The RPI is of special importance to the UK economy and, for that reason, is directly—and under long-standing arrangements—under the authority of the Chancellor, who is accountable to this House.
Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Minister give way?
Miss Johnson: No, I will not give way. I have given way plenty of times.
The Government attach great importance to high-quality national statistics that command public confidence. At the heart of the production of those statistics will remain the ONS, both in its role as the major statistics organisation in the country and in its role in enhancing statistics across government.
I am confident that the processes and structures that we have put in place through the White Paper will ensure that, in future, the Office for National Statistics will be an outward-looking and innovative organisation, producing statistics to the highest standards of quality and integrity, and responsive to user needs.
We have great aspirations for the future work of the commission and the national statistician. We believe that we will end up with national statistics of greater transparency, and with more accountability built into the system, than anything we have seen in the UK. This will provide what so many hon. Members have supported—a recognition that we cannot have good government without good information. We believe that the changes we are making in the White Paper will lead to the good information on which even better government can be based.

Parliamentary Ombudsmen
[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration, Session 1998–99, Report of the Parliamentary Ombudsman for 1997–98 (HC 136); the Second Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration, Session 1998–99, Annual Report of the Health Service Ombudsman for 1997–98 (HC 54); the Second Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration, Session 1997–98, Report of the Health Service Ombudsman for 1996–97 (HC 352), and the Government's response thereto (HC 1055 of Session 1997–98).]
8.16 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: While listening to the previous debate—and to other exchanges across the Floor of the House—it occurred to me that there might be a case for having a statistical ombudsman to test some of the claims that are made. Perhaps the new statistics commission could spawn an ombudsman's arm to which we could send some of the disputed figures. However, I doubt whether we shall see that.
It is a great pleasure to introduce these reports from the Select Committee on Public Administration. The House will be aware that these are not the reports that have been wholly taking the Committee's attention recently, as much of its recent work has been concerned with looking at the draft Freedom of Information Bill. I am told that the Government are tomorrow to give their response to our deliberations, and we will look with interest at what they say following our extensive labours on that front.
It is a pleasure to introduce the reports and to invite the House to consider—albeit for a short time—the work of the ombudsmen and the work of the Select Committee in relation to them. However, it is also a source of regret—even shame—for the House that there has been no debate on the work of the ombudsmen in this Parliament; indeed, there has been no such debate since 1994. That is a source of shame, because I am referring to an institution or instrument devised by Parliament; I am talking about Parliament's instrument to hold the Executive to administrative account. Because of that, an analysis of and debate on the work of the ombudsmen through the Select Committee would give the House an opportunity to engage in some serious scrutiny of the work of Departments as monitored by the complaints that have come the way of the ombudsmen, and then been reported to the Select Committee.
It strikes me as ironic—even tragic—that the only people who come to these debates are my esteemed colleagues on the Committee. The people who should come are those who want to use the reports of the ombudsmen and of the Select Committee to interrogate Departments, which is what those reports enable them to do.
It is a source of great regret that the House does not have even an annual debate on the work of its own instrument. We should have an annual opportunity to engage in such interrogation. The House has an annual debate on the work of the Public Accounts Committee. It would be right and proper for us to have a similar annual debate on the work of the ombudsmen, as reported through the Public Administration Committee.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, he will be in the fortunate position of being able to tell us that there is a review of the work of the ombudsmen and

327
another on how the new NHS complaints system is working. It is a good pitch for a Minister to be on, because he can call in aid at least two reviews.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): For the sake of correctness, we are conducting an evaluation rather than a review of the NHS complaints procedure. We want to look at what is happening, build on success and identify the difficulties.
Dr. Wright: I was fearful for a moment that my hon. Friend's intervention was going to be rather more serious. However, I am glad to accept that we should be talking about an evaluation of the NHS complaints system, which has serious problems, as evidenced by an initial study. Hon. Members may want to say more about that later.
My serious point was that, although my hon. Friend can rightly call in aid the review and evaluation, it goes closer to his responsibility to say something to the House about why there is no annual opportunity to consider the work of the ombudsmen—an institution that was created by the House to do a particular job.
When I was thinking about the debate, I had a slight flight of fancy. Would it not be extraordinary if this year, with the Queen's Speech coming in a few weeks, the Government decided not to do the usual thing of announcing a raft of new legislation, but to spend the year trying to evaluate how well existing laws were working?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Marvellous idea.
Dr. Wright: I know that it is an outrageously splendid idea. The House is extraordinarily good at processing legislation. We assume that, as one year follows the last, another raft of new legislation will be processed. However, the House is very bad at evaluating—to use the Minister's word—how well the legislation and the administration of it is working. Through the ombudsmen and our audit and inspection regimes, the House could begin to look seriously at how the Government are working and how well existing legislation is being implemented, rather than always taking the more exciting course of introducing more. That is a deficiency in the operation of the House. The ombudsmen and the Select Committee give the House an opportunity to engage in that.
The ombudsman is a peculiarly British invention, although it is not a British word. There are more ombudsmen in this country than anywhere else. We may have borrowed the idea initially, but my goodness, we have run with it, developed it and proved its worth. We do not have a system of administrative courts. The ombudsman is a peculiarly British way of handling redress in relation to the state and public services.
Thirty years ago, there were great doubts about whether Parliament should set up the institution. The Conservative Opposition of the day, led in splendid form by Quintin Hogg, were very much against it. They argued that it would undermine Parliament, whose job it was to engage in redress of grievance, and that it would be improper for another institution to take on that role. That sounds quaint in the era of citizens charters and all the rest. It may just mean that it takes the Conservatives 30 years to catch up with developments. Who knows, perhaps they will be
328
raving Euro-fanatics in 30 years. It was a curious and revealing argument at the time, because although it was a proper constitutional point, it was nonsense and would have deprived the citizen of the opportunity to acquire a new device for seeking redress against administrative actions.
The system was set up in an interesting and distinctively British way, with odd terms that no one understood, such as maladministration. The ombudsmen were supposed to seek out injustices consequent on maladministration. They worked away at the framework that Parliament had given them to produce a highly effective instrument on behalf of the citizen. It bedded down and has been extended over the years. In the early 1970s, it was extended into the health service ombudsman scheme. In 1994, the ombudsman was given responsibility for the operation of the code of practice and access to Government information. In 1996 clinical complaints in the health service as well as the family health service were added to the health service commissioner's responsibilities.
The story is one of growth and development—and success. Thousands of citizens have had redress for maladministration because of the ombudsman scheme. They would not have had the opportunity otherwise, and the House should celebrate that.
The other feature of the scheme is that it has been a means whereby administration has been tested, and has had to account for itself and hopefully improve itself, too. There are administrative audit and performance monitoring functions as well. The ombudsman's activities in relation to disability living allowance some years ago, and more recently in relation to the Child Support Agency, were celebrated because they exposed the deficiency of the regimes, enabling people to secure justice and reforming the systems because of what the complaints had highlighted.
Mr. Brian White: Does my hon. Friend agree that great as those successes have been, they have not affected enough people? Many people's experience of ombudsmen is rejection at the first hurdle, and they could have been a far greater success had they taken on more cases.
Dr. Wright: I shall mention one or two of the problems, and my colleagues on the Committee will probably also wish to address those points. For the moment, I wish to emphasise the positive side of the story. To illustrate that in easy and personal terms, I have a constituent who took a complaint to the health service ombudsman. I noticed that the complaint was being examined by the Committee—I was not a member at the time—and asked my constituent if he wished to come here for the day to witness the Committee interrogating the health trust and health authority which were the origin of his complaint. He did so, and came out blinking in disbelief that his small, individual complaint had resulted in a Committee of Members of Parliament grilling health chiefs about how it could have happened. His regard for this institution increased immeasurably because of what he saw those Members of Parliament doing on that occasion.
Ms Margaret Moran: We celebrate the achievements of the ombudsmen as a
"sharp and piercing instrument of investigation",

329
as Richard Crossman called them in 1976, and which he bequeathed to us. However, does my hon. Friend agree that one problem of the current system is its complexity and the number of ombudsmen who exist? That militates against citizens understanding the system, leading to fewer referrals, especially to the parliamentary ombudsman. Is not that a cause for concern?
Dr. Wright: My hon. Friend's point about complexity and how many ombudsmen we now have gives me an opportunity to advertise my book. When I tried a few years ago to put together a little guide to the various complaints mechanisms that existed, I thought I would produce—at first for my own benefit—a modest little booklet. It ended up as a 400-page book—unavailable, I might say, from all good bookshops—about how complaints could be made. In the past year, the National Consumer Council produced an A to Z of ombudsmen and it described more than 20 schemes in the public and private sectors, all described as ombudsmen schemes. My hon. Friend is right to question whether that explosion of such schemes, or ombudsmania as it is sometimes called, produces its own difficulties.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's cogent speech with great interest. He is obviously very knowledgeable on the subject. Has his Committee considered the inconsistency between the positions of the local government ombudsman and the parliamentary ombudsman? Any citizen can complain to the local government ombudsman directly, but complaints to the parliamentary ombudsman have to be made through a Member of Parliament. Individual Members of Parliament will have different standards about which complaints are referred and, for a vast chunk of Government policy, the individual citizen cannot be sure whether his complaint will be referred.
Dr. Wright: That is a fascinating question to which I could give a long and fascinating answer. Perhaps other hon. Members will wish to contribute on that point. The short answer is that Parliament was most insistent when it set up this scheme that it wanted to retain control through what is called the filter—the Member of Parliament acting as the gatekeeper of the system. My view has been that it is difficult to sustain that because we have direct access now to the health service ombudsman, let alone the local government ombudsman. That is a real inconsistency and although I can understand Parliament's intention at the time, we have moved on since.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In the debate in December 1994, the hon. Gentleman was forthright in saying that the filter should go. He now seems to be equivocating a little. Has he changed his mind now that he has the chairmanship of the Committee?
Dr. Wright: I confess to my neighbour and friend that I have been waiting for responsibility to change my mind on all kinds of issues, but it has not yet happened. It has not happened on this issue either. I thought that I was making it clear that I considered it impossible to sustain an argument for indirect access when that is contradictory
330
across the ombudsman system. The ombudsmen themselves have expressed the view frequently that such access was no longer applicable, but the House has insisted on it in the past.
Currently, another survey of hon. Members is being held, covering that and other issues. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) has replied to it. All the replies will soon be collated, and we shall then know whether the present House of Commons believes that the filter should stay or go.
The success of what was seen as an innovation in 1967 has to a great extent turned on the character of the individual occupants of the ombudsman's office. I should like to take to this opportunity to state that I consider that Sir William Reid, who held that office between 1990 and 1996, provided a benchmark for performance in the role. That assessment is widely shared by people who knew him at close quarters, and by people in the outside world who used his services. This House has cause to be extremely grateful for his tenure in office. He set a standard for others to follow.
Given the importance of getting the right person in post, and the moves to extend the role of Parliament, it would be right for Parliament—perhaps through the appropriate Select Committee—to have a direct role in the appointment of a person who is the servant and instrument of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on that and respond at the end of the debate.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Surely there is an inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's argument. If the filter is to go, the parliamentary part of the ombudsman's title must also go, as must the degree of accountability to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It is possible to make a perfectly logical case for one alternative or t'other, but it seems to me to be difficult to make an equally logical case for both at the same time.
Dr. Wright: It may be that added responsibility, although it has not changed my views, has added to my store of contradictions. However, we must wrestle with such matters as we consider the review that is now under way.
So successful has the ombudsman system proved that it has been much emulated. There has been a proliferation of complaints bodies and ombudspeople everywhere. Indeed, I think that more are needed. I mentioned a statistics ombudsman, but we also need a rail ombudsman to sort out the fragmentation of redress and complaints machineries in the rail industry. We need, too, a utilities ombudsman to sort out the difficulties encountered in complaining about some of the utilities.
I believe that we have further to go in developing the ombudsman idea. The point about that idea is that it is independent, rigorous and free. It should also be easy to access. Given the worry about the growth of litigation, especially in the health service, we should pay special regard to an institution that has all the merits that I have listed, and none of the deficiencies of systems involving courts and lawyers. That is worth thinking about in connection with the present evaluation of the NHS complaints system.
However, I am sure that some elements of the system will occasion comment today. They include the questions of indirect access that have been raised already, as well

331
as matters to do with the time taken by investigations, and the need to achieve a balance between finding redress for complainants and achieving an appropriately thorough investigation.
In addition, bodies covered by the ombudsman at present must be explicitly included in the schedules to the relevant legislation. The alternative method would be for the ombudsman service to cover all public bodies except those that are specifically excluded. I have always believed that matters should be arranged that way around. The Government, to their credit, have recently included many more public bodies, but the principle is still wrong.
Even more important issues arise over the connections between the parliamentary ombudsman, the health service ombudsman and all the other ombudsmen and adjudicator schemes that have developed in the public and private sectors. It is time to review what some would call diversity, but what others would call a mess. The review's purpose should be to see how we guarantee the integrity of ombudsman schemes.
If something is called an ombudsman scheme, it must have the characteristics that I have identified. How can we clarify and ease access to schemes, making it easy for citizens to use them? How do we achieve co-ordination between different schemes so that citizens can have complaints pursued, even if they cross boundaries? The example often cited is the boundary between health and social services, but there may be others.
If we must talk about joined-up Government—some people do not like that phrase; I do not much like it either—we must discuss joined-up redress as well. Government and the organisation of government are, for all kinds of reasons—usually good—becoming increasingly fragmented. Contracting out enables authorities to put other people in place to deliver services, for example. Fragmentation makes it more crucial that the means of complaint and redress should be simple and seamless. People should not need to understand the intricacies of boundary disputes to be able to have a complaint followed all the way through the system and to receive redress.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in giving way once again. Does he expect it to be the norm that where the ombudsman makes a recommendation, the Department involved should follow it? If that is not so, there seems little point in having an ombudsman. In a recent constituency case—which I accept is not quite in the same area—Ofwat made a recommendation that Thames Water refused to follow. Would that not make a nonsense of the whole ombudsman system?
Dr. Wright: Almost certainly it would. However, I have said that the ombudsman system is a distinctively British invention. One of the things that makes it distinctive is that the ombudsman does not have the power to command Departments to do what he says they ought to do in redress, but, because this is Britain, Departments always do it. There is a convention that that should happen, and if Departments do not abide by it, they are marched before the Public Administration Committee and given a good talking to. Other people do these things more formally, but that is how we do them.
The Queen's Speech will not, of course, take up my recommendation of a year of rigorous administrative review. However, Parliament can ensure that we use the
332
instrument that we have created both to give redress to citizens and to keep an eye on how government is working. That is what the ombudsman does, and that is what the Public Administration Committee's reports on the work of the ombudsman enable the House to do.
8.44 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: I am delighted to participate in the debate. I am a member of the Public Administration Committee, but was not a member when the proceedings and investigations took place. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), who chairs the Committee, eloquently said that it was right to hold a debate on the ombudsman, and I agree that it is a shame that it has taken five years to get round to it.
The ombudsman clearly has a critical role. Ombudsmen are at the cutting edge when it comes to hearing and understanding the raw concerns of our constituents about the problems and difficulties of services. They provide a link to Westminster by which those issues may be raised. For many constituents, they also provide a final chance, after many other methods have been tried, to raise concerns. People often turn finally to the ombudsman in a great deal of frustration.
Given that the ombudsman has that critical role, it is a pity that many of my colleagues who came here in the 1997 intake have little understanding of that role and the way in which Members of Parliament should work alongside that office. That is one of the concerns that I put before the Minister tonight. When I was elected I certainly did not have a clue about what the ombudsman did—from speaking to colleagues, I know that the same was true of them. I did not know where one could get hold of papers with which to refer cases on to the ombudsman. I did not know that one had a statutory responsibility to sign the document, whatever. I certainly had no idea whether, to sign it, one had to understand and take up the merits of the case. I had little idea of whether the ombudsman had the power to do X, Y or Z.
If we are to deal with some of the issues highlighted by the report, such as the use and take up of the ombudsman, we need more education and information for some of the newer Members. Perhaps some Members who are stuck in their ways also need a little reminding of how the system works.
Mr. White: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the confusions was that one might come across two similar cases, one of which was accepted by the ombudsman and one which was not? How does one judge the right way to put forward a case? That is one of the confusions suffered by the new intake of Members in the early days.
Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. For many Members it was trial and error. Someone came to the surgery with a case and I seemed to remember that six months before I had got away with it and the ombudsman had accepted a similar case, so I thought that I might do so again. Having a simple list next to one at surgery, showing which cases can and cannot be referred, would be a starting point.
That brings me to what is being called the Member of Parliament's filter. If Members are not clear how it works, then we must ask serious questions about that filter. I have

333
taken a particular view—I am sure that my colleagues have taken different views. I do not want to act as a filter. I am not going to judge individual cases. A constituent has the right to take a case forward to whatever level he or she chooses. I do not want to have to judge the case. If a Member's filter means making that judgment, I am not interested and I do not want to take part in that process. If we are saying that the filter means that one is advising a constituent whether the case is legitimate and can be taken forward or whether there is a better process, clearly the Member has a role to play there.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman must accept the fact that when the ombudsman was established he was—to use the words of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—to be a parliamentary instrument. The ombudsman was to be someone who would enable us to do our jobs more effectively. Therefore, if we take out the filter, as it is generally called, we change fundamentally the conception of the job. That may or may not be the right thing to do, but one must accept that it is a fundamental change.
Mr. Oaten: Bluntly, our difficulty with the system is that we cannot do our job effectively because the right number of cases is not getting through to the ombudsman, as the filter is not working. Perversely, a system that we put in place to build in links with Westminster and get information through to the Floor of the House is causing the problem in the first place. The filter is adding a blockage to the system. If we want it to work properly, we need to remove that filter. I see no reason why a strong ombudsman should not be able to bring issues to Select Committees and to the Floor of the House, but without the filter system. That would increase the number of cases that come through.
Helen Jones: The burden of what the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying is that parliamentary accountability and a Member's filter are not synonymous and that there are many better ways to ensure that ombudsmen are accountable to this House, perhaps through involvement in their appointment, and through regular reports and debates on the Floor of the House, while still giving individual citizens access to the ombudsman as of right and without hindrance. Would the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr. Oaten: The hon. Lady makes the point that I have been struggling to make for the past minute far better than I could.
The critical issue is that we get the information about what is going wrong with the system. How it comes to us does not matter a great deal. What should matter is that we know that it is coming to us in large amounts in the right areas. The filter has become an irrelevance to making that process work.
My experience as a Member of Parliament has surprised me. I regard myself as a busy MP; I have been accused of spending far too much time in my constituency. Like most colleagues, I get 500 or so letters a week and I am surprised at how few cases come from constituents asking me to refer their cases to the ombudsman. That brings me to my second concern,
334
which is a point that was well made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase. The lack arises not because people do not have problems but because they do not have a clue about how ombudsmen work. The whole system is a complete confusion to ordinary folk.
There is a maze of different complaint systems and organisations. We have ombudsman fatigue. I was alarmed when the hon. Member for Cannock Chase suggested adding ombudsmen, although he may have been jesting. Beyond that, we have the Audit Commission, district auditors and local government ombudsmen. The citizens charter introduced endless different sorts of ombudsmen. Those are only some of the people and organisations involved: we have Ofthis and Ofthat. On top of that, organisations such as Ofsted, the Highways Agency and—very properly—the Child Support Agency have created their own departments to manage complaints. Devolution in Scotland and Wales has added different tiers. We also have parish, local and county councillors and Members of Parliament. The book by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase may not be available but it should be compulsory reading for constituents.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Has the hon. Gentleman read it?
Mr. Oaten: I have not, but I need a copy. I shall get an unsigned copy because I am sure that they are more valuable.
The systems may well work and have been added to over the years. If we looked at them on paper, I am sure that we would see a great logical interaction but they do not work in the real world for real people. I am pleased that the Government are considering reviewing the ombudsman system, but I hope that they will be ambitious and go beyond ombudsmen to consider the whole range of other organisations to which people can complain.
Another problem is the terms that we use. The ombudsman is a very British thing that was created years ago but it is a title that means little to people these days. In reality, people see things such as "Watchdog" on television. I do not suggest that we call everything "The Roger Cook Team", but these days people are much more engaged in complaining to television programmes. That is the way things are moving. I suggest that we consider the names of such organisations and try to get user-friendly names that mean something to people.
I used to advise the Audit Commission on public relations. When we talked to the press or anyone else, people would glaze over when we said that our client was the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales. If we described it as the watchdog for the NHS and councils, people would come to life and understand what it did. We need to look again at these issues because our various ombudsmen are our national watchdogs. We need to start thinking in that sort of language.
Perhaps we need one big watchdog that can really bite. Imagine one organisation that led on all these issues so that the problem of to whom people should write and whether they had got the right watchdog or ombudsman was an issue not for the complainant but for the large organisation: a one-stop shop ombudsman or watchdog. That is the language that we need to use if we are to gain people's trust and make the link with Parliament. Ombudsmen and the

335
present structures are not the way forward. There is no doubt that we also need good practice, proper public accountability and audit trails. Perhaps we need to split those functions off and have clear watchdogs with a much freer rein to act in the way I suggest.
None of that would be needed if things never went wrong in the first place. We have not yet had a chance to focus on the systems that we need to consider and the recommendations from some of the ombudsmen's reports on putting structures in place to ensure that complaints do not arise.
The findings of the health ombudsman's report certainly give cause for concern. It suggests a patchy service in key areas. Politically, it would suit me to say that, according to the ombudsman, complaints in the NHS have increased by 8 per cent. That would be a cheap and rather crude political jibe and it would not be accurate. I accept that complaints are not an accurate measurement of how a public service is going. One could argue that a large number of complaints is a good thing. It suggests that people feel able to complain about the service and that the ombudsman is doing his job. I am convinced that if we shifted to a system of watchdogs, we would have hundreds more complaints. Opposition Members would no doubt say that that proved that there had been underinvestment in health and local government. The reality would be that the public felt engaged in the process.
There are lessons in the reports for the Government and I hope that the Minister will touch briefly on them. The power that the ombudsman now has to report on clinical judgments in the NHS has taught us some interesting lessons. When the ombudsman looked into issues of administration, he found that the key problems that caused difficulties were poor keeping of medical records and lack of communication within the NHS. When he gained powers to look into clinical judgments, he found that the same two issues caused problems time and time again.
The ombudsman said that lack of record keeping not only got in the way of his job but jeopardised patient care. Time and time again, we have seen—the point was raised in the debate five years ago—that poor communications in hospitals can have a serious medical outcome. The Audit Commission—another plug for it—produced a serious report on communications in hospitals. I hope that the Minister will reflect on some of its findings. We hear much about money being pumped into the health service, but some low-cost ways of improving performance could, if we are to believe the reports, have significant outcomes in medical terms.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I rushed in as soon as my hon. Friend started speaking, so I am grateful to him for giving way. Does he accept that the experience in the health service is that it is often far better if people can complain immediately to someone very close by who can deal with their anger, frustration or dissatisfaction? If they have to leave the complaint until later and go through some bureaucratic procedure, it is often too late.
336
If every bit of the health service had a structure within which people received information saying, "Unhappy? Talk to person X. Ring this number now", so that they could talk there and then to someone who was not directly managing their mother, sister or child in the bed—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be making a speech. I call Mr. Oaten.
Mr. Oaten: My hon. Friend is absolutely accurate. The first principle must be ensuring that mistakes do not happen in the first place. The second principle must be providing a local system for complaints. The third or fourth tier should be the ombudsman.
There is a good illustration of why complaints procedures will become critical. The ombudsman's report refers to litigation in the NHS. There is certainly a fear that we are turning into an American-style culture and that in future instead of going to the ombudsman, people will go to their lawyer as the first port of call. There is concern that litigation is getting out of control. I hear that the Government are looking into the question of litigation. I welcome that, but the estimates of £235 million seem set to grow in the future. I wonder whether the Minister will expand on or write to me later about how hospitals are managing that process.
I understand that hospitals make contributions to funds managed by the NHS for internal insurance against complaints and litigation. Are those funds adequate? How much does the NHS have to set aside for litigation? Is there a role for the private sector to step in and provide cheaper insurance?
I want to conclude by saying a little about the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—another complicated title. It essentially means the ombudsman who does the stuff that the health ombudsman does not do. Concerns are expressed in the report about the length of time that it takes to deal with complaints. Some of the reports say that the average time taken to deal with cases last year was 91 weeks. That is clearly unacceptable. It is good that the time is down from 100 weeks the year before, but clearly a lot more work needs to be done. The delay is of particular concern when we realise that sometimes the complaints are about the length of time that it took another organisation to help someone. It almost seems as though the ombudsman is rubbing salt into the wound by delaying that process. It greatly undermines the confidence of individuals if the people to whom they complain perform in the same poor way in relation to the problem. I am concerned that that should be looked into and that improvements should be sought.
I want to pick up on the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, concerning those organisations that have not been brought within the remit of the ombudsman. One that especially stands out is the Student Loan Company. I have received complaints about that company and, although a vast amount of its work might not fall within the remit of the ombudsman, some administration elements would benefit from having recourse to the ombudsman.
I have focused on the negative parts of the work of the ombudsmen. They do a great deal of work, but there is frustration that that work is only the tip of the iceberg. The potential to do much more is enormous—to bring

337
many more cases to the Floor of the House and to the Select Committee. However, we must be ambitious in developing the role of watchdogs in future. I hope that, when the review takes place, the Government will think creatively about a modern way in which we can engage with our citizens and give them confidence that, here in Westminster, we have the right systems to hear their concerns properly and democratically.
9.1 pm
Mr. Desmond Browne: I too welcome the opportunity to hold the debate this evening. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), my colleague on the Select Committee. Having heard what he did in a previous life, and the communication difficulties that he doubtless faced at that time, it is no wonder that, in a relatively short time, he is able to put to the House a quite fluent and coherent argument. I share the hon. Gentleman's desire for a greater awareness of the ombudsman's jurisdiction and of the role of Members of Parliament therein; I shall deal with that in more detail in a few moments.
Despite my membership of the legal profession—a qualification that I share with at least one other member of the Select Committee—I share the desire of the hon. Member for Winchester for clarity, and his concern about the growth in medical negligence litigation and the drain that that causes both on financial and on other resources of the national health service. I have some first-hand knowledge of that matter. I also share the craving for the demystification of jargon of which he spoke.
It is also a privilege to serve under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and to follow him in the debate. I have been a member of the Select Committee on Public Administration for only a few months. In common with the hon. Member for Winchester, my membership postdates the reports that we are debating—indeed, it postdates the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase. However, in that short time, I have come to realise why my hon. Friend has such a reputation in these matters. I shall say no more—[Interruption.] Shall we just call it an enviable reputation? I am in danger of talking myself into having to buy his book. Thanks to his chairmanship, to the prodigious output and the obvious skill and learning of our Clerk, and to the help of my Committee colleagues, I have learned much during the short time that I have been a member of the Select Committee. However, I take personal responsibility for the words that I shall utter tonight—they are all mine.
In 1966, Richard Crossman said that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was established to provide the Back-Bench Member of Parliament with
"an extremely sharp and piercing instrument of investigation."
Unfortunately, the parliamentary ombudsman scheme got off to an inauspicious start and attracted much criticism for its timidity. Over the subsequent 30 years, its reputation has been enhanced, to the point where it occupies
"a part of the fabric of the UK's unwritten constitution."
The quotation is taken from the first report of the Select Committee in 1990.
338
However, despite the undoubted success of the scheme in providing a weapon of parliamentary control over the administration of government—in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, "a highly effective instrument"—it does that only for a complainant who is able to seek the assistance of the ombudsman through a Member of Parliament.
Last year—30 years after that
"sharp and piercing instrument of investigation"
was created—20 per cent. of Members of Parliament found no use for it. The 550 Members who did refer cases referred, on average, only three cases each. Consequently, from a high watermark of 1,933 cases in 1996, the number of new referrals to the ombudsman has steadily decreased to an annual total of about 1,650.
Were the bald referral statistics the whole story, they would provide evidence equally for arguments that the ombudsman system was being appropriately used and for arguments that the system was being underused. However, Members of Parliament are clearly not referring to the ombudsman's office only such cases as they have reason to believe fall within his jurisdiction and they are unable to resolve themselves—the dual role that it was intended that Members of Parliament should play as gatekeepers to the system.
The ombudsman himself has advised Members that, in doubtful cases, they should not try to fathom the complexities of his jurisdiction, but should simply refer the cases to him. Hon. Members appear to have taken him at his word: as the ombudsman's reports down to the most recent one confirm, about 70 per cent. of cases referred to him have a subject of complaint that is not within his jurisdiction.
I would argue that, although the parliamentary ombudsman system has been an undoubted success and has provided a Rolls-Royce service in those 30 per cent. of cases that are either fully investigated or resolved informally, it has not been a success in respect of that countless unknown number of complainants who are potential clients of the service but who, for one reason or another, never get their cases to the ombudsman. We ought to address that problem, which has arisen as a consequence of several coincidental factors. I propose to draw the House' s attention to some of those factors and to suggest some solutions.
The first element in my argument is that the House of Commons has paid insufficient regard to the work of the ombudsman in the past, so we should not be surprised by the lack of awareness among the general public and newly elected Members of Parliament. It is widely recognised that, among other functions, debates in the Chamber serve to enhance parliamentary awareness of issues. It is now almost five years since the last debate on the work of the ombudsman, and I share other hon. Members' dismay at that delay.
In opening the last debate on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Mr. James Pawsey, then Chairman of the Select Committee, said:
"I welcome this debate; the first since 1991. Clearly that is far too long an interval and the House should be given greater opportunity to consider the work of the Parliamentary and National Health Service Commissioners."—[Official Report, 15 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1125.]
When responding to that debate, the then Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science could give neither Mr. Pawsey nor other hon. Members who had

339
raised the same point any assurance that there would be any more regular debates on the issue. However, I am sure that, were the former Minister still a Member of Parliament, he would be asking himself these questions: why is it now almost five years since the last debate on the work of the ombudsman, and how seriously does the House of Commons take that work, given that such irregular debates take place?
I recognise that, to an increasing extent, much of the valuable work carried out by and in the House of Commons is done outside the Chamber. However, given the nature of the service provided by the parliamentary ombudsman to Members of Parliament, one would have thought that a rare debate on the report of the Select Committee on the ombudsman's reports to the House would have attracted an audience and participation significantly wider than the members of the Select Committee itself.
I do not want to be misunderstood or misinterpreted—I am not arguing for the cancellation of debates if they do not attract the attention of many hon. Members besides the members of a specific Committee, supported by a few others with special interests or Front-Bench responsibilities. Debates such as today's—sparsely attended or not—at least have the intrinsic merit that they attract to the Dispatch Box a Minister who is briefed on the issues of the day.
When the Select Committee structure was established in 1979, the new Government at least appeared determined to give Parliament the teeth to monitor the work of Government Departments. The Procedure Committee that initiated the changes argued that a new balance had to be struck with the central aim of allowing the whole House to exercise effective control and stewardship over Ministers and the expanding bureaucracy of the modern state.
In introducing the proposals, the then Leader of the House referred to revolutionary changes that marked a crucial day in the life of the House of Commons. He said:
"we are embarking upon a series of changes that could constitute the most important parliamentary reforms of the century."—[Official Report, 25 June 1979; Vol. 969, c. 35.]
That historic perspective on the establishment of Select Committees was not shared by everyone—certainly not by all Members of the House. At the time of the debate on the substantive motion setting up the Committees, the then Member of Parliament, Willie Hamilton, contended that the whole process was
"the status quo in a different wrapping."
He continued:
"The Government are making these proposals precisely because they know they are cosmetic and will not change anything much."—[Official Report, 25 June 1979; Vol. 969, c. 98–99.]
Viewed from today's perspective, it would appear that the arguments for a new system advanced by the Procedure Committee then could be asserted with equal strength today. The Committee's report said:
"surveillance of the Executive will not be substantially improved unless other reforms take place, such as … among other things … more access to the Floor of the House of Commons."
There can be no criticism to the effect that the Select Committee on Public Administration or its predecessor, the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, have failed to devote sufficient time to considering the work of, and reports from, the ombudsman: on the contrary.
340
Indeed, when the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Ombudsman were appointed in 1967 and 1974 respectively, it is undoubtedly true that the Committee gave the ombudsmen backbone. The danger then was that the first Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, as a former civil servant, might bow to pressure from former departmental colleagues and, to coin a phrase, "stay native". The Committee encouraged him to think more confrontationally and, at least in important cases, to conduct individual investigations.
I argue that there was then creative tension between the ombudsman and the Committee. However, now that the system is fairly well established, the Committee has a close relationship with the ombudsman. It is a settled relationship that no longer appears to generate much creative tension, apart from the Committee's interest in the throughput time of investigations. The Committee appears to walk in stride with the commissioner, which has some benefits. However, when the relationship between the Committee and the ombudsman was at its most creative, the Committee was snapping at his heels.
The argument that the ombudsman and the Select Committee are a powerful combination for securing remedial action is a separate issue. Undoubtedly, nothing concentrates the mind of a reluctant Department better than the threat of a grilling before the Select Committee. There is no doubt that recalcitrant Departments threatened with this big step find it easier to come up with rather than refuse a remedy. However, that productive dynamic would not be undermined in any way if the Committee presented a more challenging and questioning face to the parliamentary ombudsman. I would argue that the Committee no longer does that, apart from on one or two minor issues.
I turn to the question of the Member of Parliament filter, and in this part of my contribution I hope to address the points made earlier by way of intervention by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—I am sure that, if I fail now, he will give me an opportunity to do so later.
I believe that a central reason for the underuse of the Parliamentary Commissioner can be found in the Member of Parliament filter. By putting in place the hurdle of the Member of Parliament filter in 1966, the House accepted three arguments. First, there was the practical reason that, without it, the parliamentary ombudsman would be inundated with complaints. The filter would keep such complaints at bay and within manageable limits. Those who now argue for the retention of the filter often say that the number of complaints to the ombudsman has reduced because of the increased number of alternative complaints procedures provided within Departments or organisations.
If that argument is true, the siphoning off of complaints to intradepartmental complaints procedures would help to stem the expected flood were the filter to be removed. As a member of the legal profession, I was never impressed by the floodgates argument when it was put to me from the Bench in connection with any decision.
Those of us who believe that the existence of the filter and the requirement for the intervention of a Member of Parliament—not the filtering provided by the Member, but simply the requirement for the intervention—have a stifling effect on potential claims, must accept that their removal would have serious resource implications.

341
However, we accept the commitment of additional resources to the identification of maladministration and the resolution of complaints as an appropriate expenditure which will lead to cost savings in the long run.
The filter may control the quantity of complaints received, but it does nothing to ensure equality of justice for all complainants, and generates a fundamental flaw increasingly out of kilter with modern thinking about access to justice for all. It is also out of kilter with the Government's ambitions for public services as set out in chapter 3 of the White Paper, "Modernising government". Paragraph 6 of that chapter says that the Government want public services that, among other things,
"make it easy to complain and get a result when things go wrong."
Secondly, the House accepted the argument that a filter would make the establishment of the ombudsman's office more acceptable to Members of Parliament who might otherwise have seen it as a rival to their grievance-handling activities. In 1999, do we really believe that a system that absorbs about 1,500 complaints a year, and rejects 70 per cent. of them, is a rival to Members of Parliament in their "ombudsman" and advocacy roles?
In 1997, communications from Members of Parliament to Ministers were estimated to amount to 200,000—the equivalent of about 300 per year per Member. If we compare that with the 1960s, when research shows that Members of Parliament were generating only about 20,000 letters a year, we get a flavour of how little threat an unfiltered ombudsman system would be to Members of Parliament in their exercise of that role.
In 1999, it is not the fear of a constitutional rival that threatens Members' parliamentary lives, but the increasing demands made of them to help their constituents. The number of people seeking the help of their Members of Parliament has increased dramatically. In the mid-1960s, the total mailbag for Parliament consisted of 10,000 letters a week. By 1997, that figure had increased to 70,000 letters, 40,000 of which were incoming mail. What does the arithmetic show? Do Members of Parliament answer 10,000 letters a week? That would be slightly disturbing—[Interruption.] No, they do not all come to me. There can hardly be a Member of Parliament who would not welcome some relief from that increasing burden.
Next, the House accepted what was described as the ground of the high constitutional principle—that the ombudsman should be an additional weapon in a Member of Parliament's armoury rather than a freestanding institution undermining Ministers' and Departments' accountability to Parliament. It is a good job that the frequency of, and the participation in, debates about the ombudsman's work are not the only measure of how highly Members have regarded that "high constitutional principle" since 1967.
How could an ombudsman who has no power to institute his own departmental audit, and whose annual reports merit pathetically few column inches in our national newspapers and almost no electronic media coverage, present any alternative to the constitutional position adopted by the House as a safeguard of ministerial responsibility?
In addition, possibly because of the complexities of the ombudsman's jurisdiction and remit, Members of Parliament apparently find it difficult to decide whether
342
complaints should be investigated by his office. As I have said, in most years 70 per cent. of the complaints sent to the ombudsman are outwith his jurisdiction. The modern Member of Parliament, whatever the historical precedent may suggest, seems content with the principle that cases may be referred to the ombudsman whether they would be more appropriately dealt with elsewhere or not.
To those reasons, I could add a lack of public awareness, which the hon. Member for Winchester spoke about. I throw one more statistic into the debate. The parliamentary ombudsman estimates that only 14 per cent. of the public know anything about him, never mind know and understand why he is there. I have no doubt that other hon. Members have their own reasons for their underuse of the parliamentary ombudsman, and they could add to the list to which I have treated the House in the past 15 minutes.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Twenty minutes.
Mr. Browne: I was careful to refer only to the part of my speech in which I set out those reasons: the other part was an introduction.
I have given sufficient evidence of the need for change. That said, I believe that it is time we had this debate, for several reasons. A new ombudsman has been appointed since the previous debate. In January 1997, when Mr. Michael Buckley was appointed, he brought a different approach to the office on a number of issues. It is clear from the marked improvement in throughput times and the efficient clearance of all cases that his approach is paying off.
On 30 March this year, the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced a review of the public sector ombudsman in England. That review is taking place in a post-citizens-charter age and at a time of modernisation. If the ombudsman's deliberations are to reflect that agenda, it is appropriate that the House put down some contemporary markers.
There has also been devolution in Scotland and Wales. Scotland and Wales have their own parliamentary commissioner or equivalent. It is interesting to note that, despite the constitutional difficulties that this may present, there is direct access to the Welsh ombudsman.
Finally, it is appropriate to remind my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that many of the undertakings made by the then Government in response to the 1994 review have been awaiting legislative time since then. I am sure that those undertakings will be considered under the current review.
I said that was my final point, but there is one other factor that makes it apposite to have a review. Lest it should have escaped the attention of hon. Members, I might point out that there has been a radical change in the party composition of the House of Commons since the previous debate, and my impression is that at that time it was older Members and Conservative Members who favoured the MP filter.
In conclusion, I offer three thoughts for consideration by the Parliamentary Secretary, by the Government's review and by the Select Committee. First, are the arguments for the MP filter still compelling? Secondly, does the ombudsman system provide value for money? Between them, the parliamentary ombudsman and the health

343
service ombudsman cost about £15 million, receive about 5,000 referrals and fully investigate about 450 of them. I suspect that there is a long-term disadvantage in owning a Rolls-Royce, and that is its mileage per gallon. Thirdly, is it time to amend the existing legislation to simplify the ombudsman's jurisdiction? On that I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase. We should amend the 1967 legislation to show what is not within his jurisdiction, as opposed to listing what is.
9.24 pm
Helen Jones: In view of the time, I shall make only a few brief remarks as a contribution to the debate. Through our deliberations in the Select Committee, we have clearly learned that the office of the ombudsman is important as an instrument for individual citizens to exercise their democratic rights and to assert those rights against the state and against other institutions. It is a major instrument of democracy if it is used properly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said, it has been a great success over the years.
If, in the few minutes available to me, I concentrate on what I believe are the shortcomings of the system, it is not to underrate those successes, but to consider how we can improve the office. We should examine whether the institution that we have established is serving its purpose, whether it is accessible to the individual citizen and whether it resolves complaints speedily.
I agree with many who have spoken today that one of the real drawbacks of the ombudsman system is the fact that many ordinary citizens do not understand how it works or how to approach it. We must consider how it works against the background of an increase in the number of institutions that deal with complaints. Indeed, many institutions have set up their own procedures to resolve complaints. In particular, we should consider the system against the background of increasing litigation to which some have referred today—particularly litigation involving the NHS.
As a lawyer—like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne)—I suppose that I should be in the business of encouraging people to go to law. However, I have to say that, particularly when dealing with medical negligence cases, I have observed that what often motivates people is not a desire to have their day in court, but simply a desire to find out what has gone wrong and to secure an apology. If we establish a system that allows them to do that, we can drastically reduce the amount of litigation against, in particular, the national health service.
The question we must then ask is whether the system does that. I would argue that, at present, it does not. When we considered the Select Committee's report, it was interesting to discover that, although previously the number of cases referred to the ombudsman had risen each year, by 1997 it was falling. That may be partly due to the introduction of other systems of redress, but I am convinced by my own experience that it is also partly due to the difficulties that people have in gaining access to this system. There is a lack of knowledge out there. As the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) pointed out, the very title of the ombudsman—the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—often puts people off. What does it mean to the ordinary citizen? Very little, I think.
344
There is also a problem in regard to the ability of the ombudsman system, as we have it, to resolve cases speedily. In the last year that we looked at, 1997–98, it was taking an average of 100 weeks to resolve cases. Although some of that was certainly due to the tackling of a backlog of old cases, even in 1992 the average time was 52 weeks. In my view—especially in cases involving the health service, when people will be under a severe strain already—that is far too long to have to wait.
Many hon. Members have mentioned that we have different ombudsmen dealing with different parts of the public sector. That is confusing for the public. Surely it is time for the House to consider setting up a single office, so that a single ombudsman could deal with all cases across the public sector. It is also time to consider the issue of the ombudsman's jurisdiction. As has been said, there is a case for amending the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 to specify which bodies are excluded from the ombudsman's jurisdiction, rather than those that are included.
The real problem, however, is that many non-departmental public bodies are not within the jurisdiction, and they have spread into many areas of our lives. The same is true of many bodies that now work in community care, or provide services for our citizens. It is time that we seriously considered how those bodies can be made accountable, and how an individual citizen can gain redress in that sector. That was brought home to me forcefully by a recent case in my constituency involving a charitable institution—in this instance, a charity almost wholly funded by public money through a section 64 grant.
We have to start asking ourselves: how is public accountability best served in those cases? How can an individual gain redress if something goes wrong? Those institutions often provide services to vulnerable groups and cover major areas of people's lives. It is not good enough for hon. Members simply to close their eyes to that situation, however difficult it might be to resolve, and to leave individual citizens without redress.
I agree with what has been said about the problems with the Member of Parliament filter. It is now illogical and unsustainable. As I said in an intervention, the issue for us should be how to make the ombudsman accountable to the House, rather than how to filter individual cases.
The issue of discretion needs to be tackled. I have personal experience of referring a number of cases to the ombudsman, who has then declined to investigate. Often, the individual who goes to the Member of Parliament has reached the end of the line in pursuing a case. That is a cause for concern. Where does the individual go in that situation? Often, we leave him or her with nowhere to go.
Our challenge is to ensure that we have a much more accessible, simplified and proactive ombudsman service, which individuals can understand and to which they have easy access. A presumption should be built into the system in favour of investigation, rather than non-investigation. If we do that, we shall offer to individual citizens a major extension of their democratic rights and a major safeguard against an overmighty state. With that, I draw my remarks to a close as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) is waiting to speak.
9.32 pm
Mr. Brian White: I am particularly happy to participate in the debate, although the comments of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) about what something is called brought to mind that a friend of mine could never pronounce "ombudsman" and always referred to him as the omnibus man. It was in relation to the local government ombudsman, an office that used to be a filter through local councillors, but which no longer is. That has not brought the end of democracy as we know it. Instead, it has enhanced the local government ombudsman.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that the relationship would change if the Member of Parliament filter were removed. I accept that, but change will be necessary if we are to champion people's rights. When the system was set up, the culture was that the state knew best and people were subjects of the state. In the 1990s, there is more a culture of people exercising their rights. If the ombudsman is to move to the culture of exercising people's rights, the relationship between the ombudsman, parliamentary Committees and Parliament itself will have to change. That change is to be encouraged.
Another problem is the initial review. One of the key grounds for refusal is the time limit. I have a case where a Department has refused to accept that there was a problem because the person complained outside the time limit. The ombudsman refused to take on the case because it was outside the time limit for investigation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) has said, where does a person go then?
We keep going back to the ombudsman to try to persuade him to take on the investigation. If the case were investigated, he would find the department guilty of maladministration, and learn that it should have informed the person at the time and did not. It would be clear that there had been maladministration and she would receive the entitlement that she has been denied. There is the whole question of denial of justice because of the way in which the ombudsman system rejects series of investigations.
The issue is less about the number of complaints than about how those complaints are handled. Individuals' rights are critical. We should also bear in mind the changing nature of the state.
I am dealing with a planning dispute case that has been taken to the ombudsman. The case involves the former Department of the Environment, English Partnerships, the former Commission for New Towns, the local authority, the parish council and a developer. However, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has power to deal with only a part of the case—as some of the parties are public, whereas others are only partly public—and the parties have had to go to the local government ombudsman to resolve other parts of the case. The problem is the boundary between the two ombudsmen, both of whom are saying, "It's the other ombudsman's responsibility to sort it out."
As we move towards more joined-up government—something that I fully support—including task forces, a social exclusion unit and a new way of working to end a silo mentality, how are we to hold to account those engaged in cross-departmental working? The ombudsman's role will have to evolve to address
346
that issue. The Government should have a holistic approach, but the ombudsman's role also will have to be brought up to date.
I do not know of many private-sector complaints procedures that are the same today as they were in the 1960s. I do not think that the public service should be denied similar modernisation in its complaints procedures.
The ombudsman's relationship to regulators, such as Ofwat, has already been mentioned in the debate. However, how is the ombudsman to deal with the current plethora of regulators? I hope that the Government's review will address that issue.
The draft Freedom of Information Bill is raising issues about the role of the information commissioner, and the fact that the information commissioner will have responsibility for the denial of information. As was stated in evidence to the Committee, there is a clear relationship between the denial of information and maladministration. Although it was acknowledged that the issue will have to be addressed, the situation emphasises the plethora of regulatory bodies.
When other countries appoint ombudsmen, those ombudsmen are responsible to the legislature and not to the Executive. I strongly argue that the ombudsman appointment process should involve the Select Committee, which should have a role in interviewing, if not in appointing, ombudsmen. The role between the Executive and the legislature in appointing ombudsmen will have to develop over the years. As joined-up Government and modernising government proceed apace, the relationship of this place to the Executive also will have to develop.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) raised the issue of consumer protection—which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North also dealt with, but in relation to the health service. The Government have published a White Paper on consumer protection—on rip-off Britain—and are taking action to protect consumers. However, the Government's action should have an effect on how ombudsmen operate.
Currently, ombudsmen deal only with individual cases, not with institutional maladministration in which departmental procedures, rather than individual decisions, are causing the problems. As more individual cases are resolved by recourse to consumer legislation, ombudsmen will have to devote greater effort to examining institutional and information technology failures. Dealing with institutional failure and with how Departments are structured, and not with individual failures—although the United Kingdom is particularly bad at project management—has bogged down various Governments. I believe that the ombudsman has various skills that would be beneficial in addressing those issues.
9.40 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I pay tribute to my neighbour and friend, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), for the way in which he introduced the debate and for his service as Chairman of the Committee. I thank also someone who has not been mentioned tonight, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for his leadership and chairmanship of the Committee, until he was called to higher and wester things earlier this year.

347
I do not wish to sound churlish, but this has been in many ways an unsatisfactory debate. I am the first Member to speak who is not a member of the Select Committee, and the Minister shares that distinction with me. This is a subject of central importance to Members, but it has been a poorly attended debate on a day when one would have hoped that there would have been rather more in the Chamber. I do not subscribe to the ridiculous notion that the long recess is a long holiday, because clearly it is not. However, it would be nice to see more Members from both sides in the Chamber for a debate on a matter of central importance.
What we have had is a number of Select Committee members airing their views to the Chamber, and explaining why most of them think that what we need is a national complaints investigation bureau, rather than the system that we have at the moment.
Mr. White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: No, I cannot, as I have such a short time.
That is the logic of much of what has been said by the hon. Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), and—to some degree—by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase himself.
I agree with those who do not like the title of ombudsman, which is rather daunting and off-putting and difficult for people readily to understand. I much prefer the title "Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration", but that, too, is a mouthful. I would rather he had been called the public referee or investigator, or the parliamentary examiner—something that was more clearly explicit of the duties that he had to do.
When the instrument—as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase described it—was established, it was to be an instrument to assist Members of Parliament in their duties of scrutinising, probing and holding the Executive to account. Here, I ally myself entirely with the general substance of the remarks of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East.
On 18 October 1966—33 years and one day ago—Richard Crossman sought to describe to the House what he meant by maladministration. He said that it included
"bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude, perversity, turpitude, arbitrariness and so on."—[Official Report, 18 October 1966; Vol. 734, c. 51.]
We could all go "and so on". Tempting though it is, I will not score points against the Government in illustrating each of those defects. However, we should remember that the instrument was established to assist the Member of Parliament, and that it was an instrument of last resort.
It was expected that the Member of Parliament would be able, properly and adequately, to follow through most of the things that a constituent took to him. We must remember that the ombudsman was established in the days before Members of Parliament had free postage, even, and when surgeries were not common practice for all Members of Parliament. When I entered the House nearly 30 years ago, there were Members who had been here before the war and who regaled us in the Dining Room with tales of the "annual visit" to the constituency. The whole thing has changed beyond recall. In those days, the pressures on Members were much fewer. The system was an instrument of last resort and it worked very well.
348
We have to address whether we should maintain the parliamentary filter and whether the official in question should remain a parliamentary appointment. I agree that, if it is to be a parliamentary appointment, it should be a parliamentary appointment. I find it difficult to listen to people talk about Government review. The Government should not be reviewing the adequacy and efficacy of those set up to monitor and—if we like—police the effectiveness of their Departments. That is the duty of the House. It is a pity that there are not more of us here this evening and we do not have longer to discuss the issue. We have to decide whether we want a cohesive instrument or set of instruments that can assist us in our duties or whether we want to set up a public complaints investigation procedure that might work side-by-side with us in some respects but would be separate from us. The House cannot have it both ways. We have to examine the issues in more careful detail than perhaps we have hitherto.
I take the point of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun about the figure of 14 per cent. That survey was taken as recently as 1996. At that time, only 14 per cent. of the public understood that there was such a creature as the ombudsman, yet there has been a proliferation of ombudsmen in recent years—enough to fill several double decker omnibuses. How far should we seek to contain and direct their activities from this House? How far should we reserve to ourselves the function of one of them? How far should we move in a different direction? We have to address those issues.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase and others about the need for an annual debate. That is a difficult point to sustain when we see that, in the Chamber this evening, we have had some—not all—members of the Select Committee debating the issue with no help or audience from parliamentary colleagues. Of course I absolve the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who has come in specifically to listen to my speech. I am deeply flattered that he should be here. I hold him in fond affection.
The House must address the issues. I had some reservations about the establishment of the so-called second Chamber that is to sit in Westminster Hall at the beginning of the new Session, but I hope that it will give an opportunity for a series of more penetrating, longer debates on what Members of Parliament need to assist them in holding the Government to account. We are not as successful at that as we should be. I am not making a party point. I made the same point when I sat on the other side of the Chamber. The Government need to be held to account. They are not being held to account and they are getting away with far too much. Parliament needs to reassert itself. We all have a duty to take a part in that reassertion.
The ombudsman could have a critical role to play in that process. If he is to have that role, it is essential that access to him should be via, and with the assistance of, the Member of Parliament, but that means more resources for him and a greater awareness on the part of Members of Parliament of what the office was established for. The House must address those issues in some form here or in Westminster Hall. It is for the House to address those issues rather than the Select Committee, which is answerable to us and reports to us.

349
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase and his colleagues for the assiduity of their work and the excellence of their report. However, we have illustrated tonight that we stand on the verge of a debate that must take place about the central role and function of the ombudsman and how he should perform that role.
9.50 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate because, as colleagues on both sides of the House have said, they do not happen very often. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that that was unsatisfactory, but we have had an adult debate with no party politicking. Several big issues have been raised and I intend to try to deal with some of those major themes. I will of course write to individual hon. Members about points raised, especially to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) about the point he made about the cost to the NHS of litigation and possible insurance funds.
I wish to ensure that the tone and themes of the debate are drawn to the attention of Ministers and officials who are involved in the review of the ombudsman schemes and the evaluation of the NHS complaints procedure. Although differences have been expressed, the debate has seen a commonality of view.
I shall say a word about the modernising Government agenda. Several hon. Members talked about how things have changed since the last debate, including the citizens charters and the interest groups that regulate industry and Government and look after consumer interests. Hon. Members mentioned the need for high standards and well-defined recording systems and audit and decision-making trails. The system should be there when people need it and be quick and receptive. It should have common points of entry and, most importantly, put customers and citizens first. That is a big agenda and the present review of the ombudsman system needs to be put in that context.
As parliamentarians and public servants, one contribution that we can make is to praise things when they go well and identify good practice. If I had my way, for example, I would change the name of the Audit Commission to the Quality Commission. It should be a body that not only looks at what goes wrong, but promotes those things that go well. Ofsted could also learn a lesson from that, because it tends to be keen to criticise the negative, not to promote or sing the praises of good practice.
Unfortunately, we have an ombudsman system that, by definition, comes into play when things go wrong. It identifies problems, but it should also help us to learn the lessons and make use of complaints. I am never afraid of complaints, because they can lead to changes in the system.
I was pleased to see that the Select Committee's report contained a section on naming and shaming, which is a
350
topical issue. As I say, I think that we must encourage, praise and reinforce good practice. Paragraph 34 of the Select Committee's report states:
"It is not and has not been the Committee's intention to 'name and shame'. It is the salutary lessons to be drawn from individual cases that we are interested in."
I think that that is right. Let us praise the positive, but let us learn the lessons when things go wrong. I am not sure that a discussion involving naming and shaming gets the balance right. People who are interested in social policy tend to focus on failure: we do not sell and sing success. There is a lesson for us all there.
I was interested to hear a number of hon. Members mention the way in which problems are dealt with. I agree with those who said that it is vital that there should be an early apology. When things go wrong, we should recognise that people are dissatisfied with the service. A simple acknowledgement of that is often enough.
People tell me that they are not interested in the money that might be paid in compensation and that they do not want to go to court to secure it. What they want is that the appropriate lessons are learned—for example, from the death of a child—so that what went wrong never goes wrong again. There are difficulties to do with legal liability, but practitioners should be aware that a simple understanding of, and willingness to accept, people's unhappiness with the process can save much time later and remove the need for recourse to lawyers.
Complaints were made about the lack of a regular debate on these matters. Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire for mentioning the Main Committee. I know that he has doubts about that innovation, which will start soon. However, I believe that it will allow hon. Members to look much more closely at Select Committee reports. There will be more time to debate them, and in a less partisan manner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was right to say that we have legislation mania. One of this Government's big achievements will be the move to pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope—to put it no higher—that the Main Committee will give us the opportunity to indulge in post-legislative scrutiny. My hon. Friend suggested that it should do so, and such scrutiny would appear to follow on from its pre-legislative counterpart as sensibly and inevitably as night follows day.
I am delighted that the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), is alongside me on the Front Bench at the moment, as I was involved in the debates on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We cannot use that Act as a clarion call to action if we do not go back and check that what was intended with the legislation is being achieved in practice. The Main Committee will give us the opportunity to carry out that check.
A number of points were made in the debate about the present parliamentary ombudsman system. It was said that the work load was too great. I should like to put on record my respect and admiration for the work of Sir William Reid, and for the present ombudsman team. I have looked at their work, and it seems to me that a number of administrative steps have been taken to speed up operations. Justice delayed is justice denied in the review system too, and progress is being made there.

351
A number of hon. Members spoke strongly about the filter system operated by Members of Parliament, and they asked whether it could be justified, given the changes that have taken place. I can tell them that the review is now under way and that the plethora of ombudsmen is one of the matters to be examined. The review will ensure that we achieve value for money, and I hope that we will receive some initial response early next year.
The debate has been helpful and valuable. There is a good deal of consensus around, but I echo the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, who said that the matter is up to us. It is our system; we parliamentarians agreed it, and we must rise to the challenge of change.

Rural Crime
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
10 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am extremely grateful to have been given the first available opportunity after the recess to raise the important issue of rural crime. I am glad to see the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) in his place, but disappointed not to see the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) who had the courtesy to send me a charming note explaining that his absence from this debate, in which he has taken a great deal of interest, is due to his attendance at, as he put it, an organised crime summit in Moscow.
In August, the community of Emneth in my constituency and the whole of the fenland area were profoundly shaken by an incident that occurred just yards outside my boundary in the constituency of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). The incident and the circumstances surrounding it are sub judice. The current factual position is that a farmer is on bail, accused of murder and causing grievous bodily harm.
That incident came hot on the heels of a double murder charge—also sub judice—in the adjoining village of Upwell a few months earlier. There had also been a string of armed break-ins—as yet unsolved—in our local rural post offices. I do not intend to rehearse information that is sub judice. In any case, my concerns go wider.
The Emneth incident in particular has resulted in an expression of public concern locally, nationally and internationally. There have been demonstrations, heated meetings, letters, and press and media comment the like of which I have not experienced in my political career. It would be no exaggeration to say that the incident has touched a nerve in rural communities everywhere. People from all over the country and from as far afield as Canada and Australia have written to say that they, in their isolated homesteads, businesses or farms where there is sparse police presence, are living in fear. Those are strong words, but they are the words that people have used.
A constituent who has supplied me her address but who does not wish it to be made public wrote that the fact that there is a slender police presence makes people who live in outlying districts take more draconian measures to protect themselves and their property. That is the key issue facing the Minister, the Government and, ultimately, us all. We cannot afford to allow a situation to develop in which people lose confidence in the power of the police to protect them and their property and in the forces of law and order to administer justice. The Government will wish to avoid that situation, as do we all.
The Minister will be aware of the depth of public concern. The well-respected newspaper the Eastern Daily Press, which covers all of Norfolk, has used the incident to launch a public campaign for more resources for rural policing. The Fenland Citizen, based in Wisbech, has collected more than 1,200 coupons filled in by its readers and asking for more resources. I have passed those on to the hon. Member for Norwich, South. The right hon. Member for Brent, South will be interested to know that

353
a further 130 coupons are in the safe keeping of his officials after I passed them on this evening along with two petitions from people in the fenland area.
The Minister will also know from written answers provided by his Department that, whereas in March 1997, Norfolk police strength was 1,432, it had fallen to 1,409 by September 1998 and to 1,381 by March 1999. As the Minister will also be aware, Norfolk has the lowest number of constables per 100,000 of population of any authority in England. As the chairman of the Norfolk police authority, Brian Landale, said, as reported in the Eastern Daily Press on 11 September:
"The outcry following the recent events at Emneth is echoed in other rural areas of the country. Emneth was a time bomb waiting to happen."
Dr. George Turner: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the accuracy of reporting when the press gets involved in such events is illustrated by the fact that the incident to which she is referring happened in Marshland St. James, which is in my constituency? That shows that the press do not get the facts right. The truth is that Norfolk policing is where it is because of the decisions that she and her right hon. Friends made in the past 20 years.
Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman's last point is not quite accurate. The incident happened at Emneth Hungate, as I think he must be clear. He should also remember that police numbers in Norfolk have fallen by 50-odd since May 1997.
No one would want to argue that crime patterns have suddenly changed in the past two and a half years—I certainly would not wish to do so. Criminals have been becoming more mobile and more technologically sophisticated for a number of years. As the Minister will know, they have well-developed communication systems. People's life styles and working habits in rural areas have changed. Homes are left empty during the working day. Changes in agriculture have meant that the countryside is not as populated as it once was. Paradoxically, the introduction and great success of CCTV systems in cities and market towns, which was pioneered by the previous Government and has been continued by the present Government, have tended to drive the criminal to look further afield for his ill-gotten gains. Obviously, that does not mean that I do not support CCTV. May I make a short plea for the CCTV bid for a rural area based in west Norfolk? I hope that the Minister will look upon it with kindness when it reaches his desk.
The effect of all of that has been to make rural communities feel more exposed to and threatened by crime and to expose the difference in funding allocations between rural and urban areas, of which the Minister will be aware.
Home Office Ministers are to receive a deputation from 12 rural police authorities asking that they accept the findings of independent consultants engaged by their Department to the effect that it costs more to police
354
far-flung rural areas. The chairman of the Norfolk police authority's audit committee, Jim Wilson, was reported in the local press on 11 September as saying:
"We must not allow this report to be shelved by Ministers. The research gives clear evidence that there are significant extra costs in rural areas which are currently not being recognised. Taxpayers in rural areas are paying relatively more through taxes and council tax than residents in urban areas, but for a lesser service."
The chief constable of Norfolk has calculated that to bring his force to the level of effectiveness that he would wish it to achieve, he needs an additional 400 officers. He has also calculated, perhaps more realistically, that, if the Minister accepted sparsity as a factor to be used in the allocation of police funding, it would mean an additional 132 officers for the county.
The Minister will certainly say that effective policing is not merely a matter of police numbers, and I would agree. However, again as reported in the local press, the chief constable of Norfolk puts his dilemma as follows:
"The real difficulty for me is handling the fear of crime issues and confidence in local police. No matter how hard I try to describe how we allocate scarce resources, people are going to be sceptical because all they see are scarce numbers of police officers on the ground."
That is how the chief constable put it.
The issue is partly one of public perception, therefore. The facts may inform us that a well-equipped and technologically advanced police force—mobile and fast moving—is the way to beat crime, and yet the perception of the public is that visible police officers, making their presence felt in the communities, are the only way to prevent and deter crime and to restore confidence in the protection that the police can afford to the citizen. When we consider that, in the western Norfolk police area, which covers an area of 560 square miles, 34 police officers are on duty at any one time when the force is up to strength, which it is not, it is clear that public expectations are not being met.
Mr. Keith Simpson: In my constituency, in the town of Reepham where I live, I have been burgled twice in two and a half years. My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware that there is no full-time police presence in Reepham—a market town of 4,000 people. She is right that we must overcome the perception that any reaction will come from tens of miles away.
Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend, and so do many of the constituents who wrote to me following this summer's events. Their letters make disturbing reading. It is clear from those communications that people need to be able to feel that the police are not only equipped but willing to protect them and their property; that they can report crime without fear of reprisal or intimidation; and that, if they report crime, action will be taken. If they do not feel protected, they may feel justified in taking the law into their own hands, which is not what we want.
What should be done? First, as an open letter from a police officer to the Lynn News and Advertiser stated:
"The place for an operational police officer is out on the streets, policing the community which pays our wages."
Obviously, as I have said, modern policing cannot be only about visible uniformed officers, but police numbers and visibility are key if public confidence is to return.

355
Secondly, policing methods must be seen and judged to be effective and responsive. People need to know that if they report crimes, action will result. At present, too many do not. A constituent, who supplied his full address, wrote to the Home Secretary on 5 September:
"Much of the crime is not now reported, as the police may not even bother to attend let alone report the outcome, and they are never there to witness it for themselves. It is generally believed that crime figures presented to Chief Constables are those they would prefer, rather than the facts."
Thirdly, people cannot be allowed to live in fear of reprisals and intimidation if they report crimes against themselves or their property. The House will have noted the sad fact that although constituents and other concerned citizens have written to me, and I have quoted from their letters and will pass them to the Official Report, they do not wish their names and addresses to be given publicly. The whole incident has revealed that too many people feel like another man who wished to remain anonymous, who wrote:
"I was unable to attend the public meeting for fear of reprisals … There were a lot of people who would like to have attended, but were too afraid, because we all fear that the police cannot protect us."
Another woman wishing to remain anonymous wrote:
"Many more people would have attended the public meeting … to discuss the incident, but for fear of reprisals. Our home has been targeted often, this year we have had three robberies. It takes so long to get through to a police station that now we don't bother to report it. My two children have never dared to go into the village alone although they went to the village school. Now they have cars and fear that they will be vandalised if left and recognised. We the normal working law abiding people of this village feel victimised."
Farmers feel particularly exposed. In a survey undertaken by the BBC1 programme "Countryfile", 55 per cent. of farmers questioned had suffered burglary. Mr. Hipperson of Shouldham writes:
"I do not believe in taking the law into one's own hands: the police and courts should administer the law, but both organisations are failing the countryside. Rural police are far too thin on the ground. Local police stations are too often shut. As the police are overextended, little or no action is often taken on good information from the public. Difficulties exist near county borders."
Many of the concerns that I have described are operational and a matter for the chief constable, and he is aware of them. The Norfolk police try their utmost to provide an effective service and should be congratulated on their efforts. It is disturbing, none the less, to hear a deputy chief constable say on the local radio that policing in the western division is near crisis point.
I look forward to the Minister's reply. His first step will be, I hope, a recognition that as his own independent consultants have pointed out, it costs more to police rural areas. His colleague the hon. Member for Norwich, South has already said that Norfolk has a strong case.
I had intended to welcome the Home Secretary's recent announcement of 5,000 more police officers for the country as a whole over the next three years. According to The Sunday Telegraph of 17 October, that announcement, made at the Labour party conference earlier this month, seems to have hit the buffers of the Treasury. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the status of the Home Secretary's announcement. Was it conference hype? Did the Home Secretary mean it? He could not have been misleading the country. Did he or did he not have the permission of the Treasury and Cabinet to announce the extra posts?
356
I feel confident that the Minister will be able to clarify the position tonight and to confirm that when the Home Secretary says that there will be 5,000 more police posts, that is what he means and that is what we will see. In that case, the Minister will be able to tell the House tonight how the Home Secretary proposes to allocate those extra police resources and what account will be taken of rural sparsity in that allocation.
I hope that the Minister will reassure the House and rural people everywhere that he and his Government take their concerns seriously. It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to exchange statistics, chop logic or blame the whole issue on the previous Government. Of course changing crime patterns and sociological change develop over years rather than months, but it is the task of the Government of the day to respond to such change, and indeed to the profound anxieties that I have described this evening.
I hope that the Minister will give a constructive response. If he does, it will be welcomed by rural communities in the light of the concern that they feel and which I have attempted to describe.
10.17 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I should like to thank the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) for raising the issue of crime in rural areas. As she will know, it is an issue dear to my heart and one in which the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), has taken a particular interest. He has asked me to convey to her and the House his apologies for not being with us this evening. He is currently in Moscow at the G8 summit on organised crime. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, but particularly East Anglia Members, as he is and the right hon. Lady is, will be aware that, with the coast of East Anglia being as it is, the threat of organised crime, not least organised crime that has its origins in the east, is one about which we have to be ever vigilant.
Let us deal tonight with the issue of rural crime, on which this House has on occasion had cause to reflect. There are hon. Members in the Chamber who have raised the issue both in Adjournment debates and in debates on crime. We believe—as a Government we have taken measures to ensure this—that the whole community, police and public alike, needs to address crime within the context of an effective partnership. That can mobilise the resources of the community at every level in order to prevent and reduce crime and the impact of offending. Nowhere is that more true than in rural communities, where the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which this Government introduced, has been particularly welcomed as a focus for effective partnerships on the ground to reduce the impact of crime and, significantly, of the fear of crime.
I am aware from my experience as a former Minister with responsibility for the police of how successful the Crime and Disorder Act has been in East Anglia. A few weeks ago, I attended a meeting in Ipswich where I saw at first hand, on the ground, how the Crime and Disorder Act and the effective community partnerships that have developed in East Anglia—as they have elsewhere—are beginning to bear down on the problem.
However, we need to set the issue of rural crime in a clear context. The situation in Norfolk is worth examination. The latest Audit Commission figures show

357
that there were 67 crimes per thousand people in Norfolk—significantly below the national average of 78 crimes for every thousand people. The number of burglaries per thousand dwellings in Norfolk was almost half the national average: 10.9 against 20.5. As the police authority stated in its annual policing plan for 1999–2000:
"Norfolk remains a relatively safe place to live in."
That is a tribute to the police and to the wider public in Norfolk. It is a sound basis on which we are able to proceed in partnership.
However, that does not mean that we do not have concerns about the fear and apprehension of crime. The right hon. Lady has realised—with the acumen that I would expect of her—that reducing crime levels is not simply a matter that can be linked to police numbers. On the contrary, if we consider crime in Norfolk, it has fallen steadily year on year, as police numbers have fallen year on year. Therefore, we must have an approach that recognises the complexity of the issue that we face and builds a response that is informed by reality.
Members on both sides of the House have a particular duty not to fuel the fear of crime by suggesting that there is a simple equation between police numbers and crime. That is something that the right hon. Lady will be concerned to ensure that she avoids in raising the matter in the way that she has done. I am happy to make it absolutely crystal clear, however, that the Government are indeed addressing the issue of police numbers. We are addressing it within a context—the right hon. Lady must remember this—in which it was the Government of whom she was a member who removed the power of the Home Secretary to set police numbers. It was her Government who, between 1993 and 1998, under budgets in which the right hon. Lady directly had a hand, saw the overall number of police officers fall in England and Wales by almost 1,500, at the same time as they told the country that they would increase overall numbers by 6,000. Those are the facts.
Mr. David Prior: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boateng: No.
Those are the facts that the right hon. Lady must bear in mind. Having said that, let us respond to the challenge that she threw down. First, we heard a reasoned approach. Only at the end did she descend into party political acrimony and knockabout. If she expects right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches simply to accept that, she has another think coming. [Interruption.]
I am only too happy to return to the pledge made at Bournemouth by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary earlier this year, and to make it crystal clear that when my right hon. Friend announced a new crime-fighting fund for the police to recruit 5,000 new police officers over the next three years, he meant just that—£35 million, all new money, to be spent in the first year to kick-start the programme. The programme is to be delivered by a challenge fund—the crime-fighting fund which is ring-fenced money. The right hon. Lady knows the meaning of ring-fenced money, because it was something that the Conservative Government, when they had stewardship of police in this country, were never prepared
358
to introduce in respect of support for the police. The money will be ring-fenced money, which all forces—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I must ask hon. Members to keep good order—they cannot keep interrupting the Minister.
Mr. Boateng: All forces can bid for a share of the money. Chief constables will not be able to spend the money on other priorities, nor can they use the funds to divert existing money already earmarked for police recruitment to other priorities. That means that there will be 5,000 more police recruits than there would otherwise have been—about that there is no doubt. The money is new money, starting with £35 million next year, to provide 5,000 extra police recruits over three years. I cannot spell it out more simply than that.
It is precisely that approach to the issue that has been warmly welcomed by the police. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will be gracious enough to accept that her local chief constable, Ken Williams, has made it clear, in respect of the very dilemma she has outlined:
"The good thing is that the Government is listening to our dilemma."
Not only are we listening, we are delivering. We are delivering new powers to the police and the courts—
Mr. Keith Simpson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng: No.
We have delivered new powers through anti-social behaviour orders, which will be of enormous value to rural communities throughout the country. In the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, we have given new powers for the protection of witnesses and the victims of crime. That legislation directly addresses the concerns the right hon. Lady has rightly raised about the way in which people are sometimes fearful to come forward and make their complaints. Through the Crime and Disorder Act, we ensure that it is possible to build partnerships between local authorities, the police and the community that will enable communities to fight crime effectively.
Mr. Simpson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many extra police officers Norfolk will get?
Mr. Boateng: I have made it absolutely crystal clear that it will be for the chief constable and his police authority to make the bid—it is an operational matter. Norfolk has as much chance as any other area to make a bid and to have that bid receive proper consideration. In the meantime, we are ensuring that the police have the necessary powers and resources. More money is being spent on policing in Norfolk this year than was spent last year—above the national average. Above all, the Government are willing to listen.
Dr. George Turner: I understand the problems my right hon. Friend faces. The voice from the past that neglected policing in Norfolk is now at the forefront of making the case for police resources and, in some ways, stirring trouble. Does he accept that, for those living in isolated areas, even if the crime rates are relatively low, the very isolation makes the problems worse? In addition,

359
there is a real need to ensure that Norfolk constabulary is properly funded in terms of equipment. I have been on operations where it is clear that that is needed.
Mr. Boateng: I accept that it is important to make sure that Norfolk is properly funded in respect of its communications system. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a £50 million investment
360
toward the cost of a new national communications system for the police. That will benefit rural areas, including Norfolk. We offer practical assistance for rural areas, not cheap rhetoric.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July quarterly report to the House. [93567]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department's Year 2000 programme is nearing completion. As reported in September, work on critical systems is almost complete and front-line systems are ready for the Millennium. Contingency plans have been developed and tested.

  The Meteorological Office, which provides services to the public, reports that all of its systems are now compliant and contingency plans have been developed.

  Details of MOD progress in tackling the Millennium problem are set out in our quarterly reports. These are available in the Libraries of the House and are published on the Internet. The overall MOD programme completion dates have not changed since the July report to the House.

  Within this programme, two critical systems showed some slippage in their completion dates, but both of these have now been certified as compliant. A small slippage has been reported in one non-critical system.

  The results of the October monthly review of progress of Government Departments and Agencies in tackling the Millennium problem are due to be announced shortly by the President of the Council.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the assessment of damage inflicted on Serbian military vehicles in Kosovo by air power will be completed. [94138]

  Mr. Hoon
  General Clark, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), gave his battle damage assessment to the North Atlantic Council on 15 September. This was made public at a NATO press conference on 16 September. A copy of the transcript has been placed in the Library of the House and can also be obtained from the NATO website at http://www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990916a.htm.

  But, as my predecessor made clear in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 30 June 1999, Official Report, column 160, the measure of the campaign's success lies in the fact that it resulted in withdrawal of Milosevic's troops from Kosovo, the entry of KFOR and the return of refugees.

  Menwith Hill
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reviews the United States National Security Agency has carried out of security practices and breaches of security at RAF Menwith Hill since 1993; and on what dates his Department received copies of the reports arising out of each review. [93939]

  Mr. Spellar
  Two reviews of security have been conducted by the National Security Agency at RAF Menwith Hill since 1993. As the then Minister for the Armed Forces stated in his answer of 11 March 1998,Official Report, columns 196-97, a review was conducted in April 1997. The second review was undertaken on site in January 1998 and was finalised by the US authorities at the end of March that year. My Department was made aware of the contents of both reports at the time.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of his Department, excluding non-departmental public bodies and agencies, in the past five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93851]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Information is not available in the form requested, not least because of the number of changes in the organisation of my Department since 1995. However, the main corporate in-house journals currently published, and their frequency, are set out below:

  Frequency

  Subject Matter

  MOD-wide

  Focus

  Monthly

  Main Corporate Journal

  MOD 'OnLine'

  Daily

  Electronic news service

  Money Matters

  Quarterly

  Financial Management

  Paper Clips

  Monthly

  Civilian Personnel Policy

  PM World

  Monthly

  Civilian Personnel Management Issues

  Capital

  AD hoc

  Resource Accounting and Budgeting

  Royal Navy

  Navy News

  Monthly

  Main RN Corporate Journal

  Broadsheet

  Annual

  RN Annual Review

  People Matters

  2 a year

  RN Personnel Policy

  Army

  Soldier

  Monthly

  Main Army Corporate Journal

  British Army Review

  3 a year

  General Army Matters

  Sixth Sense

  Weekly

  Newspaper for all Forces serving in Germany

  RAF

  RAF News

  Fortnightly

  Main RAF Corporate Journal

  Air Power Review

  Quarterly

  Air Safety and Air Power

  All titles are unclassified. In addition, there are many newsletters and other internal publications on specific subjects, such as the redevelopment of MOD's Whitehall HQ, or specific to individual management areas. The vast majority of military units also produce newsletters or magazines of their own for their personnel and for the benefit of Service families.
  419
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93687]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The costs of production of MOD's principal official publications are borne by the Stationery Office, as with all Command Papers, House of Commons papers and Statutory Instruments.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average annual expenditure per Defence Housing Executive administered married quarters on repairs and maintenance for the year 1997–98. [94064]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  In the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) 1999 Corporate Plan, the action plan sets out a key target relating to the unit cost of housing and aims to achieve a figure of less than £5,400 per property. A figure for 1998–99 was given on 26 July 1999,Official Report, column 56. For 1997–98, the calculation is similar—i.e. by dividing the total cost of the DHE (£343,429 million including some £100 million rental payment to Annington Homes Ltd) by the average number of properties occupied (including those which are Substitute Services Families Accommodation—52,832). The equivalent figure for FY 97–98, uprated for inflation, is £5,473.10 per property. The cost of the upgrade programme is not included as this is outside the routine cost of housing provision.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the suitability for making nuclear weapons of the material currently being transported to Japan by BNFL. [93828]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has made an assessment of the suitability for making nuclear weapons of the material currently being transported to Japan by BNFL. The assessment was that the risk of this material being so used is very low.

  Anti-Personnel Mines
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to review current and future stocks of munitions to ensure that they do not have the capacity to act as anti-personnel mines; and if he will make a statement. [94642]

  Mr. Spellar
  All UK weapons systems and munitions have been checked for compliance with the provisions of the Ottawa Convention. There are no weapons or munitions in the UK inventory which fall under the Ottawa definition of an anti-personnel mine. The UK is fully committed to a complete global ban on anti-personnel mines and will never again use these weapons.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mines have been retained for training purposes; and which anti-personnel types have been retained. [94668]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK is permitted to retain the minimum necessary amount of anti-personnel mines for training and testing in de-mining techniques, as permitted under Article 3 of the Ottawa Convention. As of 1 August 1999, these comprised 2088 Ranger mines, 1056 C3 Elsie 420
  mines, and 434 HB 876 sub-munitions to the JP233 weapon system. As of 1 August 1999, the UK also held 859 anti-personnel mines of foreign manufacture for the development of and training in mine detection, mine clearance, or mine destruction techniques, as provided for in Article 3 of the Convention.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made on the review of compensation arrangements for service and ex-service personnel suffering from asbestos-related illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos prior to 1987. [94427]

  Mr. Spellar
  The review to which my hon. Friend refers is nearing completion. I hope to be able to meet him and other interested colleagues soon to discuss the findings.

  Regimental Insignia
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 June 1999,Official Report, column 263, on what date this year the Daily Mail sought permission to use the insignia of the Parachute Regiment; and what royalties or fees have so far been received. [93827]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Daily Mail has not, this year, sought permission from the Ministry of Defence to reproduce the insignia of the Parachute Regiment, and no royalties or fees have been received. Dispensation from royalties and fees is generally given for the publication of Crown Copyright material in newspapers and magazines, in the interest of good public relations.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if existing intellectual property rights will be transferred with the assets of DERA on privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [93662]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  No decisions have been made on the nature of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) for DERA, and it is too early to speculate on the precise form it will take, or how intellectual property rights will be treated.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he will take to ensure the continued availability of informed independent advice to Ministers after the privatisation of DERA. [93667]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  No decisions have been made on the nature of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) for DERA. The need for continued access to informed and impartial scientific services and advice is a key tenet of the MOD's consideration of the future of DERA and is defined in the "MOD Customer Needs Statement" and laid down in Figure 1 of the DERA PPP Consultation Document, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 5 May 1999. Ministers will want to ensure each of these customer requirements is addressed when making a decision on the final PPP solution for DERA.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis collaboration with allied powers by DERA will continue after privatisation. [93668]
  421
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The detailed mechanisms under which DERA would collaborate with allies will not be known until we have decided upon the precise PPP solution to be adopted. However, DERA's participation in collaborative activities with allied powers, following the adoption of a PPP solution, would be governed by the government to government arrangements agreed with our allies.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if liabilities arising from the exposure of staff to hazardous working conditions will be transferred to the purchaser following the privatisation of DERA; and if he will make a statement. [93664]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  No decision has been made on the nature of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) for DERA, and it is too early to speculate both on the precise form it would take and how commercial and legal issues, including liabilities, will be handled. The MOD study team, which is taking forward the work on the DERA PPP, is supported by legal experts who will provide advice during the implementation stage on the future treatment of liabilities.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision will be made to fund the transfer of DERA employee pension entitlements from the Civil Service Pension Scheme into a private scheme following his proposals for privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [93669]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  No decisions have been taken on the form of a PPP for DERA, and it is therefore too early to be specific about pension arrangements for staff or how they will be funded.

  Sandhurst (Staff College)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the former Staff College at Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, was vacated; what proposals there are for its future use; and if he will make a statement. [94453]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The former Staff College at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, was vacated in September 1997. Options for the future of the former Staff College Buildings at Camberley are being investigated by the Army. No proposals have yet been put to Ministers.

  Defence Research Programme (Technology Audit)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature and purpose of the technology audit of the defence research programme which was discussed at the Defence Research Committee on 31 March 1998; when this audit was started and ended; what were the conclusions of this audit; and if he will place a copy of the report arising out of this audit in the Library. [93863]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Since about 1991, the Defence Scientific Staff, in providing support for the work of the Defence Research Committee, have undertaken an ongoing review of technology aspects of the defence research programme. The paper entitled "technology audit", discussed at the Committee on the 31 March 1998, dealt with the internal processes by which this ongoing review is carried out.422
  I am withholding this document in accordance with exemption 2 of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".

  Ministerial Meetings (United States)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he held with members and officials of the United States Government during his visit to the United States on 2-3 June 1997; and if he will list the date and location of each meeting, and the names of the members and officials of the United States Government at each meeting. [93949]

  Mr. Hoon
  During his visit to the US from 2 to 3 June 1997, my predecessor's only formal meeting was with Mr. William Cohen, the US Secretary for Defense. General John Shalikashvili, the then Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was present during part of the discussions. This meeting took place in the Pentagon on Tuesday 3 June 1997.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department started discussions with the United States Government on the decision to invest in the US National Ignition Facility; with which US Departments these discussions have been held; to which United States Department, and on what date, his Department notified the decision to invest in this facility; whether the decision to invest in this facility will be covered by a memorandum of understanding; when his Department expects to formalise the decision in a contract with the US; and with which United States Department this contract will be signed. [93932]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Discussions between officials of my Department and the US Department of Energy on the possibility of optimising National Ignition Facility (NIF) technology began in September 1998. Written confirmation of the United Kingdom's decision to invest in the NIF was conveyed to the US Department of Energy on 9 June 1999. The US Department of Defense was also made aware of out intentions. The arrangements, which are being made under the aegis of the 1958 UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement, will be formalised in a number of contracts covering the procurement process between my Department and the US Department of Energy.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States personnel have visited the Atomic Weapons Establishment (Aldermaston) since 1 January; and from which United States Departments and establishments these visitors have come. [93944]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  A total of 381 United States personnel have visited AWE Aldermaston between 1 January and 30 September 1999. The visitors represented the following:

  Department of Energy

  Department of Defense

  Defense Threat Reduction Agency

  Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories

  Kaiser-Hill

  Mason & Hanger, Pantex

  Westinghouse Savannah River

  423

  Chew & Associates Inc

  Allied Signal, Kansas City Division

  Lockheed Martin, Y-12 Plant

  Lockheed Martin Missiles Systems

  ITT SSC

  Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute

  University of California

  McCrone Associates

  Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

  Applied Research Associates Inc.

  Electronic Test Facility
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received from the Irish Government with regard to the Ministry of Defence's Electronic Test Facility formerly sited at the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. site at Capenhurst, Cheshire, since 1 July; when these representations were received; and from which Irish Departments. [93856]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has not received any representations from the Irish Government with regard to the Electronic Test Facility.

  Anthrax Vaccine
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies from which his Department has procured anthrax vaccine since 1 January 1995. [93840]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Department's only supplier of anthrax vaccine is the Centre for Applied Microbiological and Research, which is the executive arm of the Microbiological Research Authority, a Special Health Authority sponsored by the Department of Health.

  Operational Requirements
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of operational requirements which are issued by his Department; which section of his Department is responsible for issuing operational requirements; how many operational requirements have been issued since 31 December 1998; and how many of these operational requirements are currently unclassified. [93933]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  "Operational requirement" is a generic term used to describe the detailed documentation setting out a military requirement for equipment, in preparation for possible procurement action. It is prepared by staff reporting to the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Equipment Capability), in consultation with others in my Department, and may, when appropriate, be made available to industry during the procurement process. Since 31 December 1998, work has been initiated on some 196 new operational requirements. There is no central record of the numbers of operational requirements issued to industry. Since such documents give details of our planned future military capability, they are almost invariably classified.

  Bombs
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size of the existing surplus of 5001b bombs in this country; and what the cost(a) has been to manufacture and (b) will be to destroy this surplus. [94051]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  There are currently no surplus 5001b bombs in this country. However, a number of 5001b bombs which had reached the end of their initial service life, and which subsequent testing had shown to be defective, were destroyed earlier this year at a cost of around £135K.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July Quarterly report to the House. [93562]

  Mr. Battle
  Details of the Department's progress in tackling the bug are set out in our quarterly monitoring returns. These are available in the Libraries of the House and are published on the internet. The results of the October monthly review of progress of Government departments and agencies in tackling the bug are due to be announced shortly by the President of the Council. It will show that the Department's business critical systems will be compliant by 31 October as scheduled and that work on non critical systems is well advanced. The Foreign and Commonwealth Business Continuity Plan and Millennium Operating Plan will also both be completed and tested by 31 October on schedule. All our posts have prepared and tested their own Business Continuity Plans.

  Falklands
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department expects to clear the anti-personnel mines that remain in the Falkland Islands. [94641]

  Mr. Battle
  We are fully committed to the Ottawa Convention, which entered into force in the UK on 1 March 1999. It requires us to clear all anti-personnel mines from the Falkland Islands within 10 years of entry, unless we can show good reasons why an extension should be granted. Such reasons may include humanitarian, environmental and technical considerations. Mine clearance in the Falkland Islands is both difficult and dangerous and we should be keeping these points in mind.

  The Ministry of Defence estimate that 14,000 anti-personnel mines were laid by the Argentines in the Falkland Islands in 1982. The Argentine Government have offered to assist in mine clearance. During President Menem's visit to the UK in October 1998, we agreed as a first step to work together with Argentina to evaluate the feasibility and cost of clearing the land mines still present in the Falkland Islands. Work on a Memorandum of Understanding setting out how this feasibility study

  425
  will be carried out is underway. Both Governments re-affirmed their commitment to co-operate on mine clearance in the Joint Statement of 14 July 1999.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response there has been to the report of Mr. Jiri Dienstbier, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights for Yugoslavia, on sanctions against former Yugoslavia. [94711]

  Mr. Hain
  Mr. Dienstbier's most recent report was submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights on 20 January 1999. It makes no reference to sanctions. I understand that, following his visit to the region in early October 1999, Mr. Dienstbier will shortly be submitting a further report to the General Assembly. The Government have not seen the report, which has yet to be published.

  Missing Israeli Servicemen
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government(a) has made and (b) proposes to make, over the missing Israeli servicemen, Ron Arad, Zachary Baumel, Zvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz. [R] [94410]

  Mr. Hain
  We regularly raise the issue of the missing Israeli servicemen with those who might have knowledge of their fate. The late Derek Fatchett met the families of the missing servicemen when he visited Israel in January 1998. Other suitable opportunities will be taken advantage of as they arise.

  Honorary British Consuls
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what stipend or other emoluments are paid to honorary British consuls. [94712]

  Mr. Hain
  Honorary British Consuls receive an honorarium, currently set at a ceiling of £1,835, and reimbursement of necessary expenses.

  Iraq (Papal Visit)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made, by which(a) Ministers and (b) officials, to the Holy See about the Pope's planned visit to Iraq. [94360]

  Mr. Hain
  Ministers have not made any representations. Foreign Office officials have discussed the proposed Papal visit to Iraq with officials from the Holy See. We have expressed concern that the visit will be manipulated by the Iraqi government for propaganda purposes and represented as evidence of Papal support for Saddam Hussein's regime and its policies.

  Hong Kong War Pensions
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many former prisoners of war currently benefit from the Hong Kong War Memorial Pension Scheme. [93831]

  Mr. Battle
  As at 31 August 1999, there were 661 pensioners under the Hong Kong War Memorial Pension Scheme, of which 467 were single widowed 426
  persons and 194 were married. None of these are British ex-servicemen. No distinction is made between those who were prisoners of war and others who qualify under the scheme.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution was made by the Government to the Hong Kong War Memorial Pension Scheme in 1991. [93830]

  Mr. Battle
  Under Section 5 of the Hong Kong War Memorial Pensions Ordinance of 1991, pensions were paid from the general revenue of the then Hong Kong Government. They are now paid by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

  Turing's Treatise on the Enigma
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 31 March 1999,Official Report, column 689, on Government Codes and Cypher School, if GCHQ holds a complete copy of Turing's Treatise on the Enigma to be released to the Public Record Office; and if Turing's Treatise on the Enigma has been released to the United States National Archives. [93961]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  GCHQ holds Turing's Treatise on the Enigma and will shortly release it to the PRO. A facsimile is available in the United States National Archives.

  International Criminal Court Treaty
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what timetable he has adopted in respect of the drafting of legislation to enable the signing of the International Criminal Court Treaty. [93675]

  Mr. Hain
  The legislation to enable ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court will be introduced as soon as the Parliamentary timetable permits. Detailed work to prepare this legislation is going forward. We are strongly committed to the Court and intend to be among the first sixty States to ratify.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor General what proportion of cases brought by the Serious Fraud Office have resulted in conviction. [94156]

  The Solicitor-General
  Since its inception, the Serious Fraud Office has prosecuted 197 cases involving 442 defendants. Of the 442 defendants, 300 were convicted or pleaded guilty, an overall conviction rate of 68 per cent.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in
  427
  the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July Quarterly report to the House. [93569]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  All DCMS computer systems have been tested and are now millennium ready. My Department provides no public services via any computer systems for which it is directly responsible. A millennium contingency plan has now been completed and will be tested shortly.

  No slippage occurred following the July statement to the House. My Department's Year 2000 programme was completed at the end of July 1999. We will though continue to monitor the position until the end of the year.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in each year since the establishment of English Heritage, how much(a) his Department and its predecessors, (b) English Heritage, (c) other departments and (d) other agencies have spent on (i) public consultations, (ii) conferences, (iii) public exhibitions, (iv) public relations, design and other consultancy fees and (v) legal fees in connection with (1) the Stonehenge World Heritage Site, (2) proposals for a new visitors centre and (3) proposals for roads in the vicinity. [94153]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Prior to 1990–91, English Heritage incurred no expenditure in respect of Stonehenge beyond that arising from its normal day-to-day responsibilities. Between 1990–91 and 1997–98, English Heritage spent some £3.7 million in relation to proposals for a new visitor centre and for improving the setting of the monument. However, the total expenditure cannot at this stage be readily apportioned to specific aspects of the project. From 1 April 1998 to date, English Heritage expenditure has been as follows:

  £

  Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan

  Public consultation

  47,678

  Public relations, design and other consultancy fees

  58,803

  Proposed new visitor centre

  Public exhibitions

  24,304

  Public relations, design and other consultancy fees

  48,966

  Legal fees

  96,237

  Prior to 1 April 1996, the only expenditure by the Highways Agency that can be attributed solely to the Stonehenge element of the A303/Amesbury—Berwick Down scheme relates to a public consultation exhibition in 1993 costing £32,000 and a conference and exhibition in 1994 costing £78,000. Since then, they have spent £794,945 on the design of the Stonehenge part of the scheme. In addition to this, they mounted a public exhibition earlier this year (1999) at a cost of £48,000.

  My Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and their predecessor Departments have not incurred any directly attributable costs in connection with Stonehenge. It is not possible meaningfully to apportion the cost of official time spent in respect of consultations and correspondence.

  Library and Leisure Services
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the levels of spending on(a) library services and (b) leisure services per head of the population in each county of England in each year since 1995–96. [94314]

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the levels of spending on(a) library services and (b) leisure services per head of population in (i) Staffordshire and (ii) each other county of England (1) in the current year and (2) in each of the last three years. [94017]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The requested information is set out in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's annual publications "Public Library Statistics" and "Leisure and Recreation Statistics", which can be consulted in the House Library.

  Royal Armouries Museum
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the(a) financial situation at the Royal Armouries Museum, (b) public funds made available to the museum and (c) the future of the museum and its management. [94381]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Following the restructuring of the PFI arrangement at the end of July which enabled the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds to remain fully open, DCMS Ministers are keeping the financial situation under close scrutiny. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an additional £1 million per annum available to the Royal Armouries, a 25 per cent. increase in its grant support. The additional grant support is conditional on improvements in management and efficiency which are essential to the future well-being of the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds.

  Performing Arts
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on provision for performing arts for young people. [94428]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Ensuring all children have access to the arts and to quality arts education opportunities are key departmental priorities. We are working closely with the Department for Education and Employment, the Arts Council of England and other partners on a range of policies to deliver this.

  Airport Tax
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment he has made of the impact of the level of airport tax on the tourism industry in the United Kingdom. [94160]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department has made no systematic assessment of the impact of Air Passenger Duty (APD). APD was introduced in November 1994, and there were 20.8 million overseas visits to the UK in 1994. In 1998, there were almost 26 million overseas visits to the UK.
  429
  I am, however, aware of the travel and tourism industry's concerns about the APD and have passed these on to ministerial colleagues in the Treasury.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of her Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July quarterly report to the House. [93575]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Privy Council Office (PCO) computer systems are part of the Cabinet Office network, which is millennium compliant. These systems are encompassed in the Cabinet Office returns.

  PCO's own computer and other electronic hardware have been tested and are compliant. PCO has recently relocated to new premises, which have also been tested and are compliant. There has been no slippage in PCO's millennium bug programme.

  PCO does not provide services to the general public.

  PCO is in the process of finalising its business continuity plan and millennium operating regime and will be bound by the targets I set other Departments and Agencies of having robust and tested plans in place by the end of October.

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list(a) the reports published by her Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by her Department, (c) the decisions her Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria she uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93981]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code makes it clear that when Parliament is in session, Ministers will want to bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament. This is considered in the light of other parliamentary business under consideration in the same week. It is therefore not possible to say with certainty whether any particular decision would be announced in an oral statement even when the House is sitting.

  During Parliamentary recesses, the business of Government continues and outside events often require ministerial decisions which cannot await the end of recess. Many of the significant reports published and decisions made during the recess will come before Parliament in other ways—such as the annual reports of agencies or statutory instruments—and are laid on the day the House returns. A full list of these will appear in the Votes and Proceedings for Tuesday 19 October.
  430
  In relation to my own responsibilities, monthly statements of progress on tackling the Millennium bug in central Government and the wider public sector were sent to all Members in August and September. Information was also made available in the Libraries of the House. When the house is sitting, these announcements are made by oral statement.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Rwanda
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is being given to Rwanda to help improve its educational infrastructure. [94387]

  Clare Short
  Education is identified as a key sector for DFID support in our recently published Country Strategy Paper for Rwanda. Since 1998, we have provided short-term planning advice and, together with the World Bank, have been helping the Government of Rwanda carry out a Public Expenditure Review of education and other key social sectors aimed at identifying strategic priorities which are affordable and sustainable. In addition, we have provided direct budgetary support aimed at increasing the proportion of Government expenditure in the social sectors.

  Over the next three years, we plan to build on this work as our partnership with the Government of Rwanda deepens. We are at the early stages of planning a sector support programme in education to be implemented in collaboration with the World Bank and other interested donors. In addition to providing much needed institutional strengthening and further strategic planning support, the programme would target infrastructure and training priorities.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the current humanitarian situation in Rwanda. [94388]

  Clare Short
  Unrest in the north-west of Rwanda in the latter part of 1998 led to the displacement of over 600,000 people. Since November 1998, we have provided over £1.7 million in humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable groups. A degree of stability has now returned to the north-west, but we stand ready to respond to any further humanitarian crises in Rwanda as needs are identified.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list her Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93681]

  Clare Short
  We publish a wide range of material, both centrally funded and as part of individual programmes such as those covering knowledge and research work. We spent around £1.3 million on official publications since May 1997, which includes the costs incurred in publishing, preparation, production and purchase of copies for official use. It excludes the costs of publications produced for internal use and as part of individual programmes of research.
  431
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of her Department, excluding non-departmental public bodies and agencies, in the last five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93850]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) has three main in-house publications for its staff:

  'North & South', a bi-monthly staff newspaper produced since February 1991.

  'What's happening?', a bi-monthly newsletter on management initiatives published since June 1997 under its present title, and from November 1996 to May 1997 as 'Management Matters'.

  'Weekly Office Notices', an electronic newsletter of staff postings, and other events of general interest.

  A number of individual departments also produce periodic newsletters for some or all staff. While it would be disproportionately expensive to provide an exhaustive list of these, examples include:

  'European News', a monthly newsletter issued in print and electronic form by the European Union Department since 1997.

  'NR News', a quarterly newsletter issued electronically by Rural Livelihoods and Environment Division since June 1996.

  'Infoload', a monthly newsletter issued electronically by DFID's Library since 1997.

  None of these in-house publications have any secrecy clarification. Several are only sent electronically to staff with an acknowledged interest in a particular subject, or to members of staff of the issuing department.

  Western Kenya (Malaria)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid her Department is providing for Kisii, in Western Kenya, in relation to a malaria epidemic. [94390]

  Clare Short
  My Department gave technical advice to the Government of Kenya following the outbreak of this malaria epidemic. One of our regional health team based in Nairobi joined two Government/donor teams sent to the District to assist the local health authorities in the management of the crisis and helped to co-ordinate inputs from the European Commission, WHO, and UNICEF. DFID also drew up emergency treatment protocols in collaboration with colleagues from the WHO country office which were adopted and used.

  DFID has provided around £1.3 million over the last two years for emergency malaria work in Kenya, including one year's supply of the new first-line drug for malaria treatment, Sulphadoxine-Pyrimethamine (SP). The availability of this drug was a major factor in reducing the impact of the epidemic. We are also helping the Government of Kenya to prepare epidemic preparedness guidelines which should strengthen the response to future outbreaks.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of her Department's432
  computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July quarterly report to the House. [93577]

  Clare Short
  Details of the Department's progress in tackling the Millennium Bug are set out in our quarterly monitoring returns. These are available in the Libraries of the House and are published on the Internet.

  All of the key business critical systems have been tested and put back into service. Work is also complete on non-critical systems, telecommunications systems and embedded chips.

  The Millennium Operating Regime has been completed and presented to Ministers. The Business Continuity Plans for all IT business critical systems have been dry-tested. Contingency arrangements on some non-IT aspects of the business covered by the Business Continuity Plans will be tested as appropriate in the next few weeks.

  The results of the October monthly review of progress of Departments and agencies in tackling the bug are due to be announced shortly by the President of the Council.

  In order to ensure that the projects are effective, they are appraised before approval and monitored during implementation.

  Mine Clearance Projects
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what countries have received direct support from the UK Government since 1997 for mine clearance projects; and if she will make a statement about the effectiveness of the projects. [94667]

  Clare Short
  My department had funded projects to clear anti-personnel mines and other unexploded ordnance since 1997 in the following countries:Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia, Cambodia, Croatia, Egypt, Georgia, Iraq (Northern), Jordan, Laos, Mozambique, Yugoslavia (Kosovo province).

  The projects address urgent humanitarian needs in the context of post-conflict resettlement. They improve access for rural or urban poor to land and services and thus promote sustainable livelihoods.

  In order to ensure that the project are effective, they are appraised before approval and monitored during implementation.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what dates special advisers from her Department have visited the United States of America on official business since 1 May 1997; which of her special advisers took part in each visit; and if she will list the meetings which these special advisers held with members and officials of the United States Government during each visit, specifying the date and location of each meeting and the names of the US members and officials at each meeting. [93943]

  Clare Short
  Since 1 May 1997, no Special Advisers from my Department have visited the United States of America on official business.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Employment Contracts (Clergy)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have to issue formal employment contracts for clergy. [93275]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Archbishops' Council has set up a staff group to explore what can and should be done to give the clergy the rights they could and should expect.

  The great majority of clergy are office holders without contracts of employment. For National Insurance purposes only, they are deemed to be employees of the Church Commissioners.

  Giving clergy formal employment contracts would raise questions about the current arrangements over patronage, parochial appointments practices, selection for ordination training and clergy discipline, and would require complex and protracted legislation with great problems in defining the employer.

  The Minister for Trade has indicated that there would be extensive consultation were he to exercise the powers conferred on him by Clause 23 of the Employment Relations Act in respect of the faith communities.

  Clergy (Housing)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have to review the estimated value of the housing clergy receive. [94040]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Archbishops' Council, in its annual report as central Stipends Authority, provides an assessment of the value of the amount clergy would have to earn if they were to have to provide and maintain domestic accommodation (excluding office space) for themselves and their families.

  The clergy remuneration package (including the value of provided housing) will be considered by the group set up by the Archbishops' Council to review clergy stipends. The group will make a preliminary report to the Council in November 2000.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have for changing the housing situation of retired clergy as regards obtaining their own property. [94052]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  There are currently no plans to change the retirement provisions for clergy. The level of clergy pensions and retirement lump sums recognise the need for retired clergy to meet the cost of their housing.

  The Church of England Pensions Board operates a scheme for assisting with the actual provision of retirement housing. Under the scheme, applicants with some resources can be granted value-linked mortgage loans to enable them to purchase a property. Those with very limited resources may occupy a property owned by the Board, for which they pay a maintenance contribution. Most of the finance for the scheme is provided by the Church Commissioners.

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have for celebrating the millennium. [93653]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church of England is working in close partnership with the other Christian Churches, with the overall goal of encouraging a wide range of activities and projects which seek to celebrate and explain the Christian faith. Hundreds of local congregations are also making plans for activities and events under the three themes of a New Start with God, a New Start at Home, and a New Start for the World's Poor. The Faith zone of the Millennium Dome will also celebrate the nation's Christian heritage. The Archbishop of Canterbury will lead the nation in prayer during the opening ceremony at the Dome on New Year's Eve and the Churches' Millennium Resolution, set to music by John Taverner, will be sung. Later in the year, the main focus of the Churches' celebrations will be Pentecost Sunday, June 11, when a large range of events have been planned.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Electoral Procedures
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the final report of the Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures. [94816]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today placed a copy of the Working Party's Report in the Library and it will also be published on the Home Office's internet website.

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), now Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and all the members of his Working Party, on a report that will be a major landmark in this country's electoral history. The existing procedures have served us well but are now well over a hundred years old and do not fully reflect modern conditions of life and work. The Working Party has gone out of its way to ensure that the integrity and openness of our electoral system will still be maintained into the next century.

  I am very pleased to see the cross-party consensus that was achieved within the Working Party as this is essential to any aspect of electoral legislation.

  I commend the Working Party's report to the House. The majority of its recommendations will require primary legislation, and I shall be seeking the earliest practical opportunity for a Bill. I look forward to cross-party co-operation that will ensure a swift and smooth passage for this excellent set of proposals.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July Quarterly report to the House. [93564]
  435
  Mr. Straw
  Details of the Home Office and its agencies' progress in tackling the bug are set out in our quarterly monitoring returns. These are available in the Library and are published on the Internet.

  In the latest published return, up to the end of August, out of 28 business critical Information Technology systems in the Home Office and its Agencies, 25 had been declared Year 2000 compliant. The remaining three systems completed their work during September. In the Home Office all Business Critical systems (Information Technology, Telecommunications and Embedded Systems) have now completed their Year 2000 work.

  My department will complete work on all non-critical systems slightly later. 86 per cent. of non-critical Information Technology systems are complete, with full completion due during November. 80 per cent. of all non-critical embedded systems are compliant, with all work due to complete during December. Non-critical telecommunications work is scheduled to finish during this month. It should be noted that none of these non-critical systems affect the key services provided by my Department.

  In Home Office Agencies, with the exception of one building management system, whose functions can be performed manually, all non-critical systems are compliant.

  The results of the October monthly review of progress of Government departments and agencies in tackling the bug are to be announced shortly by the President of the Council.

  The Home Office has policy responsibility for the police, fire, prison and probation services, the Police Information Technology Organisation and the Forensic Science Service. The results of the latest independent assessment of these sectors will be announced at the National Infrastructure Forum (NIF) on 21 October. This will show that good progress has been made since the previous NIF on 13 July, with all areas expected to report a Blue grading, meaning no material disruption is expected.

  All key services provided by the Home Office will have business continuity plans in place by the end of October. 16 of the 19 services have already completed this work. My Department's Millennium Operating Regime will be completed by the end of this month and will be effective from November 1999.

  Two Home Office business critical systems reported minor slippage during August, although these have since been declared compliant. The Forensic Science Service also reported that embedded systems at one site were not yet compliant. Negotiations are continuing with the landlords and the necessary compliance work is expected to be completed shortly.

  Schengen
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the Commission recommendation concerning the UK application to join elements of Schengen. [94139]
  436
  Mrs. Roche
  The Opinion of the European Commission on the United Kingdom's application to participate in certain provisions of the Schengen acquis was deposited for Parliamentary scrutiny on 9 August 1999. At the same time a copy was placed in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration posts have run-out of forms SAL1 and SAL2 in the last year; how many have been using form IS96 for the wrong purpose in the last year; what assessment he has made of the effects of this on(a) fraud and (b) inconvenience to asylum seekers; what plans he has to issue more consistency of supply; and if he will make a statement. [93732]

  Mrs. Roche
  In the 12 months ending on 12 July 1999, because of printing problems, four immigration ports of entry exhausted their supplies of form SAL1 on various dates between 29 June and 12 July 1999 but no port of entry exhausted its supply of form SAL2. As a temporary measure, the Immigration Service, after liaising with the Benefits Agency, issued alternative confirmation that applicants who were not issued with form SAL1 had arrived in the United Kingdom and sought asylum on entry. There is no record that during the same period any port used form IS96 for the wrong purpose.

  There are no indications that these measures had any bearing on fraud or that there was significant inconvenience to asylum seekers.

  There are now adequate stocks of forms SAL1 and SAL2 available and future orders will be placed earlier.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the age distribution of individuals who commit drug-related crime on Merseyside. [94517]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not centrally collated. However, some research bearing on the Merseyside area, is currently being analysed as part of the New England and Wales Arrestee and Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) programme for interviewing and drug testing arrestees. It is hoped to publish the next set of full results, including those for Merseyside, in the first half of next year.

  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. [94523]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  One of the four Key Aims of the Government's drug 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 next year, an additional £60 million for the provision of new treatment services in prison and up to £20 million over the next two years to assist in the development of arrest referral schemes to get drug misusing offenders into treatment.
  437
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much expenditure has been committed to reducing drug-related crime on Merseyside, for each year since 1995. [94522]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The total expenditure of the relevant agencies involved in tackling drug-related crime on Merseyside is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what range of initiatives have been taken by Her Majesty's Government since 1997 on Merseyside to reduce drug-related crime. [94516]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The responsibility for local delivery on Merseyside of the Government's drugs strategy, including the key aim of protecting communities from drug-related crime, rests with the four Drug Action Teams in Liverpool, Sefton, St. Helens and Knowsley and Wirral. In addition, Liverpool is one of the three locations

  Expenditure per head of population—1995–96 to 1999–2000

  £

  Police forces (England)

  1995–961

  1996–971

  1997–981

  1998–992

  1999–20002

  Shire police authorities

  Avon & Somerset

  98.0

  103.7

  107.5

  111.1

  115.5

  Bedfordshire

  100.4

  103.9

  106.9

  110.9

  111.8

  Cambridgeshire

  87.3

  93.3

  99.5

  102.7

  103.7

  Cheshire

  87.1

  94.1

  104.2

  107.5

  112.2

  Cleveland

  116.8

  127.2

  132.4

  137.5

  145.9

  Cumbria

  109

  117.5

  125.7

  127.4

  130.5

  Derbyshire

  90.0

  94.1

  98.4

  102.7

  108.8

  Devon & Cornwall

  95.1

  96.9

  100.2

  108.5

  112.3

  Dorset

  91.2

  100.8

  102.7

  104.7

  110.4

  Durham

  100.3

  111.3

  122.4

  129.4

  135.6

  Essex

  97.45

  100.4

  102.1

  108.6

  111.1

  Gloucestershire

  98.7

  103.5

  105.8

  113.0

  115.9

  Hampshire

  95.0

  98.9

  102.4

  106.8

  109.1

  Hertfordshire

  94.8

  103.2

  106.7

  111.7

  116.4

  Humberside

  107.0

  110.3

  119.7

  122.9

  126.9

  Kent

  96.1

  103.5

  111.5

  114.0

  116.7

  Lancashire

  107.5

  111.5

  117.2

  119.8

  123.3

  Leicestershire

  93.4

  100.9

  105.6

  107.9

  113.2

  Lincolnshire

  95.9

  100.2

  104.2

  106.5

  111.0

  Norfolk

  89.7

  96.6

  102.9

  103.6

  106.4

  North Yorkshire

  90.9

  92.3

  98.6

  102.9

  104.2

  Northamptonshire

  97.0

  98.7

  106.6

  106.8

  111.4

  Nottinghamshire

  100.9

  107.6

  114.5

  117.4

  121.6

  Staffordshire

  93.4

  102.6

  104.5

  110.1

  113.0

  Suffolk

  85.8

  91.1

  97.2

  101.2

  103.2

  Surrey

  107.7

  110.8

  116.5

  115.8

  118.8

  Sussex

  91.9

  99.9

  104.3

  108.2

  109.4

  Thames Valley

  92.8

  97.1

  102.8

  106.8

  109.2

  Warwickshire

  96.0

  95.1

  99.9

  104.7

  108.7

  West Mercia

  85.5

  91.3

  95.3

  99.7

  102.7

  Wiltshire

  96.9

  100.5

  104.6

  108.3

  113.0

  Metropolitan police authorities

  Greater Manchester

  125.9

  130.2

  136.2

  140.6

  146.9

  Merseyside

  151.5

  153.3

  158.2

  166.5

  172.4

  Northumbria

  120.6

  126.2

  131.7

  137.5

  143.6

  South Yorkshire

  108.6

  114.2

  124.9

  125.3

  129.5

  West Midlands

  120.4

  130.9

  132.5

  135.9

  139.5

  West Yorkshire

  111.1

  123.9

  130.7

  131.3

  135.61

  Metropolitan police

  214.8

  216.1

  218.3

  234.6

  240.5

  Average for England

  103.7

  109.3

  114.6

  118.7

  122.6

  1 Figures for 1995–96 to 1997–98 are from Audit Commission

  2 Figures for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are based on police force budgets and police authority population estimates

  438
  in the country where the new drug treatment and testing order is being piloted under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much expenditure has been committed to reducing drug- related crime within the United Kingdom in each year since 1995. [94521]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not possible to identify separately the national expenditure on reducing drug-related crime. The total annual expenditure on tackling drug misuse has been estimated at £1.4 billion. An additional £217 million over three years was made available in 1998.

  Police Service
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the levels of spending on the police service per head of the population in each county of England in each year since 1995–96. [94206]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Fire Service
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the levels of spending on the Fire Service per head of the population in each county of England in each year since 1995–96. [94207]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 503.

  Passports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in Lancashire received their passports after the target date set by the Passport Agency in each of the last six months. [94208]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Passport Agency does not monitor its performance on a county basis.

  Applications from Lancashire would normally be dealt with by the Liverpool Passport Office, which faced considerable operational difficulties over the summer. To ensure that customers' needs were met, it moved from working a ten-day turnaround target for straightforward applications—its main customer service target—to prioritising applications by declared travel dates. These dates were met in 99.99 per cent. of cases.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in Lancashire did not receive their passports from the Passport Agency before their declared journey time; and when they will receive(a) compensation and (b) apologies. [94183]

  Mrs. Roche
  Applications from Lancashire would normally be dealt with by the Liverpool Passport Office and their records show that in the period January 1999 to September 1999 claims were received from 22 residents in Lancashire relating to a missed travel date. The Passport Agency very much regrets the anxiety and inconvenience caused by its missing of these dates. All these cases have received an apology and compensation as appropriate.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to carry out the next customer satisfaction survey for the UK Passport Agency. [94132]

  Mrs. Roche
  Customer satisfaction surveys are carried out by the Passport Agency bi-monthly for postal applications and every quarter for personal callers. The last postal survey covered the period 30 July to 2 September 1999 and is due to be published shortly. The last survey for personal callers covered the period 27 August to 4 October and is due to be published at the beginning of November. Copies of the analyses of these surveys will be placed in the Library.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what subjects were discussed at(a) the informal EU Council of Justice and Home Affairs
  440
  Ministers on 24 and 25 September and (b) the formal Council in Luxemburg on 4 and 5 October; and if he will make a statement. [94339]

  Mr. Straw
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the meetings that took place on 16-17 September and 4 October.

  The informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Turku, Finland, on 16-17 September concentrated on preparations for the European Council at Tampere. Ministers exchanged views on the three main themes—asylum and immigration, cross-border crime and developing a European Judicial Area—proposed for discussion at Tampere.

  As regards the formal meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 4 October, I have written to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees, in accordance with the special arrangements which apply during a recess, reporting on the outcome. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my letter.

  Counterfeit Travel Documents
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the Commission's comments (8505/99 ADD.1) on the proposal for a Council decision on the improved exchange of information to control counterfeit travel documents. [94318]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government supported the adoption of this Council decision which was subject to agreement by unanimity. Nevertheless, it recognises that this measure can be seen both as a police co-operation measure and as a measure to combat illegal immigration and has noted the Commission's statement in that context. The final arbiter of the correct legal base for this measure would be the European Court of Justice; it is open to any interested party to bring such a matter before the Court for such a ruling.

  The Government consider that, irrespective of whether the fifth recital of this Decision is redundant, it cannot as a Third Pillar measure affect the respective competencies of the Community and its member states.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the responsibilities of his Department in respect of(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [94340]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Broadly, my responsibilities remain the same as they were before devolution to Scotland and Wales (devolution to Northern Ireland has not yet taken effect). Specifically, details of the matters for which the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales are now responsible, and for which the devolved administration in Northern Ireland will be responsible in due course, can be found in the following documents:

  Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5,

  Scotland Act 1998: Executive Devolution Order,

  Scotland Act 1998: Transfer of Functions Order,

  Government of Wales Act 1998, Sections 21 and 22 and Part III,

  Government of Wales Act 1998: Assembly Transfer Order, and

  Northern Ireland Act 1998, Section 4 and Schedules 2 and 3.

  EU Readmission Issues
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the claim of the European Commission that the EU should have competence over readmission issues. [94133]

  Mrs. Roche
  Following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, matters concerning immigration and asylum co-operation are now contained within Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community and are therefore within Community competence. The Government is of the view that readmission issues could fall within the scope of Article 63(3)(b) TEC which provides for measures on immigration policy within the area of removal of illegal residents.

  Under the terms of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaties by the Treaty of Amsterdam, the United Kingdom may decide to participate in the adoption and application of any measures, including readmission measures, brought forward in Title IV, but it is not otherwise bound by Community law in this area. Should any readmission measures be considered to be a development of the Schengen acquis, the provisions of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union would also be relevant.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors are used to determine the allocation of resources for postgraduate education courses to prisoners serving lengthy prison sentences. [94704]

  Mr. Boateng
  The main priority for the Prison Service is to raise the levels of literacy and numeracy among prisoners, but there are opportunities for eligible prisoners to pursue courses of higher education where resources allow.

  A prisoner would be deemed eligible if as a result of assessment a higher degree course was a requirement of the sentence plan. It would be necessary prior to embarking on this course of study for the prisoner to demonstrate that he or she was capable of attaining the qualification. Resources to pay for this could either come from the governor's budget, a charitable organisation or from the prisoner or a relative.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources are available for courses of study to further degree level in each prison; what criteria are applied in deciding the allocation of these resources; and if he will make a statement. [94583]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is for prison governors to decide how much from their annual budget to allocate to education. The main priority of the Prison Service is to raise the levels of literacy and numeracy among prisoners, but there are opportunities for eligible prisoners to pursue higher education studies. Each application is considered on its merits, and there is no predetermined level of funding specifically for degree courses. Before any application can be approved, the governor and education officer need to be satisfied that the prisoner has the aptitude, ability and motivation to complete their chosen course.
  442
  The Prison Service has made arrangements for eligible prisoners to undertake degree and other higher education courses with the Open University. These can be funded either by the prisoner, a relative, through a charitable trust or by the prison.

  In addition, the Open University has a system of financial support which it has agreed, as from the academic year starting February 2000, it will extend to pay the fees for continuing students in prison and has allocated up to £100,000 for this purpose.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will authorise correspondence and papers between Ministers and their US counterparts to be made available for public access, simultaneous to their availability in the USA under the provisions of that country's freedom of information legislation; and if he will make a statement. [94385]

  Mr. Straw
  The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information sets out current Government policy on access to information. The Code of Practice promotes a culture of openness. It makes the assumption that information should be released except where disclosure would not be in the public interest. Whilst the Code of Practice identifies categories of information that are exempt from the commitment to provide information, where there is a reference to harm or prejudice, there is the presumption that information should be disclosed unless the harm likely to arise from disclosure would outweigh the public interest in making the information available. The Code of Practice is a non-statutory regime which the Government plan to replace with a Freedom of Information Act. It will, however, continue to operate the Code of Practice until a new Act is brought into force. The Government plan to introduce a Freedom of Information Bill into Parliament as soon as the timetable allows.

  The Government's proposals for a Freedom of Information Act are contained within Freedom of Information, Consultation on Draft Legislation. Under the provisions contained in the Bill, public authorities, including all central government departments, will have a duty to comply with requests promptly and in any event within a specified time limit. Where the information sought falls into an exempt area, it will be for the authority to consider, on a case by case basis, whether the information should be disclosed in the public interest. This will ensure that proper consideration is given to all requests by the authority. This is the appropriate way forward. It is for the United Kingdom Government to develop legislation which is appropriate to the needs of this country. It would be wrong to subject United Kingdom authorities to the scope of foreign legislation in the context of their activities in this country. It is for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to decide such matters, not the congress of the United States of America.

  The draft Bill was the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny by the Public Administration Select Committee, as well as a Select Committee of the House of Lords and a period of public consultation. The Government will respond to the recommendations of the Select Committees and to the public consultation soon.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the new guidelines relating to the use of plastic bullets by police forces in England and Wales. [94379]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 27 July 1999,Official Report, columns 246-47.

  Prison Service Documents
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the terms of reference for his inquiry into the leak of confidential Prison Service documents established on 12 July; if the inquiry team has power to examine the involvement of the intelligence services; and if he will place in the Library his letter to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). [93528]

  Mr. Boateng
  An internal investigation into the loss of confidential information from Belmarsh prison was ordered by the Director of High Security Prisons on 14 July 1999, headed by the governor of Whitemoor prison.

  A separate inquiry is being undertaken by the Metropolitan Police which has led to an arrest, but is still continuing. The Prison Service inquiry will not be completed until after any police matters are concluded to avoid jeopardising any legal proceedings.

  A copy of the letter I sent to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 9 August about this matter has been placed in the Library.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Act
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 so that same-sex couples are dealt with in the same way as heterosexual couples. [93923]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We mounted a public consultation exercise on the compensation scheme earlier this year. That public debate was informed by the issue of a consultation paper "Compensation for Victims of Violent Crime: Possible Changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme". The possibility of extending eligibility for fatal awards to partners of the same sex was one of the options for change mentioned in that paper.

  We received over 50 responses to the consultation exercise and a wide variety of proposals for change was put forward, including the suggestion that fatal awards be given to same-sex partners. We are still considering the results of the consultation exercise, and hope to be able to say later in the year how we proposed to take matters forward.

TREASURY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the 444
  provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July quarterly report to the House. [93561]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Details of the Treasury's progress in tackling the bug are set out in our quarterly monitoring returns. These are available in the Libraries of the House and are published on the Internet. They show that work on business critical IT systems, embedded systems and telecoms has been completed. Our Y2K business continuity plan and millennium operating regime were completed in September. The results of the October monthly review of progress of Departments and agencies in tackling the bug are due to be announced shortly by the President of the Council.

  The results of the latest independent assessment of the tax collection and financial institutions sectors will be announced at the next National Infrastructure Forum on 21 October.

  Refurbishment Costs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost of refurbishing the Treasury. [94467]

  Mr. Timms
  The plans for the refurbishment of the Treasury accommodation in the building were announced by the former Chief Secretary on 27 July 1999,Official Report, columns 400-01. The design and build costs of the current project within the Private Finance Initiative package are £113 million. The non-Treasury space will be developed and let by the Private Sector Partner to other public sector bodies.

  Smuggling
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his latest assessment of the volume of cigarettes and tobacco products illegally smuggled into the country without duty being paid. [93578]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Based on work still in progress, Customs' provisional assessment is that losses through all forms of smuggling were around £1.7 billion in 1998, equivalent to approximately 10 per cent. of the cigarette market and 75 per cent. of the hand-rolling tobacco market.

  The Government take the challenge posed by smuggling to our health and revenue objectives extremely seriously and our position is clear. We will not permit organised smuggling to undo a policy on tobacco duty, which successive Governments have adopted for good and urgent health reasons.

  EU Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1999,Official Report, columns 132-34, on EU expenditure, if he will identify the legal basis for those items of Government expenditure listed; and what total sums are involved. [94148]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the former Economic Secretary gave the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 392.

  Public Finance Initiative
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated cost to the Treasury of not enforcing in full in all cases financial penalty clauses in PFI contracts in the last year for which figures are available. [94525]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Visits (United States)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he held with members and officials of the United States Government during his visits of December 4 to 6 1997 to New York and 16 July 1998, to Idaho, United States of America; and if he will list the date and location of each meeting, and the names and officials of the United States Government at each meeting. [93953]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my predecessor gave him on 31 March 1999,Official Report, column 687. The main purpose of the Chancellor's visit to the United States in December 1997 was to deliver a speech to the British-American Chamber of Commerce.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount collected by the windfall tax on the public utilities; and how much of this total has been paid out to each of the New Deal initiatives and other projects financed from the tax. [94447]

  Mr. Timms
  The Windfall Tax raised a revenue of £5.2 billion, all of which has now been collected. The allocation of this money to each initiative is set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report, March 1999, Table 4.1: The Allocation of the Windfall Tax. These estimates will be updated in the Pre-Budget Report this autumn.

  UK-US Inland Revenue Co-operation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the ways in which the Inland Revenue and the United States Inland Revenue Service co-operate to achieve their objectives; [93937]

  (2) if he will list all the (a) joint committees and (b) working groups which have been in existence manned by the Inland Revenue and the United States Inland Revenue Service since 1 January 1997, specifying the title, purpose, starting date and duration of each committee or group; [93935]

  (3) if he will list the agreements between the Inland Revenue and the United States Inland Revenue Service since 1 January 1997, specifying the title, purpose, starting date and duration of each agreement. [93936]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue and the US Internal Revenue Service co-operate within the terms of the Double Taxation Convention between the UK and the USA, and also exchange views on general issues of mutual interest.

  Council of Economic Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what dates Chris Wales, Paul Gregg and Shriti Vadera were appointed members of the Council of Economic Advisers. [93839]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Chris Wales and Paul Gregg took up their appointments on 3 September 1997, and Shriti Vadera on 1 April 1999.

  Pakistan (Cargo Seizure)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on HM Customs and Excise's seizure of cargo at Thamesport, in July, imported from the United States destined for Dubai and Lahore, alleged to have been procured for the Pakistani nuclear weapons programme. [94149]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There was no seizure of the nature identified in July 1999. There was, in May 1999, a seizure of aluminium bars intended for shipment to Dubai with a final destination understood to be Pakistan. The bars were of a specification which requires an export licence and were seized because there was no licence. Inquiries into this incident are continuing.

  VAT (New Houses)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce VAT at 17.5 per cent. on new houses; and if he will make a statement. [94196]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor has no present plans to impose VAT at 17.5 per cent. on new houses. The Government keep under review the scope for using economic instruments to complement the planning system in achieving their social and environmental objectives.

  National Insurance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of employees whose liability for national insurance contributions will rise by 2001–02 as a result of the reforms to employees' NICs introduced in the (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 Budgets. [94317]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There were no measures in the 1997 or 1998 Budgets which increased the MC liability of employees. In fact, the 1998 Budget included the abolition of the 2 per cent. "entry fee", which would have cost all NIC payers about £1.40 per week in 2001–02 had it remained in place.

  In the 1999 Budget, the Chancellor announced a number of changes for NICs. The point at which people start paying NICs and the upper earnings limit will be increased by more than indexation in April 2000 and April 2001, so those 16.6 million employees earning between £69 and around £540 per week will be liable to less NICs and 3.9 million employees earning more than around £540 per week will be liable to more NICs. The rise in the starting point for employees' NICs necessitates a rise in the upper earnings limit, to maintain the historical relationship between the two points and thus protect the base for such contributions.

  Health Insurance
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 July 1999,Official Report, column 632, (1) if the remit of the single ombudsman as proposed in the Financial Services and Markets Bill will extend to matters relating to permanent health insurers and claims of individuals suffering from chronic diseases; [94032]

  (2) if individuals covered through a contract of their employer with a permanent health insurer will have the right to complain to the single ombudsman; and if he will make a statement; [94070]

  (3) if the single ombudsman will have the power to investigate the methods used by permanent health insurers to assess the medical and mental condition of claimants. [94031]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The carrying on of permanent health insurance business will continue to be an activity requiring authorisation under the Financial Services and Markets Bill, as it is now under the Insurance Companies Act 1982.

  The Bill will require any authorised person who carries on those regulated activities specified by the Financial Services Authority to be subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the new Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme.

  The Authority is due to consult on the activities which it proposes should be covered by the compulsory jurisdiction of the Scheme before the end of the year. It is envisaged that it will cover permanent health insurance.

  The details of the Scheme's remit, powers and eligibility of complainants will be specified in the rules set by the Authority. Such matters will also be addressed in the Authority's consultation.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of families in Hendon which will benefit from working families tax credit in its first year. [94394]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Estimates for Hendon are not available.

  Duty-free Money
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1999 the proportion of the money stock as measured by MO which can be attributed to duty-free money as measured by MO; and if he will state the proportion in the years(a) 1989 and (b) 1979. [94126]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures for MO are published in table 3.1 B of the ONS publication "Financial Statistics". Data on the amount of duty-free spending is not available for the years requested.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of his Department, excluding non-departmental public 448
  bodies and agencies, in the last five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93852]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury has produced a monthly staff magazine called "Chequerboard" since July 1992. To date there have been 80 issues, all of which have contained only unclassified material.

  Gold
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent European Central Bank's agreement on gold. [94834]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The agreement reached by European central banks1 to limit gold sales and lending over the next five years means that the UK will be able to continue its sales programme while the price is underpinned. The agreement is an endorsement of the UK's transparent approach to selling gold. The Bank of England is a signatory on behalf of the Treasury.

  The text of the European central banks statement is set out below:

  Statement on Gold

  In the interest of clarifying their intentions with respect to their gold holdings, the institutions listed below1 make the following statement:

  1. Gold will remain an important element of global monetary reserves.

  2. The above institutions will not enter the market as sellers, with exception of already decided sales.

  3. The gold sales already decided will be achieved through a concerted programme of sales over the next five years. Annual sales will not exceed approximately 400 tons and total sales over this period will not exceed 2,000 tons.

  4. The signatories to this agreement have agreed not to expand their gold leasing and their use of gold future and options over this period.

  5. This agreement will be reviewed after five years.

  1The European Central Bank; the central banks of Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden; and the Bank of England.

  Pre-Budget Report
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish his Pre-Budget report. [94835]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  This year's Pre-Budget Report will be published on Tuesday 9 November.

  Diplomats (Tax-free Concessions)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the tax-free concessions which apply to (i) UK diplomats returning to the UK from EU countries, for(a) visits and (b) permanent residence and (ii) families of UK diplomats, indicating how many UK diplomats and members of their families are entitled to benefit from such tax free concessions. [94412]

  Mr. Timms
  No UK tax concessions are granted specifically to returning UK diplomats.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax-free concessions apply to (i) UK nationals and (ii) their families who are employed by or otherwise
  449
  attached to, or are members of the (a) European Parliament, (b) European Commission, and (c) NATO when returning to the UK on visits or for permanent residence, indicating how many people in the above categories are entitled to benefit from tax-free concessions. [94413]

  Mr. Timms
  UK nationals and their families who are employed by or otherwise attached to, or are members of the(a) European Parliament, (b) European Commission, and (c) NATO on return to the UK for visits or transfer of residence are not by virtue of their status granted any special tax-free concessions. The host nation tax authority can, however, extend some concessions to eligible organisations and their personnel. Where the UK is the host nation no tax concessions are granted to UK nationals.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice is given to people with entitlement to tax-free concessions as to the use of the entitlements; and if he will make a statement. [94414]

  Mr. Timms
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office advise diplomatic missions, international organisations and their entitled personnel as to their tax-free entitlements. Customs and Excise advise visiting forces as to their tax-free entitlements.

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93966]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which the President of the Council has given him today.

SCOTLAND

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the

  Title of publication

  Date of first issue

  Date of last issue

  Frequency of issue

  BSU Newsletter

  June 1998

  October 1999

  9 issues

  EC Link

  May 1994

  October 1996

  4 issues

  Engineering, Water and Waste Directorate Newsletter1

  1991

  1995

  Quarterly

  Gemini Gem

  March 1996

  March 1998

  12 issues

  National Roads Directorate Newsletter

  December 1994

  December 1995

  3 issues

  Phoenix Flyer

  May 1995

  February 1996

  4 issues

  SCOAP Newsletter

  February 1996

  March 1998

  7 issues

  Scoop

  June 1989

  September 1999

  Quarterly

  SCOTS Newsletter

  January 1995

  November 1997

  14 issues

  Scottish Parliament News

  December 1997

  May 1999

  8 issues

  Training and Development News

  February 1997

  August 1999

  15 issues

  1 No records regarding this title remain, as the Directorate has since been reorganised

  450
  provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July Quarterly Report to the House. [93574]

  Dr. Reid
  Computer systems, embedded systems and telecommunications within the Scotland Office have been tested and declared to be Year 2000 compliant. No slippage has occurred since the July return, and contingency plans are in place. Responsibility for Year 2000 compliance in the wider public sector in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the carbon dioxide emissions reduction needed for a 20 per cent. reduction in the UK's 1990 levels by 2010 he expects to be delivered in Scotland. [93868]

  Dr. Reid
  Following Kyoto in 1997, the UK has a legally binding target to cut emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels over the period 2008–12. The UK Government also have a domestic goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  The Government, in conjunction with the devolved administrations, are currently developing a draft climate change programme which will set out how we will deliver our Kyoto commitment and move towards our domestic goal. The aim is to publish the draft programme for consultation towards the end of 1999.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of his Department, excluding non-departmental public bodies and agencies, in the last five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93846]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department is aware of 11 in-house publications and newsletters, which have been produced during the last five years. The information is set out in the table. Where the date of first issue falls before 1994, that is the date which is given. The majority of titles have not been issued according to a fixed schedule. Circulation of these titles ranges from 'all staff' to staff in a single Scottish Department. None of these titles carry any security classification.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many special advisers have worked for Ministers in his Department since 1 May 1997; and on what date each of these special advisers was appointed to their post. [93881]

  Dr. Reid
  Between 1 May 1997 and 6 April 1999, four Special Advisers have worked for Ministers in the former Scottish Office. Ms Wendy Alexander and Mr. Murray Elder were appointed on 5 May 1997. Ms Alexander resigned on 31 December 1998 and Mr. Elder resigned on 6 April 1999 prior to the Scottish Parliament Election. Mr. David Whitton was appointed on 5 May 1998 and Ms Elsbeth Johnson on 1 February 1999. Both resigned on 6 April 1999.

  My current Special Advisers in the Scotland Office are Mr. Richard Olszewski, appointed on 17 May 1999, Mr. Mike Elrick, appointed on 14 June 1999 and Professor Mike Donnelly, appointed on 24 June 1999. Professor Donnelly will work in an unpaid capacity.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93978]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council today,Official Report, columns 429-30.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July quarterly report to the House. [93572]

  Mr. Byers
  Details of progress in tackling the bug are set out in our quarterly monitoring returns, the most recent being for September, which are available in the Libraries of the House and are published on the internet.

  Contingency plans are in place within the Department and its agencies. The results of the October monthly review of progress of Departments and agencies in tackling the bug are due to be announced shortly by the President of the Council.

  Metric and Imperial Units
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the inspection, compliance and enforcement costs of converting to dual metric and imperial units for goods sold loose from bulk. [94433]
  452
  Dr. Howells
  The cost of converting an existing weighing machine to operate in metric and imperial units would be between £60 and £145. The cost of buying a new machine in metric and imperial units would start at £450, depending on the model ordered.

  The cost of indicating prices in metric and imperial units would be relatively low where price tickets are printed by computer, but would be more expensive where price tickets are prepared manually. There may be a relatively small increase in the cost of inspection and enforcement because of the need to check the accuracy of weighing machines and price indications in both metric and imperial units.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of ending the exclusive use of imperial units for loose goods after 31 December on the retail trade, with regard to(a) the number of traders affected, (b) the average cost of conversion to metric plus imperial systems and (c) the total cost to the retail sector. [94432]

  Dr. Howells
  The compliance cost assessment published by the Department of Trade and Industry when the metrication legislation was laid before Parliament in 1994 estimated that about 62,000 traders would be affected. The overall business costs were estimated to be about £33 million, of which about £30 million was identified as the conversion or replacement of an estimated 200,000 weighing machines. The assessment did not apportion the costs between the metric changes in 1995 and the change to loose goods by the end of 1999. The UK Weighing Federation estimated that, at the beginning of 1999, only 95,000 weighing machines were still to be converted or replaced. According to the Federation, about 76,000 machines could be converted and the remaining 19,000 would have to be replaced.

  Small Business Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to transfer responsibilities from the Regulatory Impact Unit to the Small Business Service. [94669]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are three areas where responsibilities will be either transferred or shared between the Regulatory Impact Unit and the Small Business Service.

  Regulatory information: The work on providing advice and information on regulations to small businesses was transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry earlier this year in anticipation of the establishment of the Small Business Service. This includes responsibility for the Direct Action Government internet service and the proposals for an Electronic Regulation Service.

  Minimising regulatory burdens: The Small Business Service will be key to helping small businesses to meet the demands of regulation and ensuring that the impact of proposed regulations on small business is properly understood and taken into account at all levels of Government. The Small Business Service will work closely with the Regulatory Impact Unit to achieve this aim and working arrangements are being formulated at present.
  453
  Local Business Partnerships provide a forum for dialogue between local business and the local enforcement community. Responsibility for promoting partnerships will be transferred from the Regulatory Impact Unit to the Small Business Service shortly.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the aims and objectives of the Small Business Service Unit. [94500]

  Ms Hewitt
  A consultation paper on the Small Business Service was issued in June. It proposed that the Small Business Service should have three main aims: to act as a strong voice for small businesses at the heart of Government; to simplify and improve the quality and coherence of Government support for small businesses; and to help small firms with regulation and ensure small firms' interests are properly considered in future regulation.

  The consultation process closed on 30 September and the submissions are now being analysed.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service has been appointed. [94499]

  Ms Hewitt
  The post of Chief Executive of the Small Business Service was publicly advertised and the appointment will conform to public sector standards of recruitment. The date for applications has now closed and the selection process is taking place.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made establishing a Small Business Service; and what financial support the Small Business Service has(a) received and (b) been allocated. [94498]

  Ms Hewitt
  The consultation exercise on the role and objectives of the Small Business Service closed on 30 September. Over 700 written responses have been received and are currently being analysed.

  The recruitment of the Chief Executive is under way and I hope to announce the name of the successful candidate in November.

  As the Small Business Service will not begin operating formally until 1 April 2000, it is not currently in receipt of financial support. Its allocation for 2000–01 is not yet determined.

  Forest Products
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has consulted the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions, concerning the impact on rates of deforestation of the proposed elimination of tariffs on wood products. [94462]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are very much seized of the importance of ensuring that trade liberalisation is consistent with sustainable development. My Department has been, and remains, in close consultation with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and other interested Departments on the range of environmental issues raised by the prospective new round 454
  of trade negotiations. With UK support, the European Commission is currently undertaking a sustainability impact assessment which will cover particular trade sectors, including forest products, likely to be included in the new round. This impact assessment will be used by the European Union to inform its negotiating position in the future trade negotiations.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will oppose the proposal to establish a World Trade Organisation agreement on forest products. [93835]

  Mr. Caborn
  We do not rule out the possibility of an agreement on tariff reduction on forest products as part of a comprehensive round of trade negotiations.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on rates of deforestation of the proposed elimination of tariffs on wood products. [94461]

  Mr. Caborn
  With UK support, the European Commission is currently undertaking a sustainability impact assessment which will cover particular trade sectors, including forest products, likely to be included in the prospective new round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. This impact assessment, along with the views of others, such as those received by my Department in our recent consultation on tariff priorities for the new round, will be considered in forming a UK Government position on the issue.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the mechanisms within Government to ensure that the Government's policies on forest conservation are taken into account when its stance in World Trade Organisation negotiations is being considered. [93833]

  Mr. Caborn
  In formulating the Government's approach to the negotiations, the Department has consulted widely. I am confident that the range of mechanisms for such consultations will ensure that all other areas of Government policy are fully considered in developing our position for the negotiations.

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the change in costs of employing self-employed carers as a result of regulating secretarial and employment agencies; and if he will make a statement; [94373]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on self-employed carers of his policy of regulating secretarial and other employment agencies; and if he will make a statement. [94372]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Carers supplied by employment bureaux, whether self-employed or not, are protected by existing regulations on employment agency standards. We have been consulting on replacement regulations, including a proposal that workers (including carers) supplied by a bureau on a staff hire basis should have a
  455
  contract with that bureau instead of the hirer with whom they are placed. Care workers who are self-employed could remain so. The consultation document published on 31 May contains a regulatory impact assessment of possible cost consequences to those hiring staff through employment bureaux. We are also considering representations on costs.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which organisations have been or will be consulted in drawing up the terms of reference for research to assess the degree of consistency between tribunals in various parts of the UK as reported in the Government response to the review of anti-discrimination legislation conducted by the Better Regulation Task Force; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the project has expert advice on potential solutions in the field of information technology. [93529]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I propose to consult widely on the planned research project into the operation of tribunals which, as indicated in the Government's response to the Better Regulation Task Force Report, is likely to provide information on the consistency of employment tribunal decision-making. The exact terms of reference of the project are not yet determined. Given their interest, anti-discrimination bodies, the Equal Opportunities Commission and others will all be included in that consultation. Expert advice on the use of information and communication technologies in this project will be commissioned as necessary.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the statutory instruments introduced into Parliament by his Department in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [93838]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department has introduced 280 Statutory Instruments into Parliament since 1 May 1997. A list detailing these has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will reply to the letter of 26 May from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton regarding Mr. M. P. Dickson, a constituent. [93737]

  Mr. Byers
  The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), replied to the letter on 26 July 1999. A copy will be made available in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Duties
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the dates in July when the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), was not performing ministerial duties. [94147]

  Mr. Byers
  There were no such dates.

  Electronic Communications
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government proposes to introduce legislation to safeguard the privacy and security of e-mails; and if he will make a statement. [94577]

  Ms Hewitt
  In July the Government published the draft Electronic Communications Bill, which facilitates privacy and security of electronic communications, including e-mail, within the existing framework of legislation. It will be introduced into Parliament in the next session.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to publish the E-Commerce Bill. [94576]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Electronic Communications Bill was published in draft on 23 July and announced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on 23 July 1999,Official Report, columns 681-83, as part of a consultation. I am pleased to say that we have received over 80 responses to the consultation.

  The Government will introduce the Bill to Parliament in the next session.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on UK support for the Ilisu Dam project in Turkey. [94386]

  Mr. Caborn
  No decision has been made on the provision of ECGD support for this project. The case for such support is being considered in consultation with the contractors and governments from a number of countries.

  Airlines
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take to ensure fair competition between low cost airlines; and if he will make a statement. [94572]

  Dr. Howells
  Responsibility for ensuring that competition laws are not broken lies with the competition authorities, the Office of Fair Trading within the UK or the European Commission for activities which affect trade between member states. I look to these bodies to ensure fair competition, and for those with concerns to put them to the competition authorities for investigation.

  Post Office
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution was made to the Consolidated Fund by the Post Office in each of the last 10 years at(a) actual and (b) 1999 retail index prices; and if he will initiate a study of how future payments could be used to fund future investment in the postal services. [94637]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Post Office does not make payments to the Consolidated Fund, as it does not pay a dividend. However, its contribution to the Exchequer can be measured by its negative External Financing Requirement, through which it is obliged to invest in
  457
  gilt-edged stock or National Loan Fund deposits. In each of the last 10 years its contributions in both actual and in 1998–99 RPI values were as follows:

  £ million

  Actual

  1998–99 RPI

  1989–90

  102

  142

  1990–91

  0

  0

  1991–92

  74

  90

  1992–93

  80

  94

  1993–94

  182

  211

  1994–95

  235

  265

  1995–96

  245

  267

  1996–97

  285

  304

  1997–98

  338

  349

  1998–99

  321

  321

  In the White Paper "Post Office Reform: A World Class Service for the 21st Century", the Government confirmed that under the new financial regime for the Post Office an equivalent of a commercial dividend would be set at 50 per cent. of expected post-tax profits in the current financial year and at 40 per cent. in subsequent years. This will more than halve the rate at which profits are removed from the business and increase the funds available to the Post Office to fund future investment. Once the Post Office has been established as a plc, it will pay an annual dividend to the Exchequer rather than build up its deposits.

  Timeshare
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the regulation of the timeshare industry in the United Kingdom; [94435]

  (2) what statutory provisions govern the regulation of timeshare operations in the United Kingdom. [94434]

  Dr. Howells
  Regulation of timeshare operations in the United Kingdom are governed by the Timeshare Act 1992, as amended by the Timeshare Regulations 1997.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Timeshare Act 1992 and Timeshare Regulations 1997 in relation to the regulation of the timeshare industry. [94436]

  Dr. Howells
  I believe that the Timeshare Act has been effective and that timeshare in the UK is generally well run. Since the Act came into force in 1992, the level of complaints about timeshare made to the Office of Fair Trading has fallen significantly from over 11,500 in 1991–92 to less than half that number today—but there is no room for complacency with over 5,000 complaints every year. I intend to use the forthcoming consultation exercise to assess whether aspects of the legislation need updating.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to strengthen the regulations, under the Timeshare Act 1992 and Timeshare Regulations 1997, in respect of claims made by individuals against timeshare operators. [94437]
  458
  Dr. Howells
  As set out in the Consumer White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers", the Government plans to review timeshare legislation to see whether aspects of it need updating. My Department will consult interested parties on our proposals before the end of this year.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the ways in which the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Export-Import Bank of the United States co-operate to achieve their objectives; what joint working groups and committees between the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Export-Import Bank of the United States have operated since 1 January 1997; what agreements between the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Export-Import Bank of the United States have been in existence since 1 January 1997; how many personnel from the Export-Import Bank of the United States have visited the Export Credits Guarantee Department since 1 June 1998; and how many personnel from the Export Credits Guarantee Department have visited the Export-Import Bank of the United States since 1 June 1998. [93938]

  Mr. Caborn
  1. Co-operation between US Eximbank and ECGD to achieve our objectives: ECGD and the Export Import Bank of the United States (US Exim) co-operate in a number of ways to achieve their respective objectives. This includes discussions in multilateral fora such as the International Union of Credit and Investment Insurers (the Berne Union) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OFCD), with the aim of maintaining discipline in the field of Export credits and phasing out trade distorting subsidies. They also hold ad hoc informal discussions.

  2. Joint Working Groups, Committees and Agreements that have operated since 1 January 1997: ECGD and US Exim participate in the following Committees and Working Groups:

  In the context of the OECD:

  The Participants to the Arrangement on Guidelines for Officially Supported Export Credits

  The Group on the Sector Understanding on Export Credits for Nuclear Power Plant

  The Group on the Sector Understanding for Civil Aircraft,

  The consultation Group on Tied Aid

  The Working Group of Experts on Premium and Related Conditions and the Sub Group of country Risk Experts

  The Working Party on Export Credits and Credit Guarantees

  The International Union of Credit and Investment Insurers.

  In the context of the OECD:

  The Arrangement on Guidelines for Officially Supported Export Credits

  The Statement of Intent on Officially Supported Export Credits and the environment

  Agreement on environmental Information Exchange for Large Projects

  The Berne Union Sector Understandings (on credit terms).

  ECGD has a number of Bilateral Co-operation Agreements between various other Export Credit Agencies which at present does not include US Eximbank.
  459
  ECGD has entered into discussion with them but the discussions are at an early stage and US Eximbank is yet to respond to our draft agreement and documentation. If US Eximbank wish to pursue this agreement then we would expect to conclude the negotiations next year.

  3. Visits by staff to US Eximbank and ECGD since 1 June 1998: Our relationship with US Eximbank cuts across many areas and their meetings take place at all levels with regard to 2 above. Our respective Chief Executives meet and talk to each other on a regular basis.

  Visits to our respective office have occurred on the following matters:

  Aircraft financing matters (2 visits)

  Project finance matters (1 visit)

  Co-operation Agreement discussions (2 visits).

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of his Department, excluding non-departmental public bodies and agencies, in the last five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93848]

  Dr. Howells
  A list of those in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for staff and that have been notified to my Department's Publications Unit and published by my Department during this period has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Federal Key Management Infrastructure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when officials from his Department attended meetings of the United States Department of Commerce's Technical Advisory Committee to Develop Federal Information Processing Standards for the Federal Key Management Infrastructure. [93841]

  Ms Hewitt
  Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry have not attended any meetings of the US's Technology Advisory Committee on developing a Federal Information Processing Standard for a Federal Key Management Infrastructure.

  Ministerial Visits (United States)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times since 1 January 1998 officials from his Department have visited the United States to gather information to help set up his Department's Small Business Service; on what dates his officials visited the US on each occasion; and which US organisations his officials visited on each occasion. [93957]

  Ms Hewitt
  Officials from my Department with a responsibility for small firms issues visited the United States in October 1998 and February 1999. Both visits had a broad agenda, but included meetings with the Small Business Administration and a number of other organisations which are engaged with the SBA in delivering business support for small firms. In addition, officials have met with colleagues from the SBA in the United Kingdom in November 1998 and July 1999.

  Encryption
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have held meetings with the United States Special Envoy for Cryptography, Ambassador David Aaron, since 1 January 1998, on (i) encryption and (ii) other issues; what were the dates and locations of each meeting; and if any other (a) British and (b) United States Government Departments took part in each meeting. [93865]

  Ms Hewitt
  Ministers have not met with Ambassador Aaron.

  Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Cabinet Office and the Government's technical advisers on information security, the Communications Electronic Security Group met Ambassador Aaron on 4 June 1998 in London, on 3 September 1998 in Ottawa and 3 December 1998 in Vienna. On the United States side, the meetings involved officials from the Department of State, Commerce, Justice and Defense, and from the National Security Council. Each of these meetings related to discussions about national and international policies on encryption and possible changes to export controls on cryptographic goods under the Wassenaar Agreement for Export Controls on Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods. Each of these meetings were multinational meetings involving a number of other countries.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July Quarterly report to the House. [93576]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the quarterly statements made in the House by the President of the Council. These statements cover the whole of the United Kingdom. The President of the Council is due to make a further statement shortly to update the House on progress towards compliance. Information on the compliance situation in each Department is laid before the House each quarter and is published on the internet.

  It may be useful to point out that we have six Departments in Northern Ireland which are responsible, through Agencies, for the delivery of all key sectors of the infrastructure, with the exception of electricity generation and distribution. Hence most of the key services in Northern Ireland are included in the quarterly monitoring process and the statements by the President of the Council. They are also subject to the independent assessment process along with the Electricity Services and the results are reported at the Northern Ireland Infrastructure Forum and the National Infrastructure Forum.
  461
  At the Northern Ireland Infrastructure Forum on 11 October the following services reported a Blue rating under the Action 2000 colour coding:

  Water and Sewage

  Housing

  Roads

  Health and Ambulance Service

  Payment of Welfare

  Fire Service

  Police Service

  Electricity and Gas

  NICS Telecommunications

  Education

  Prisons.

  The position on the remaining services are:

  Rail and Buses—90% Blue with 100% Blue expected by mid October

  Housing—52% Blue with 100% Blue expected by November

  Local Government—77% Blue with 100% Blue expected by October.

  I should point out that Local Government in Northern Ireland has a much smaller remit than in Great Britain, the key business areas being refuse collection and disposal, street cleansing, environmental health and registration of births, deaths and marriages.

  Four of the core Northern Ireland Departments are all now reporting that they are fully compliant. The Department of Economic Development and the Department of Health and Social Services state that they will be compliant by end of October. Only one Department has shown slippage since the July statement to the House, i.e. the Northern Ireland Office.

  The compliance of critical and non-critical communication and embedded systems in the Northern Ireland Office were completed in August 1999. A robust programme to combat slippage in the critical and non-critical IT systems is under way to ensure timely compliance.

  The Business Continuity Plans and Millennium operating Regimes are being tested and independently assessed in accordance with Action 2000 guidance and an overall 100% Blue rating is expected by the end of October.

  The results of the latest independent assessment of the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Sector will be announced at the next National Infrastructure Forum on 21 October.

  Police Authority
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total work force of the Northern Ireland Police Authority, including staff seconded from the civil service; and if he will list the principal occupation sub-divisions and their composition in respect of(a) gender and (b) perceived religious/community origin. [94657]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total work force of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, including staff seconded from the Civil Service, numbers 46 persons.
  462
  (a) The gender of the 46 members of staff broken down into the following branches is:

  Branch

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Community Affairs

  6

  4

  10

  Policy and Research

  0

  2

  2

  Press Office

  5

  0

  5

  Police Administration

  2

  3

  5

  Internal Audit

  4

  6

  10

  Senior Management

  0

  2

  2

  Secretariat and Administration

  8

  4

  12

  Totals

  25

  21

  46

  (b) In order to preserve individual confidentiality, Central Personnel Group have provided an overall breakdown of the staffs religious/community origin as follows:

  Protestant: 30

  Roman Catholic: 8

  Non Determined: 8.

  Union Flag
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what days of each year it is(a) required and (b) permitted for the Union flag to be flown from (i) Government buildings, (ii) headquarters of public bodies, (iii) RUC stations and (iv) schools. [94662]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Union Flag is required to be flown on Government buildings in Northern Ireland on 20 days during the year. The days on which the Flag is flown are as follows:

  New Years Day: 1 January

  Her Majesty's Accession: 6 February

  Birthday of The Duke of York: 19 February

  Commonwealth Day: 8 March (in 1999)

  Birthday of The Prince Edward: 10 March

  St. Patrick's Day: 17 March

  Easter Day: 4 April (in 1999)

  Birthday of Her Majesty The Queen: 21 April

  Europe Day: 9 May

  Coronation Day: 2 June

  Birthday of The Duke of Edinburgh: 10 June

  The Queen's Official Birthday: 12 June (in 1999)

  Battle of the Boyne Anniversary: 12 July

  Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother: 4 August

  Birthday of The Princess Royal: 15 August

  Birthday of The Princess Margaret: 21 August

  Remembrance Day: 14 November (in 1999)

  Birthday of The Prince of Wales: 14 November

  Anniversary of Her Majesty's Wedding: 20 November

  Christmas Day: 25 December.

  There is no requirement for headquarters of public bodies, RUC stations or schools to fly the Union Flag on these days. It is entirely at the discretion of each public body, the Chief Constable and individual school authorities respectively to decide if and when the Flag should be flown on their buildings.

  Social Workers (Attacks)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the trend in attacks upon those employed in social work; and if he will make a statement. [94541]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the trend in attacks upon those employed in social work is not collected centrally.

  HPSS organisations have policies to assist staff to deal with violence. The HSSE recently issued guidance for managers and staff. Further guidance on health and safety is to be issued shortly and organisations will be asked to review their policies. Violence is specifically mentioned and employers are to be advised to undertake risk

  Department/Title

  Date first produced

  Frequency

  NIO

  Outlook

  1992

  3 per year

  Inside out

  March 1999

  Bi-monthly

  Keynotes

  February 1994

  Bi-monthly

  Corporate and Business Plan—Staff Summary

  1998

  Annually

  Snips News Bulletin

  March 1997

  16 editions

  IIP Newsletter

  May 1998

  As required

  Staff Reduction Project newsletter

  February 1999

  As required

  News, Information and Opinions (magazine)

  March 1998

  Quarterly

  DANI

  Fishnet Weekly News

  November 1998

  3 per month

  Forest Service Newsletter

  April 1996

  Monthly

  Streamline

  Winter 1997

  2 per year

  Fair Do's

  October 1997

  2 per year

  Gazette

  July 1997

  Quarterly—6 monthly

  Vetlink

  March 1992

  6 per year

  APHIS User News

  July 1998

  Irregular

  'in touch'

  March 1993

  Quarterly

  Personal Development Guidance Notes

  February 1995

  One off

  AFDS Values and Customer Service

  May 1999

  One off

  DED

  Resource Accounting

  October 1998

  One off

  DED Newsline

  September 1998

  Quarterly

  DENI

  Edlines (magazine)

  March 1995

  Irregular

  DFP

  Newsline (magazine)

  1993

  Quarterly

  Memo (magazine—successor to Newsline)

  September 1996

  Quarterly

  Harassment Policy Statement

  June 1998

  As required

  Fact File

  May 1998

  As required

  IT Training Prospectus

  December 1996

  One off

  H&S Policy Statement

  1991

  As required

  DFP Departmental Plan

  May 1994

  Annually

  DFP Strategic Plan (successor to Departmental Plan)

  April 1997

  Annually

  Departmental Brief

  April 1998

  Bi-monthly

  SCS Journal

  December 1997

  As required

  DHSS

  The Magazine

  July 1997

  Quarterly

  DHSS Library Newsletter

  February 1997

  Minimum of 5 each year

  Team Talk

  October 1998

  Six weekly

  People Matter

  July 1995

  Irregular

  DOE

  Denote (newsletter)

  December 1990

  Quarterly

  Steps to Change

  December 1995

  Quarterly

  Equality Times

  January 1999

  2 per year

  Departmental Annual Health & Safety Report

  March 1995

  Annually

  Investors in People Newsletter

  March 1999

  Quarterly

  Departmental Training and Development Strategy

  November 1997

  One off

  None of the above publications has a current secrecy classification.
  464
  assessments, to draw up action plans to identify, analyse and rectify problems, to train staff and to support and counsel those subjected to violence.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of his Department, excluding non-departmental public bodies and agencies, in the last five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93849]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

HEALTH

  Casualty Modernisation Schemes
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many casualty department modernisation schemes are planned this year to improve facilities for children. [92601]

  Ms Stuart
  Of the 242 schemes currently under way to modernise and expand accident and emergency departments, 55 include schemes of specific benefit to children. They range from creation of separate children's observation and assessment wards to separate waiting and play areas within the department. They amount to £28,360,000. In most cases, the children's schemes are an integral part of much wider A&E redevelopment schemes and it is not possible to identify the specific costing for the children's element of the schemes. The other 187 schemes, which are more general, will also be of benefit to children and their parents. Their safety, and that of the staff caring for them, will be better safeguarded. In other schemes, children will benefit from new diagnostic and resuscitation equipment.

  Health Authority Priorities
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions are being given to health authorities on the relative priority to be given to(a) reducing financial deficits and (b) maintaining standards of health care among health providers in their districts. [92602]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Priorities Guidance for Health and Social Services 1999–2000 to 2001–02 highlights the need for the National Health Service to ensure financial stability is maintained and, where necessary, improve working balances and achieve clear targets on improving service standards for patients.

  Non-emergency In-patient Cases
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-emergency in-patient cases were treated by the NHS during the year to the end of March(a) 1999 and (b) 1998. [92604]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of non-emergency cases (ordinary in-patients and daycases) treated during 1997–98 was 4.9 million. The figure for 1998–99 was 5.4 million, an increase of 9.2 per cent. on the previous year.

  Cardiac Care
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on waiting times for(a) non-urgent and (b) urgent cardiac (i) operations and (ii) procedures. [92605]

  Mr. Denham
  Since April we have received a number of letters from Members of Parliament and members of the public, and Parliamentary Questions, regarding waiting times for cardiac surgical procedures.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to issue new guidance concerning the prescribing of beta interferon for(a) relapsing remitting and (b) secondary progressive MS. [92606]
  466
  Mr. Denham
  We consulted earlier in the summer on a proposal to refer beta interferon to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, for an authoritative appraisal of the available evidence, and an announcement will be made in the near future. We intend to issue a Health Service Circular giving management advice on beta interferon for the period until NICE guidance is available.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities by region which(a) have and (b) have not agreed to clear their existing waiting list for MS patients waiting for beta interferon. [94195]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available.

  We consulted earlier in the summer on a proposal to refer beta interferon to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), for an authoritative appraisal of the available evidence, and an announcement will be made in the near future. We intend to issue a Health Service Circular giving management on beta interferon for the period until NICE guidance is available.

  Optometrists
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on the role and training of optometrists. [92607]

  Mr. Denham
  We value very highly the contribution that optometrists make to the eye care of the population. We intend that, with appropriate training, they should develop their role beyond sight testing to work with general practitioners and ophthalmologists in treating patients with eye diseases.

  Capital Investment
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the planned level of capital investment in the NHS over the next three years. [92610]

  Mr. Denham
  Capital investment in the National Health Service over the next three years is planned at more than £8 billion, which will be targeted towards modernising the infrastructure of the NHS through spending on new hospitals, plant and equipment. This level of investment will be met from public capital and through the Private Finance Initiative.

  Primary Care
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to date of establishing(a) primary care groups and (b) primary care trusts. [92611]

  Mr. Denham
  The establishment of Primary Care Groups has been funded using moneys released by the abolition of fundholding. The first Primary Care Trust will be established early next year. The cost of establishing Primary Care Trusts, like those of PCGs, will largely be met using moneys released by the abolition of fundholding. The previous Government had set aside an annual budget of £180 million to run fundholding. We have used those moneys both to set up Primary Care Groups and to improve services to patients.
  467
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners have yet to agree to participate in a primary care group. [93906]

  Mr. Denham
  All general practitioners are part of, and covered by, a Primary Care Group. However, it is for individual general practitioners to choose how they wish to participate in the operation of their Primary Care Group.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will publish its response to the Health Committee's Second report of Session 1998–99 on Primary Care Groups (HC 153). [94788]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government's response to the Health Committee's Report on Primary Care Groups is published today and copies will be placed in the Library. The Government welcome the Committee's report and are pleased that the Committee supports the Government's policy that underlies this initiative.

  Draft Tobacco (Prohibition of Advertising and Promotion) Regulations
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what period of consultation he proposes on the draft Tobacco (Prohibition of Advertising and Promotion) Regulations. [92612]

  Yvette Cooper
  The eight weeks of public consultation on the draft Tobacco (Prohibition of Advertising and Promotion) Regulations 1999 and draft Regulatory Impact Assessment Document published on 17 June ended on 13 August.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been waiting in excess of one year for treatment. [92613]

  Mr. Denham
  At the end of August 48,900 patients (4.54 per cent. of the total list) had been waiting over a year for hospital admission. This is 23,000 lower than at the end of June 1998. In tackling waiting lists, we are reducing waiting times.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has held with local health authorities regarding the prevention and treatment of prostate cancer in men in their areas; and if he will make a statement. [92614]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are committed to improving the prevention, detection and treatment of all cancers including prostate cancer. We have identified this as a priority for the National Health Service. There is, as yet, no consensus of medical opinion about the correct management of early localised tumours. The Health Technology Assessment Programme has already funded two systematic reviews of the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer and the National Co-ordinating Centre for the HTA programme is commissioning a £200,000 study at the University of Bristol looking at the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised trial of treatment for localised prostate cancer.

  Mortality Ratio (Barnsley)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the level of the standard mortality ratio in the Barnsley area. [92615]

  Yvette Cooper
  High level performance indicators show that the standard mortality rate for Barnsley in the age range 65-74 years is 103, compared with the national figure for England of 90. The comparatively poor health status of Barnsley, particularly with regard to coronary heart disease, stroke and some cancers, evident from measures such as the high level performance indicators and standard mortality rates, has been recognised. Barnsley (together with Rotherham and Doncaster) was designated last year in the first wave of health action zones which are at the vanguard of our new approach to tackling health inequalities, through partnership working and with targeted investment to achieve modernisation, reform and results.

  "Smoking Kills"
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the proposals in the White Paper, "Smoking Kills". [92616]

  Yvette Cooper
  Progress in implementation of "Smoking Kills" includes the allocation of up to £60 million over three years to health authorities to develop specialist services, the establishment this year of National Health Service smoking cessation services in health action zones, draft Regulations to ban tobacco advertising, the launch of the Public Places Charter, £47.5 million over three years to prepare the health education programme and consultation on an Approved Code of Practice on smoking in the workplace.

  TB
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to tackle the growing incidence of TB. [92617]

  Yvette Cooper
  The United Kingdom has a good record of tuberculosis (TB) control and we are determined this should remain the case. The Government are responding positively to adverse developments in other countries. These developments inevitably impinge on the incidence of TB in this country and we have recently seen small annual increases in the incidence of TB. However, notifications of TB in the UK have reached the relatively low levels of about 6,500 cases a year from nearly 50,000 in 1950.

  In addition to the existing provisions we have for the surveillance, prevention and control of TB, including drug resistant TB, within the UK, recent developments include:

  the commencement of work on ongoing enhanced surveillance of TB to improve monitoring;

  the appointment of regional epidemiologists to help towards a more coordinated approach to surveillance;

  the strengthening of surveillance of drug and multidrug-resistant TB through a scheme co-ordinated by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS);

  469

  the development—by the PHLS—and availability of more rapid diagnostic and drug susceptibility tests for TB, which can be used where there is a presence of risk factors which might predispose towards multidrug-resistant TB;

  the co-ordination of the PHLS's activities through the new Tuberculosis Programme.

  Oral Cancers
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies he has commissioned or evaluated on the relationship between the chewing of tobacco products and the development of oral cancers. [92618]

  Yvette Cooper
  In its report published on 11 March 1999, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health noted that chewed tobaccos are sources of potent carcinogens in the mouth.

  Social Services (Children)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many action plans have been approved by his Department to help local authorities improve their performance in providing high quality social services for children in need. [92620]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) on 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 114.

  IVF Treatment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring is carried out to ensure that IVF treatment is available in every health authority area. [92621]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have pledged to tackle unacceptable levels of geographical variations in access to NHS infertility treatment and have set in motion a programme of work to achieve that aim. A Departmental survey of current health authority infertility service provision has recently taken place and the results are being analysed. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have published two sets of evidence based on clinical guidelines on infertility and intend to publish the third and final set on specialised services like IVF in January 2000. The RCOG guidelines have been commissioned by the Department.

  The survey will enable the cost implications of any policy changes to be estimated and the RCOG guidelines will indicate the circumstances in which infertility treatment can be most clinically effective. We then hope to move towards fairer access to NHS infertility services where those most able to benefit from such treatment will be able to receive it.

  Osteoporosis
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investment his Department is making in services to combat osteoporosis. [92622]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has invested in measures to highlight the importance in preventing the development of osteoporosis and resulting fractures and the need for health authorities to develop their own local strategies. An osteoporosis strategy for England was launched in June 1998 by my right hon. Friend the 470
  Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) at the sixth Bath Conference on Osteoporosis and Bone Mineral Measurement. The strategy consisted of a quick reference primary care guide, a laminated desk top guide and a local health action sheet.

  The Department does not specify what proportion of health authorities' funding allocations is to be spent on services to combat osteoporosis. It is for health authorities, in partnership with National Health Service trusts, primary care groups, local authorities and local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health and modernising services. The additional resources of at least 5.45 per cent. cash increase to all health authorities for 1999–2000 will help them in this.

  Consultant Referrals
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been referred to a consultant by their GP but are still awaiting their first appointment with the consultant. [92623]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Care Homes
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to accept the proposed national standards for the inspection of care homes drawn up by the Centre for Policy on Ageing earlier this year. [92608]

  Mr. Hutton
  Last year we commissioned the Centre for Policy on Ageing to work on identifying national required standards for older people in care homes. The proposed standards were published for consultation on 8 September. We will carefully consider all the comments we receive before finalising any regulatory standards and arrangements for implementing them.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July Quarterly report to the House. [93568]

  Ms Stuart
  Details of progress by the Department, its executive agencies and the National Health Service in tackling the millennium bug are set out in the appropriate monitoring returns. Those for the Department are available in the Library and are published on the Internet. The returns for individual NHS organisations are published on the Internet at: http://www. imc.exec.nhs.uk/2000

  The results of the latest review of progress by Departments will be announced shortly in Parliament by the President of the Council. The latest results for the NHS are due to be announced at the Action 2000 National Infrastructure Forum on 20/21 October.
  471
  The Department and its Executive Agencies have completed all essential Year 2000 work by the published deadlines. Contingency plans for the Department have been prepared.

  All NHS organisations have completed their compliance programmes or have contingency arrangements in place.

  Cancer Services (North-West)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish his review of cancer services in the North-West of England. [94044]

  Yvette Cooper
  The report was published on 20 September. I have arranged for the hon. Member to receive a copy.

  Anti-psychotic Drugs
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds will be available to provide a typical anti-psychotic drugs to those patients for whom they prove more effective and more acceptable. [94299]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Modernisation Fund consists of £700 million over 3 years. As part of the first year targeted allocation of the fund (1999–2000), £2.5 million had been allocated for a typical anti-psychotics. Discussions are still under-way concerning allocation of the NHS Modernisation Fund for years 2 and 3.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if NICE intends to carry out an appraisal of the effectiveness of newer atypical anti-psychotics compared with older generation anti-psychotics. [94295]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are considering asking the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to look at all treatments for schizophrenia and similar conditions. In general, NICE clinical guidelines will give advice on the appropriate use of all therapies, including drug therapies.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when assessing the effectiveness of drugs such as anti-psychotics which are known to have major side effects, what account NICE will take of the preferences and experiences of the individuals taking the drugs. [94296]

  Mr. Hutton
  In appraising pharmaceuticals and other treatments, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will need to assess carefully the evidence on both the intended therapeutic effects and any adverse effects of treatment. Representative patient organisations will be invited to submit evidence on these and other aspects and will have the opportunity to comment on guidance in draft.

  Mid-Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures for the last three months for which figures are available in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area for(a) the number of people waiting for 12 months or more for hospital treatment and (b) the total number of people waiting for hospital treatment. [94564]
  472
  Mr. Denham
  The information available is given in the table.

  The number of patients waiting for elective admission in Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  Month

  Total waiting

  Number waiting over 12 months

  June

  9,824

  1,083

  July

  9,488

  1,061

  August

  9,465

  991

  Source:

  Form KH07 and monthly returns

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area the total number of people waiting on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) the latest available period for orthodontic treatment. [94563]

  Mr. Denham
  The information available is given in the table.

  The total number of people waiting for orthodontic treatment at Mid-Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust

  Year (January to December)

  Number of patients waiting

  1996

  49

  1997

  79

  1998

  64

  1999 (year to date)

  55

  Source:

  Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust (Orthodontics)

  (This information is not collected centrally)

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish for the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area the number of people on(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) the latest available period waiting (i) over 6 months, (ii) 12 months or more, (iii) over 18 months and (iv) over 24 months for orthodontic treatment. [94562]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  The information available is given in the tables.

  The total number of people waiting for orthodontic treatment at Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  Year (January-December)

  Number of patients waiting

  1996

  49

  1997

  79

  1998

  64

  1999 (year to date)

  55

  Source:

  Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust (Orthodontics)

  (This information is not collected centrally)

  The total number of people waiting more than 13 weeks for the first outpatient appointment (orthodontics) at Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust

  Year

  Number of patients

  31 March 1997

  7

  31 March 1998

  2

  30 June 1999

  0

  Source:

  Form QM08
  473
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on measures being taken by the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust to be millennium compliant by 31 December. [94565]

  Ms Stuart
  Mid-Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust successfully met the 30 September deadline to "ensure that all systems were Year 2000 compliant or that effective contingency plans were in place if full compliance could not be achieved". The NHS Trust was therefore designated as Action 2000 "Blue" as of 30 September, indicating that assessment had not identified any risk of material disruption.

  The NHS Executive Eastern Regional Office and the NHS Trust continue to work closely, and the Regional lead on Winter 2000 attends Project and Trust Board meetings.

  In the next three months, the NHS Trust will continue to monitor its systems to ensure that they remain millennium compliant and to train staff in contingency arrangements.

  Sheltered Accommodation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the levels of spending on sheltered accommodation per head of the population in each county of England in each year since 1995–96. [94315]

  Mr. Hutton
  Details of the levels of total spending on sheltered accommodation are not collected centrally. A table showing information on reported personal social services current expenditure on sheltered accommodation by each local authority in England for 1995–96 to 1997–98 has been placed in the Library. Data for 1998–99 are not yet available.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the levels of spending on health per head of the population in each county of England in each year since 1995–96. [94312]

  Mr. Denham
  Levels of spending on health per head of the population are given in the table.

  Expenditure levels per head of population on health are not available by county, but figures based on health authorities have been provided as the nearest figures available. In some cases the health authority area may approximate to a county boundary, but this is not the position for all health authorities.

  Expenditure in 1995–96 is not included because information is not available on a comparable basis.

  England: Expenditure by head of population (by health authority)

  £

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Avon

  590.20

  574.58

  619.77

  Barking and Havering

  636.24

  587.94

  690.89

  Barnet

  659.01

  645.41

  631.77

  Barnsley

  616.70

  574.42

  622.28

  Bedfordshire

  561.71

  516.85

  563.74

  Berkshire

  521.77

  519.83

  561.15

  Bexley and Greenwich

  679.13

  660.28

  704.59

  Birmingham

  693.97

  681.20

  754.68

  474

  England: Expenditure by head of population (by health authority)

  £

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Bradford

  630.44

  613.22

  645.17

  Brent and Harrow

  685.31

  692.90

  733.13

  Bromley

  596.21

  574.13

  726.59

  Buckinghamshire

  532.73

  519.14

  536.25

  Bury and Rochdale

  656.75

  614.58

  637.94

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  586.70

  557.91

  597.32

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  530.94

  499.11

  541.28

  Camden and Islington

  961.90

  889.09

  1,082.69

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  627.51

  592.84

  626.42

  County Durham

  629.72

  602.97

  660.97

  Coventry

  605.31

  599.77

  664.54

  Croydon

  594.31

  577.16

  628.69

  Doncaster

  617.78

  617.94

  739.15

  Dorset

  619.19

  588.85

  631.11

  Dudley

  550.54

  538.78

  646.78

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  736.69

  718.19

  759.54

  East and North Hertfordshire

  585.36

  575.15

  601.73

  East Kent

  636.03

  609.60

  654.03

  East Lancashire

  635.02

  626.05

  679.85

  East London and The City

  846.28

  812.81

  887.72

  East Norfolk

  611.62

  579.70

  641.11

  East Riding

  599.69

  579.53

  626.68

  East Surrey

  666.25

  649.25

  689.62

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  649.95

  628.63

  680.95

  Enfield and Haringey

  685.09

  641.52

  682.29

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  713.02

  687.27

  728.98

  Gloucestershire

  583.23

  571.04

  587.64

  Herefordshire

  576.66

  605.14

  612.18

  Hillingdon

  623.60

  611.35

  659.25

  Isle of Wight

  707.44

  701.23

  741.54

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  902.58

  837.02

  920.87

  Kingston and Richmond

  653.35

  661.77

  709.67

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  811.17

  786.14

  839.67

  Leeds

  675.81

  667.01

  741.75

  Leicestershire

  572.83

  553.07

  595.60

  Lincolnshire

  604.12

  627.04

  641.25

  Liverpool

  732.66

  710.18

  801.17

  Manchester

  787.40

  771.10

  851.74

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  714.95

  692.10

  734.55

  Morecambe Bay

  655.16

  655.56

  815.86

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  696.79

  666.99

  747.47

  North and East Devon

  634.17

  616.49

  651.92

  North and Mid Hampshire

  538.86

  518.81

  541.54

  North Cheshire

  632.25

  628.41

  662.45

  North Cumbria

  601.05

  588.78

  630.14

  North Derbyshire

  568.54

  595.14

  642.86

  North Essex

  564.45

  555.32

  601.58

  North Nottinghamshire

  578.57

  559.44

  599.86

  North Staffordshire

  606.52

  602.29

  631.23

  North West Anglia

  582.31

  560.59

  602.83

  North West Lancashire

  670.75

  632.40

  672.93

  North Yorkshire

  567.12

  585.76

  640.79

  Northamptonshire

  539.91

  529.00

  589.10

  Northumberland

  621.09

  623.88

  689.21

  Nottingham

  605.02

  564.92

  679.76

  Oxfordshire

  531.78

  518.28

  539.90

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  561.65

  521.45

  586.91

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  695.30

  669.61

  724.04

  Rotherham

  603.27

  564.88

  611.09

  Salford and Trafford

  651.63

  628.66

  713.28

  Sandwell

  645.49

  649.51

  710.51

  Sefton

  680.90

  620.22

  683.55

  Sheffield

  817.29

  805.76

  845.27

  Shropshire

  562.68

  546.14

  570.07

  Solihull

  587.43

  570.71

  600.11

  Somerset

  576.74

  569.56

  602.51

  South and West Devon

  633.93

  598.78

  636.12

  South Cheshire

  577.17

  575.70

  626.78

  South Derbyshire

  580.08

  585.52

  612.27

  South Essex

  552.23

  549.61

  604.90

  South Humber

  594.61

  635.57

  687.96

  475

  England: Expenditure by head of population (by health authority)

  £

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  South Lancashire

  577.62

  565.00

  619.03

  South Staffordshire

  552.98

  536.71

  587.92

  Southampton and South West Hamptonshire

  574.88

  577.56

  621.60

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  628.63

  618.00

  664.57

  Stockport

  578.43

  556.08

  597.00

  Suffolk

  569.14

  544.16

  575.59

  Sunderland

  652.08

  624.48

  723.39

  Tees

  615.98

  591.00

  669.11

  Wakefield

  669.59

  695.29

  732.69

  Walsall

  607.64

  583.80

  655.67

  Warwickshire

  618.13

  597.37

  617.01

  West Hertfordshire

  596.49

  598.96

  621.66

  West Kent

  581.43

  553.71

  574.82

  West Pennine

  599.26

  574.22

  621.94

  West Surrey

  631.44

  586.04

  607.41

  West Sussex

  616.55

  600.78

  639.31

  Wigan and Bolton

  587.89

  573.03

  623.31

  Wiltshire

  579.65

  558.34

  586.42

  Wirral

  628.93

  607.98

  687.92

  Wolverhampton

  639.32

  601.57

  653.54

  Worcestershire

  559.83

  582.26

  607.59

  England: before national adjustment for drugs and GDS

  625.29

  607.84

  657.80

  England: after national adjustment for drugs and GDS

  643.98

  675.14

  720.10

  Notes:

  1. 1998–99 expenditure information is provisional

  2. For 1997–98 and 1998–99 the majority of drugs expenditure has been accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority rather than individual health authorities. Also the majority of General Dental Service expenditure is not available by health authority. A total national position is shown including these two elements.

  Sources:

  Health Authority accounts for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99

  Mid-year resident population estimates for 1996, 1997 and 1998

  NHS Land Sales
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) of 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 410, how much money the National Health Service Executive expects to raise from the sale of the National Health Service sites listed for which planning permission for housing has been granted. [94290]

  Mr. Denham
  Most of the sites listed are in various stages of the planning process, and planning permission has not yet been issued. Of those where planning permission has been granted, the anticipated income is in the region of £15.5 million. If planning permission is granted for others listed, the anticipated income is approximately £180 million.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the NHS Executive has raised in each year since 1995 for the sale of its land for private development. [94192]

  Mr. Denham
  The money the National Health Service Executive has raised from the sale of land from private developments cannot be separately identified. The figures show the total capital receipts.
  476

  £ million

  HCHS1

  NHS Trust Receipts 1

  Total

  Outturn

  1994–95

  158

  51

  208

  1995–96

  210

  72

  282

  1996–97

  276

  116

  393

  1997–98

  240

  231

  471

  Estimated outturn

  1998–99

  343

  157

  500

  1 Receipts from the sale of fixed assets, which include land, buildings and equipment

  Private Hospitals
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the NHS spent in private hospitals to treat NHS patients in each(a) month and (b) region since April 1995. [94025]

  Ms Stuart
  Information is not collected centrally on National Health Service expenditure on commissioning health care from private hospitals. Figures on total NHS expenditure on commissioning hospital and community health services outside the NHS each year from 1995–96 are set out in the table for the area covered by each NHS Executive Regional Office. Monthly figures are not collected centrally.

  £000

  Regional office

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Northern and Yorkshire

  154,678

  124,811

  144,475

  2169,683

  Trent

  91,130

  66,787

  78,684

  2100,157

  Anglia and Oxford

  65,918

  79,125

  108,411

  1—

  North Thames

  255,304

  160,152

  179,679

  1—

  South Thames

  209,584

  174,254

  185,906

  1—

  South and West

  204,139

  185,334

  188,293

  1—

  West Midlands

  94,272

  51,734

  91,792

  2116,447

  North West

  151,170

  28,947

  106,778

  2130,595

  Eastern

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2129,349

  London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2223,016

  South East

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2254,517

  South West

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2125,245

  Total

  1,226,195

  871,144

  1,084,018

  1,249,009

  1 Figures unavailable owing to the reorganisation of regional office boundaries

  2 Provisional figures—may change because of late notifications

  Note:

  In addition 'Laing's Healthcare Market Review 1998–99' estimates that the value of NHS purchases of acute treatment in the UK under health authority contracts was £50 million in 1995, £52 million in 1996, and £56 million in 1997, the latest figures available.

  Barnsley Hall
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was raised by the sale by the NHS Executive of the Barnsley Hall site in Bromsgrove; and where the money will be reinvested. [94194]

  Mr. Denham
  All proceeds from the sale of surplus National Health Service estate are directed back into central Departmental funds, to be redistributed back to regional offices as part of their overall capital allocations. The closure and sale of Barnsley Hall was the culmination of a range of investment in Bromsgrove and Redditch health services over the past few years, and as such the sale proceeds from Barnsley Hall can be seen as a partial
  477
  repayment of this investment. It is not the policy of the NHS to reveal how much it receives for land sales, as this information is considered commercially sensitive.

  Cancer Patients
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of cancer patients who will be seen per week by NHS consultants under the Government's proposal to ensure that no patient referred by a GP waits more than two weeks once it is implemented in April 2000; [94026]

  (2) how many cancer patients referred by GPs are seen per week by NHS consultants at present. [94072]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not currently collect data on the number of cancer patients seen by consultants per week.

  However, data from the first quarter monitoring of the two week breast cancer standard, which began in April 1999, show that an average of 1,686 urgent referrals of suspected breast cancer were seen per week over the three months April-June 1999.

  Health Service Circular HSC1999/205 requested that health authorities, in consultation with their National Health Service Trusts and local primary care groups, should undertake state of readiness surveys in preparation for the extension of the two week standard for urgent referrals for all cases of suspected cancer. These will include baseline assessments of numbers of urgent referrals. The surveys will be carried out on a rolling basis, in line with the planned roll out of the two week standard during 2000.

  Booked Admissions Policy
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his advice to hospital trust boards on the implementation of the National Booked Admissions Policy. [94146]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Booked Admissions Programme was established last year with 24 pilot sites across England. It has since been extended to a further 60 pilots plus nine looking specifically at cancer services. These pilots were set up to enable patients to pre-book their admission dates or hospital appointments. The Programme is closely managed and supported by the National Patients' Access Team, which is currently headed by Peter Homa, and National Health Service Executive Regional Offices. They are closely monitoring the pilots' performance against outcome plans and milestones. Support includes training in project management and redesign techniques and also regular meetings where all the pilot sites discuss progress and share experiences.

  The first wave of the programme and the cancer work is being evaluated by the Health Services Management Centre, based at the University of Birmingham, over a 3-year period. They will report at regular intervals, to enable lessons learnt to be fed back to the pilot sites and spread more widely to the NHS. The first initial evaluation report will be published shortly and will be sent to all health authorities, trusts and primary care groups.
  478
  On 2 September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the 60 new pilots being set up, benefiting 1.5 million patients, taking the total benefiting from the programme to around 2 million.

  Home Care Companies
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the Government have made on proposed legislation on the registration of home care companies; and if he will make a statement. [94440]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to reforming regulatory arrangements for care homes and other social services as set out in the White Paper "Modernising Social services". We will legislate for these reforms as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Environment and Health
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the relationship between health and fitness levels and environmental factors. [93384]

  Yvette Cooper
  Our new health strategy Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation, published on 6 July 1999, acknowledges that health is affected by a complex interaction of factors including the environment. It recognises the health benefits of a good environment and that factors such as cold, damp housing and poor quality air contribute to health problems including respiratory and cardio-vascular diseases.

  Recognising, among other things, the links between poor housing and health, we have made substantial additional resources available for regenerating the worst neighbourhoods, improving social housing stock and combating fuel poverty for groups most vulnerable to cold-related ill health.

  We are working through the New Deal for transport to encourage walking and cycling and to reduce pollution from vehicles. We are also promoting Health Action Zones, Healthy Living Centres and National Health Service walk-in centres to promote healthy lifestyles and improve access to community-based health facilities.

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress his Department has made on meeting the target for seeing patients diagnosed with breast cancer within two weeks. [94030]

  Yvette Cooper
  The first quarter's data on achieving the two week standard for the urgent referral of patients suspected of having breast cancer were published on 24 September. These showed that 91.1 per cent. of patients were seen within two weeks of urgent referral by their general practitioner. This represents some 12,500 women seen within two weeks of urgent referral out of a total of nearly 13,700 patients seen during the quarter. This was an encouraging start to achieving the standard and the Department is currently working with poorer performing National Health Service trusts to ensure improvement in performance in the second quarter.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) circulars and (b) executive letters his Department has issued in each month since May 1997. [94028]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows the number of(a) circulars and (b) executive letters the Department of Health has issued in each month since May 1997.

  Month

  Circulars

  Executive letters

  1997

  May

  12

  3

  June

  4

  4

  July

  12

  2

  August

  16

  5

  September

  17

  4

  October

  26

  6

  November

  14

  6

  December

  22

  8

  1998

  January

  18

  6

  February

  21

  —

  March

  40

  —

  April

  42

  —

  May

  30

  —

  June

  14

  —

  July

  27

  —

  August

  21

  —

  September

  22

  —

  October

  30

  —

  November

  34

  —

  December

  42

  —

  1999

  January

  23

  —

  February

  36

  —

  March

  48

  —

  April

  29

  —

  May

  29

  —

  June

  22

  —

  July

  34

  —

  August

  39

  —

  September

  33

  —

  Notes:

  1. Until December 1997 the Department of Health issued circulars in the following series:

  Health Service Guidelines (HSG); Finance Directorate Letters (FDL); Family Health Service Letters (FHSL); Local Authority Circulars (LAC); Local Authority Social Services Letters (LASSL); Chief Inspector (CI); Family Practitioner Notices (FPN) and Professional Letters (PL).

  In December FPNs were discontinued.

  On 2 February 1998 ELs, HSGs, FDLs and FHSLs were replaced with a single series of management letters—Health Service Circulars (HSC). This was as part of the Department's strategy to improve written communications and in response to the recommendations in the "Seeing the Woods, Sparing the Trees" Efficiency Scrutiny.

  2. The Department's Agencies occasionally publish in the above series, and also issue circulars in their own series. Between May 1997 and September 1999 Medicines Control Agency published 72 Drug Alerts and 15 Consultative Letters. Medical Devices Agency published eight Device Bulletins, two Advice Notices, 16 Hazard Notices, 94 Safety Notices and 11 Pacemaker Technical Notes.

  Health Professions Regulatory Body
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the composition of the body he plans to establish to regulate professions allied to medicine. [93907]
  480
  Mr. Hutton
  No decisions have been taken about the precise composition of the new Health Professions Council, which will eventually replace the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine, using an Order under s60 of the Health Act 1999. The Government is committed to full and wide-ranging consultation on the proposals for new legislation in addition to the statutory consultation on the draft Order required by the Health Act, with a report to Parliament on the outcome when the Order is laid.

  Medium-secure Units
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the findings of the current review of data collection requirements regarding escapes and absconds from medium-secure units. [93871]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is in contact with the National Health Service Executive Regional Offices to access the current data collection and to ensure that procedures are in place for recording escapes and absconds from medium-secure units. We expect these procedures will be in place later in the year.

  Fundholders
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners fundholding practices remain. [93905]

  Mr. Denham
  None.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of sustaining residual general practitioners fundholding practices in the next financial year. [93904]

  Mr. Milburn
  None. The residual fundholding scheme ended on 1 October 1999.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualitative studies he has commissioned regarding outcomes from calls to NHS Direct; and if he will make a statement. [93875]

  Ms Stuart
  The Medical Research Unit of the University of Sheffield is undertaking an independent evaluation of NHS Direct. This evaluation will include a study of the outcomes from calls to NHS Direct. We expect the University of Sheffield's full and final report to be published early next year.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the services of NHS Direct will be available in(a) Lymington, (b) New Milton and (c) Ringwood. [93869]

  Ms Stuart
  NHS Direct has been available in Lymington and New Milton since March 1999. The service will be available in Ringwood by the end of this year.

  Strokes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 13 July 1999,Official Report, column 151, on stroke services, if he will specify the funding that he is making available for initiatives related to strokes. [93902]
  481
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is currently supporting some inititatives relating to stroke through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The responsiblity (and hence funding) for the Effective Health Care Bulletin, national sentinel audits and development of clinical guidelines now rests with NICE, which has total funding of just under £10 million for this financial year. The hon. Member may wish to contact the Chairman of NICE, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, for further details.

PRIME MINISTER

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July quarterly report to the House. [93559]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office,Official Report, columns 527-28.

  White Papers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the White Papers published from 1998 to date indicating their sale price. [93674]

  The Prime Minister
  The term "White Paper" has no formal definition but is interpreted as meaning those statements of Government policy and other documents which have been published in the Command Papers series but excluding Treasury Minutes, reports from Committees and Commissions and the papers in the Treaty and other series presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. A list of those published from 1998 showing their sale price has been placed in the Library.

  Yugoslavia
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimates he has received of the cost of reconstruction in Yugoslavia made necessary by the NATO offensive. [94124]

  The Prime Minister
  The reconstruction of Yugoslavia, and in particular Kosovo, is a huge task which will take many years. This is not just as a result of the conflict brought about by Milosevic's policy towards Kosovo, but because of the need for modernisation and democratisation of Yugoslav society and its economy. The UK will play a full part in this reconstruction.

  We will not have an accurate estimate of reconstruction costs until the next donor conference held under their auspices in November. In the meantime, emergency and immediate reconstruction projects are going ahead under the auspices of the EU Task Force in Pristina and the UN Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK).
  482
  The EU Task Force in Pristina has committed 46 million euros so far. The EU has pledged a total of 137 million euros of reconstruction aid for Kosovo in 1999 through the EU Assistance Fund in addition to 378 million euros of humanitarian aid.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with the heads of other NATO countries about the cost of reconstruction in Yugoslavia; and if any member country has yet agreed to contribute financially. [94125]

  The Prime Minister
  The European Union (through the European Commission) and the World Bank are responsible for the co-ordination of the donor effort for the reconstruction of Yugoslavia. All NATO countries are represented in either or both of these organisations.

  The EU and World Bank are organising a series of donor conferences, the first of which was on 28 July 1999. At this conference initial donor indications of financial support amounted to US$2.1 billion. NATO members indicating their intention to provide financial support at this stage were: Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, The Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States. NATO countries who are also members of the EU will also be contributing multilaterally through the European Commission.

  Government Reports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister who was responsible for making the Government's Annual Report 1998–99 available to Tesco Stores Ltd. the day before it was made available to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [94155]

  The Prime Minister
  Guidance to Ministers on the publication of Command Papers and other Government documents is set out in the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service".

  The Stationery Office, who published the Government's Annual Report, were responsible for the marketing arrangements with Tesco. Copies of the report were distributed in advance by The Stationery Office to Tescos and other bookshops under the usual strict embargo that they should not be placed on sale until after the Report had been presented to Parliament on the morning of Monday 26 July. I understand that, due to an oversight in one or two individual stores, a small number of copies were available on Saturday 24 July.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of the Government's annual report 1998–99; [93670]

  (2) what was the cost to public funds of the Government's annual report 1997–98; [93676]

  (3) how many copies of the Government's annual report 1997–98 were (a) printed, (b) sold and (c) distributed free of charge. [93671]

  The Prime Minister
  The direct cost of preparing the Government's annual report 1998–99 for publication is estimated at £75,000. The equivalent figure for the Government's Annual Report 1997–98 is £96,000.
  483
  Additional costs associated with the Annual Report 1998–99, including putting the report on the No. 10 website and preparing a leaflet, are estimated at £105,000. The equivalent figure for the Annual Report 1997–98 are estimated at £144,000.

  The costs, prices, print runs and sales for the first two Government annual reports are produced in the table.

  AR 1997–98 CM3969

  AR 1998–99 CM4401

  Costs to Government:

  Design and publication costs

  £96,000

  £75,000

  Launch, distribution, etc.

  £144,000

  £105,000

  Total cost to Government:

  £250,000

  £180,000

  Sales:

  Cover price

  £5.95

  £2.99

  Copies printed

  20,000

  100,000

  Copies bought by Government

  9,000

  41,000

  Total copies sold:

  14,000

  49,000

  Leaflet/summary

  Numbers produced

  20,000

  150,000

  Note:

  All figures are approximate and rounded to the nearest thousand

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy not to make command papers and other Government documents available for retail sale before making them available to parliament. [93708]

  The Prime Minister
  Guidance to Ministers on the publication of Command Papers and other Government documents is set out in the "Ministerial Code" and "Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service".

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister how many copies of the Government's annual report had been sold through (i) the Stationery Office and (ii) other retail outlets at the most recent date for which figures are available. [93710]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) today,Official Report column 482.

  All copies of the Annual Report 1998–99 were sold by The Stationery Office, the publishers. Some have been sold direct to the public, the remainder through other retailers.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the cost of(a) copy writing, (b) design, (c) photography, (d) printing and (e) all other relevant items of the production of the Government's annual report; and how many copies were produced in total; [93713]

  (2) how many civil servants were involved in the production of the Government's annual report; and what is his estimate of the number of person-hours involved. [93712]

  The Prime Minister
  Preparation of the Government's Annual Report was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of "Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service".

  The approximate costs of preparing the Annual Report 1998–99 for publication were as follows: design £75,000 and photography £1,000. Copywriting was done entirely
  484
  within Government. Printing costs fall entirely to The Stationery Office, the private-sector publishers. 100,000 copies of the Annual Report were printed.

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93931]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council, today,Official Report, columns 429-30.

  Cabinet Meetings
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions the Cabinet has met formally during the summer adjournment; [94624]

  (2) when was the last full formal meeting of the Cabinet. [94623]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 30 April 1999,Official Report, column 281.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what constitutional tests will be applied to any future decision concerning United Kingdom adherence to the euro. [94636]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on 13 April 1999,Official Report, columns 2-3.

  MOD Electronic Test Facility
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Irish Government with regard to the Ministry of Defence's Electronic Test Facility formerly sited at the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd site at Capenhurst, Cheshire, since 1 July; when these representations were received; and from which Irish Government departments. [93882]

  The Prime Minister
  The Irish Ambassador called on a senior official in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 26 July, where this issue was discussed.

  Policy Unit (US Visits)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer 25 June 1999,Official Report, column 480, on Policy Unit (US visits), what were the names of the members of his Policy Unit who accompanied (a) him and (b) other Ministers on visits to the United States of America on four occasions since 1 January 1998; and how many meetings each of these members of his Policy Unit held with members and officials of the United States of America Government on each visit, indicating the dates and locations of each

  485
  meeting, the Policy Unit members involved at each meeting, and the names of the US Ministers and officials at each meeting. [93962]

  The Prime Minister
  David Miliband, Geoff Mulgan and Derek Scott accompanied me for all or part of my visit to the United States of America on 4-7 February 1998. David Miliband also accompanied me on similar visits on 22 September and 8 November 1998. James Purnell accompanied the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry during a visit to the United States on 10-16 October 1998.

  Members of the Policy Unit participated in the official Ministerial programme and also separately attended meetings with US public officials. All visits were undertaken in line with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions members of his Policy Unit travelled to the United States of America on official business between 1 May 1997 and 1 January 1998, indicating the name of the member and the dates of travel in each case. [93880]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Prime Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer on 17 May 1999,Official Report, column 267, on meetings with President Clinton, how many meetings he held with members and officials of the United States Government during his visit of 21 September 1998, indicating the location of each meeting and the names of the members and officials of the United States Government at each meeting. [93960]
  486
  The Prime Minister
  I travelled to New York in September 1998 to attend the United Nations General Assembly, where I heard a speech by President Clinton. I had also been invited to make a speech and focused on the development of the United Nations and the challenges we face in a global economy.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 May 1999,Official Report, column 267, on meetings with President Clinton, how many meetings he held with members and officials of the United States Government during his visit of 4 to 7 February 1998, specifying the date and location of each meeting and the names of the members and officials of the United States Government at each meeting. [93903]

  The Prime Minister
  My visit to the United States in February 1998 was my first official visit to the United States as Prime Minister. I had talks with the President at the White House in Washington to discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister what definition of child poverty underlies his target of eliminating child poverty within 20 years. [94702]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 496 and 31 March 1999, Official Report, column 717.

  On 21 September 1999, we published the document "Opportunity for all" which sets out our strategy for tackling the causes of poverty and social exclusion. The report includes a range of indicators against which we can monitor our progress in tackling these causes and overcoming the problems of people living in poverty.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July Quarterly report to the House. [93560]

  Mr. Hill
  Details of the Department's progress in tackling the bug are set out in our regular monitoring returns. These are available in the Libraries of the House and published on the Internet.

  The President of the Council wrote to all Members on 23 September 1999 with details of the latest position. That confirmed that, with two exceptions, all the business critical systems of DETR(C) and the other DETR Agencies were expected to be complete by the end of October at the latest.

  The exceptions were:

  (a) The Planning Inspectorate which is on course to confirm that a business critical IT system to produce 400 standard letters will be millennium compliant in November. In the unlikely event of a delay in installing the system, the Agency is confident that it would still be able to maintain its current level and standard of service to customers.

  (b) The Rent Agency, created on 1 October 1999, which is currently establishing the compliance of the embedded systems in the rent offices previously managed by local authorities. The Agency is aware that local authorities have been actively dealing with these embedded systems, and is confident that they will be fully compliant by December 1999.

  The results of the October review, due to be announced shortly by the President of the Council, are expected to confirm that, with the exception of the above two Agencies, the Department's business critical systems and most of its non-critical systems will be millennium compliant by the end of the month.

  Turning to progress in devising contingency plans, DETR(C) and its Agencies are on course to complete and test these plans by the end of this month.

  As regards the millennium readiness of public services for which the Department has oversight, the results of the latest independent assessment of the water, transport, and local government sectors will be announced at the National Infrastructure Forum on 20-21 October 1999. It is expected that all these sectors will report that the independent assessments have not identified any risk of material disruption to the infrastructure.

  Voluntary Purchase Grant
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many 488
  tenants have received a voluntary purchase grant in (a) England and (b) London in each year since its introduction. [94347]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Voluntary Purchase Grant scheme was introduced in April 1996. The number of registered social landlord households who have received a voluntary purchase grant in England and in London since the scheme's introduction is shown in the table below.

  Number of RSL households in receipt of VPG, in England and London

  London

  England

  1996–97

  14

  54

  1997–98

  35

  195

  1998–99

  27

  122

  Note:

  Source is the Housing Corporation's Annual Investment Reports

  Rent-to-Mortgage Scheme
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tenants exercised their rights under the rent-to-mortgage scheme in each year since its introduction. [94348]

  Mr. Mullin
  Latest information on rent-to-mortgage activity in England since the introduction of the scheme in October 1993 is given in the table.

  Claims

  Acceptances

  Sales

  October 1993 to March 1994

  152

  19

  —

  1994–95

  738

  89

  12

  1995–96

  396

  45

  8

  1996–97

  373

  34

  4

  1997–98

  402

  51

  7

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  The figures to March 1994, and for Sales in each period, are of reported activity only as no estimates were made for non-responding authorities in either grouping; the figures cover around 90 per cent. of authorities.

  London Airports
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many passengers passed through the London area airports in the past year; what is his forecast for the year 2015; and what estimate he has made of the number of such passengers who would in the next year if duty were to be imposed on aviation fuel at the same rate as on motor vehicle fuel, assuming a similar rate of tax is imposed by other countries. [93832]

  Mr. Mullin
  In 1998, 102 million terminal passengers passed through the London area airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City).

  In the DETR 1997 air traffic forecasts, the unconstrained forecast for London area airports (defined there as Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton) is 147 million (low growth) to 212 million (high growth) with a mid point forecast of 184 million.

  No specific estimate has been made on the effect of imposing a tax on aviation fuel at the same rate as that on motor vehicle fuel. However, studies have been done by

  489
  the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and for the European Commission, among others, on the effects of applying different tax rates to aviation fuel under different scenarios. In reviewing such studies the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere published earlier this year, noted that levies (taxes and charges) could be a means of reducing growth of aircraft emissions by further stimulating the development and use of more efficient aircraft and by reducing growth in demand for aviation transportation. The studies also showed that to be environmentally effective, levies would need to be addressed in an international framework. Consequently further work on market based approaches to limit the growth in aviation emissions is being taken forward by ICAO.

  M4 Bus Lane
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions at what time on the morning of 23 July the M4 bus lane was opened to all vehicles; at what time it was closed again; and what period of time elapsed between the closure of two lanes due to an accident on that morning and the opening of the bus lane to all vehicles. [94204]

  Mr. Hill
  The accident occurred in the nearside lane (lane one) at about 7:30am. At 7:37am lane one closure signs were displayed on the two matrix sign gantries approaching the incident and all traffic except buses and taxis used the middle lane (lane two). This continued until 8:14am when this lane was also closed and the bus lane was opened to all traffic. This was carried out under police supervision to enable the fire brigade to work safely. At 8:54am, lanes one and two were re-opened to traffic and lane three reverted to being a bus lane.

  Swanwick Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the planned date on which Swanwick air traffic control will become operational. [94202]

  Mr. Mullin
  Swanwick is still expected to become operational in the spring of 2002.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on Swanwick Air Traffic Control Centre of the Government's proposals for the future of NATS. [94300]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government recognises the importance of introducing the right strategic partner to the New Partnership Company under the PPP. In order to protect the public interest and national security, given the strategic importance to the UK of NATS activities, the Government will have to be satisfied of, among other things, the strategic partner's commitment to the development of the New En Route Centre at Swanwick and the NSC, thereby maintaining the two-centre strategy.

  The arguments for the PPP include: to give NATS access to private capital; enable that capital to be used to best effect; and bring in the investment and project
  490
  management skills which only the private sector can offer. Additionally, it will free NATS investment and management decisions from Government financing constraints, allow NATS the commercial opportunities it lacks in the public sector, and introduce quality key private sector management skills to build on NATS operational excellence.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the climate change programme referred to on page 47 of the Government's Annual report 1998–99 will include measures designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by the year 2010 based on 1990 levels. [94200]

  Mr. Mullin
  The draft UK climate change programme will set out the Government's strategy for meeting the UK's legally binding target agreed at Kyoto to reduce a basket of six greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12 and moving towards our domestic goal to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. by 2010. We are aiming to publish our draft programme towards the end of 1999 for consultation.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the level of carbon dioxide emissions in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on future targets for carbon dioxide emissions in each area. [93862]

  Mr. Meacher
  A report is currently being completed for the Government and the devolved Administrations which will provide details of historic emissions in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The report will detail emissions of the six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol for the years 1990 and 1995 and will be in the same format as that currently used for the UK-wide greenhouse gas inventory. The report is due to be published shortly. In future years, the Government plans to produce a greenhouse gas inventory for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, alongside the UK inventory, on an annual basis.

  Following Kyoto in 1997, the UK has a legally binding target to cut emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels over the period 2008–12. The UK Government also has a domestic goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. The Government is currently developing a draft climate change programme which will set out how the UK will deliver its Kyoto target and move towards its domestic goal. We are aiming to publish the draft programme for consultation towards the end of 1999.

  Threatened Species
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response the Government have made to the report requested from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the rationale
  491

  behind the listing of threatened species on schedules associated with Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [94203]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department is actively discussing with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee what further measures may be appropriate to protect the relevant species.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the number of people living in fuel poverty in(a) solid-walled and (b) cavity-walled housing; [94311]

  (2) what plans he has to provide funding for the insulation of the walls of solid-walled properties for those deemed to be living in fuel poverty. [94308]

  Mr. Meacher
  Data from the English House Condition Survey shows that there were at least 4.3 million fuel poor households in 1996. Of these, 1.5 million are estimated as living in solid-walled properties and 2.4 million in cavity-walled housing. The remaining 0.4 million are thought to live in non-traditional and mixed-construction housing.

  The new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) has been designed to tackle fuel poverty, focusing on those households most at risk of ill health due to cold homes. It does so by providing packages of heating and insulation improvements that will reduce the cost of keeping warm for households by up to £1,000 a year.

  During the development of the scheme, the full range of heating and insulation measures were considered, including the use of external or internal wall insulation for solid wall properties. Discussions with the insulation industry showed that the cost of external wall insulation was about £2,500 for an average 3-bedroom semi-detached property with disruption for the household. With internal wall insulation, installation costs are less but the disruption to households is greater and there is a loss of internal space. In addition, there are redecoration costs after the work has been completed.

  It was therefore felt that both these measures were more appropriate for large-scale estate renewal programmes where they could be combined with other work such as damp proofing, rather than for new HEES which will target individual properties, primarily in the private sector.

  The packages available for solid walled properties under the new HEES include higher levels of heating improvements than those for cavity walled homes, so providing similar reductions in fuel costs for both types of property.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responses have been received to the consultations relating to the proposed redefinition of households in fuel poverty; and if he will make a statement on his plan for action following the consultation. [94199]

  Mr. Meacher
  The consultation document on the new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme invited comment on two aspects of the commonly used definition of a fuel poor 492
  household—that is to say, one needing to spend more than 10 per cent. of income to achieve a satisfactory heating regime—namely:
  whether the use of fuel for non-heating purposes should be included in assessing the amount of fuel needed to achieve a satisfactory heating regime;
  and
  whether the calculation of household income should exclude any element of housing costs such as rent or mortgage payments.

  A total of 252 responses to the consultation document have been received to date. Forty per cent. of respondents did not comment on either of these particular questions. On the issue of non-heating fuel, 54 per cent. felt that all fuel costs should be taken into account; 6 per cent. had various other suggestions. On the issue of housing costs, 34 per cent. felt that they should not be excluded from income; 20 per cent. felt the opposite; and 6 per cent. made other suggestions.

  The eligibility of households for assistance under the new HEES is not directly dependent on the definition of fuel poverty. However, it is relevant more widely to the discussion of fuel poverty issues, and we intend to look at the definition in the light of the comments received.

  I shall write to my hon. Friend separately with a full copy of the analysis of the consultation responses and place a copy in the Library.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what percentages of heat is lost on average from(a) solid-walled and (b) cavity-walled housing; [94310]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the principal sources of heat loss in domestic properties. [94309]

  Mr. Meacher
  On behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions the Building Research Establishment has undertaken research into heat loss from solid-walled and cavity-walled housing.

  In a typical semi-detached dwelling with un-insulated cavity walls and with average insulation standards for the other elements, the walls account for about 40 per cent. of the total dwelling heat loss (reducing to slightly below 20 per cent. if cavity-wall insulation is added).

  For the same dwelling with un-insulated solid walls, the heat loss through the walls accounts for about 48 per cent. of the total dwelling heat loss.

  Estimates of the principal heat losses for a typical dwelling are: walls 38 per cent., ventilation 23 per cent., windows and doors 26 per cent., roofs 5 per cent., floors 8 per cent.

  Strategic Planning (Spending)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the levels of spending on strategic planning per head of population in(a) Staffordshire and (b) each other county of England (i) in the current year and (ii) in each of the last three years. [94018]
  493
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The available information on planning expenditure does not permit spending on strategic planning to be separately identified.

  GM Micro-organisms
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the environmental and health risks posed by the release into the environment of genetically modified micro-organisms; and if he will make a statement. [94168]

  Mr. Meacher
  All activities involving the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) are required to be assessed for potential risk to both human health and the environment by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992, as amended. These Regulations also require that control measures are used to limit contact of the GMMs with the environment and general population so that harm is not caused.

  For higher hazard GMMs release, to the environment must be prevented. This is achieved by application of extremely stringent control methods and 100 per cent. kill of all waste and contaminated material before disposal. For low hazard GMMs, control measures must minimise release. Although absolute prevention of release in these cases is not required, waste is still treated to inactivate the GMMs prior to disposal with, typically, at least 99.999 per cent. of GMMs being killed. In all cases the risk assessment must be used to ensure that the control measures, including the degree of inactivation, to prevent or minimise release are commensurate with maintaining a high level of safety for both human health and the environment.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the arrangements for public involvement in decision making about the use of genetically modified micro-organisms; and if he will make a statement. [94163]

  Mr. Meacher
  All activities involving the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) are regulated under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992, as amended. The Regulations require all activities to be assessed for potential risk to both human health and the environment. All activities involving hazardous GMMs have to be notified to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

  Although there are provisions in these Regulations for information to be available to the public, including a public register with information from all premises undertaking work with hazardous GMMs, there are no provisions for statutory consultation with the public on individual activities. However, members of the public may request copies of activity notifications and are free to comment on activities to HSE. These comments will be considered and action taken as appropriate. Improvements to the public register proposed by the Health and Safety Commission in a recent consultation document on proposed new contained use legislation will greatly aid public access to information and therefore the ability to comment.
  494
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that inactivated waste from factories and laboratories does not contain living genetically modified micro-organisms; and if he will make a statement. [94172]

  Mr. Meacher
  None at this time.

  The Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992, as amended, require that users limit contact of GMMs with the environment and the general population. In all cases the degree of limitation must relate to the level of risk. For hazardous GMMs "limit" must be interpreted as "prevent". Control measures in these cases will include inactivation of waste material to give 100 per cent. kill.

  The European Directive on the contained use of GMMs has been revised. The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has consulted on proposals to implement the revised Directive by replacing the 1992 Regulations. The handling and treatment of waste was one of the key aspects consulted on. The responses to the consultation are being analysed.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend inspections of sites using genetically modified micro-organisms to include those currently classified as low-risk; and if he will make a statement. [94166]

  Mr. Meacher
  All sites where work with any genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) is to take place must notify HSE and are subject to inspection by HSE Specialist Inspectors. HSE is currently considering how to improve its arrangements for regulating risks from such biological agents and this will include inspection of sites using low risk GMMs.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce independent assessments of the risks of genetically modified micro-organism use at registered sites; and if he will make a statement. [94169]

  Mr. Meacher
  None at this time.

  Provisions for independent assessment of risks relating to hazardous genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) at premises undertaking contained use activities already exist. All premises and all activities involving hazardous GMMs are required to be notified to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992 (as amended). HSE's technical specialists, together with experts in other relevant Departments, scrutinise the risk assessments supplied with all notifications. In addition, advice can be sought from the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (ACGM).

  The Regulations are due to be replaced by new legislation in Spring 2000 in order to implement the revised European Directive on the contained use of GMMs. The Directive requires that notification and an independent scrutiny is maintained for premises and all activities involving hazardous GMMs. The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has consulted on proposals for the new legislation. Responses are being analysed.
  495
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce regulations specifying the maximum level of genetically modified micro-organisms in waste; and if he will make a statement. [94164]

  Mr. Meacher
  None at this time.

  The Regulations which control all contained use activities involving genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs)—the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992, as amended—are intended to be replaced in Spring 2000. New Regulations are required to implement the revision of the European Directive on the contained use of GMMs. The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has recently undertaken a public consultation on proposed new Regulations. The proposals did not include specifying limits for the numbers of GMMs which can be in waste. However, they did propose that there should be a requirement that all GMM containing waste be inactivated prior to disposal, unless users had the agreement of the authorities to do otherwise. Such agreement would only be given if fully justified by the risk assessment. In all cases the level of inactivation (ie percentage kill) must be commensurate with the level of risk. For hazardous GMMs inactivation must be 100 per cent.

  Responses to the consultation are being analysed. I expect HSC to submit proposals to me early in 2000. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt their advice.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will backdate to pre-1992 the Health and Safety Executive's public register of centres using genetically modified micro-organisms; and if he will make a statement. [94171]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992, as amended, require the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to maintain a public register with information from all premises which undertake contained use activities with hazardous genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs).

  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) recently consulted on proposals to replace these Regulations in order to implement revisions to the European Directive on the contained use of GMMs. The proposals included significant improvements in the quality and quantity of information to be placed on the public register. In particular, it was proposed to include information from all premises undertaking contained use activities, even those originally notified prior to 1992.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the resources dedicated by the Health and Safety Executive to the inspection of sites using genetically modified micro-organisms; and if he will make a statement. [94167]

  Mr. Meacher
  HSE is reviewing the way it inspects sites handling genetically modified organisms and biological agents to take account of the increased activity in this field and also to ensure that public concern is properly addressed. An internal HSE review will put forward recommendations in November 1999 and I am sure that HSE will wish to act on them as soon as possible. I believe it is right that HSE should consider ways in 496
  which it can continually improve its enforcement and inspection duties to ensure that risks are being properly controlled.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the monitoring and control of discharges of genetically modified micro-organisms into the environment; and if he will make a statement. [94170]

  Mr. Meacher
  None at this time.

  All activities in containment (eg laboratories, production facilities) are regulated under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992, as amended. These Regulations require all genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) to be controlled so as to limit contact with the environment and the general population. GMMs are inactivated prior to disposal. Users are required to test and maintain control measures and to test (ie monitor) when necessary for the presence of viable GMMs outside of the primary physical containment. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Specialist Inspectors enforce the requirements of the Regulations. This includes scrutinising users' monitoring data and inactivation methods.

  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has consulted on proposals for new Regulations to implement a revision to the contained use of GMMs European Directive. Responses are being analysed. I expect HSC to submit its final proposals to me early in 2000. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt HSC's advice.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to require all registered users of genetically modified micro-organisms to provide information about their use; and if he will make a statement. [94165]

  Mr. Meacher
  None at this time.

  The Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992 (as amended) require users undertaking contained use activities with GMMs which may be hazardous to humans or the environment to notify the individual activities to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) before commencing work. Activities of negligible risk are not required to be notified, but users are required to provide information to HSE Specialist Inspectors if requested or during site inspections.

  The Regulations are to be replaced in Spring 2000 to implement the revised European Directive on the contained use of GMMs. The Directive requires that users provide information to the authorities on all activities involving hazardous GMMs. The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) have consulted on proposals for the new legislation. Responses are being analysed.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the whole of the Jubilee Line extension will be open and fully operational before 31 December; and if he will make a statement. [93731]
  497
  Mr. Hill
  The first two phases of the Jubilee Line Extension are now open, operating from Stratford to Waterloo. One phase 2 station, Southwark, is not yet operating, but will open within the next few weeks.

  Phase 3 will include joining the existing Jubilee Line and will offer full through-running services from Stanmore to Stratford. It will also involve moving on to 7-day per week services (the Extension currently closes on weekends). Phase 3 is due to open in late autumn. The last new station, Westminster, will open a little later. I can therefore confirm that we expect the whole Extension to be fully operational by 31 December.

  Best Value (Sefton)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what progress has been made in implementing Best Value in Sefton Metropolitan Authority; [94495]

  (2) what progress has been made in implementing Best Value in the housing department in Sefton Metropolitan Authority. [94496]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is the responsibility of each local authority to implement best value in its own area. However, I am aware that Sefton, like many other authorities around the country, is making progress. Each Department has drawn up proposals for a five-year fundamental review of all its services. In addition, Sefton is undertaking five pilot reviews. As part of this exercise, I understand the housing department will be reviewing services for the homeless. Under the best value regime, the performance of local authorities will be subject to independent scrutiny through the audit and inspection of all services, including housing.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the principles of sustainable development are built into Best Value. [93915]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Once the duty of Best Value comes into force on 1 April 2000, local authorities will be required to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of their functions with regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. We have made clear in the recently published 'Implementing Best Value—A Consultation Paper on Draft Guidance' that Best Value Reviews will need to give effect to the principles of sustainable development.

  It is for local authorities to determine how to give such principles practical effect through the setting of consistent performance targets, following consultation with their community and in the light of progress with their Local Agenda 21 strategies.

  Driving Licences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make the carrying of driving licences compulsory while individuals are driving. [94506]

  Mr. Hill
  This is being considered by the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (VCRAT), formed by the Government last year to develop a strategy to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. by March 2004. VCRAT concluded that the case for requiring drivers to carry their 498
  licences has not yet been made, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated within the foreword to the VCRAT Strategy report that he will want to look at that issue again in the light of developing technology and further assessment of the potential wider crime reduction benefits. A copy of the report, published on 22 September 1999, is in the Library of the House.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to publicise the(a) risk and (b) consequences of committing road traffic offences. [94505]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department's ongoing programme of publicity campaigns draws attention to the risk and consequences of committing road traffic offences. Our high profile advertising campaigns currently address speeding, drinking and driving, and the non wearing of rear seat belts, which are key factors in more than half of all road deaths. These campaigns focus on the potential risk of causing death or serious injury and the consequences to the perpetrator and others affected. Annex 5 of the Highway Code indicates some of the main offences and penalties.

  We intend to publish soon a new strategy for improving road safety which will inform the development of future campaigns.

  Construction Industry
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the state of(a) the construction industry and (b) the housing construction market between January and June 1997. [94596]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The volume of construction output in Great Britain increased by 1.0 per cent. from £13,700 million in the quarter beginning January 1997 to £13,834 million in the quarter ending June 1997. During this period new construction output fell by 0.3 per cent., whereas repair and maintenance grew by 2.3 per cent.

  The volume of housing construction increased by 0.6 per cent. from £5,517 million in the quarter beginning January 1997 to £5,548 million in the quarter ending June 1997. During this period new housing construction remained unchanged and repair and maintenance grew by 0.8 per cent.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on his initiatives to improve skills in the construction industry; [94597]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his initiatives to encourage young people to enter the construction industry; [94599]

  (3) if he will make a statement on his initiatives to encourage family friendly policies within the construction sector. [94598]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is vital for the construction industry to be able to attract and retain people with the right skills—women as well as men, and from all ethnic communities.
  499
  We are driving forward the "Movement for Innovation" which is seeking to implement the recommendations in Sir John Egan's report "Rethinking Construction". A key item on the agenda is "respect for people" which covers training, equal opportunities, health and safety and site conditions.

  We will shortly respond to the Report on Combating Cowboy Builders, which includes a proposal to introduce a Quality Mark scheme for builders in the domestic sector. One of the requirements of the scheme will be that a firm has operatives with the appropriate skills.

  The "New Deal in Construction", launched last year in collaboration with the construction industry, is designed to make it easier for the industry to recruit young unemployed people and as a way of reducing skills gaps in the industry.

  ADAS 2000
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what tests he has carried out on the ICCS ADAS 2000 equipment; where such tests were executed and under what circumstances; and what training staff have received on this equipment. [94645]

  Mr. Hill
  Testing carried out on ADAS 2000 covered:Testing and pre-roll out checks of the hardware itself;
  Full functional acceptance testing of the software;
  Test of the system's ability to cope with the year 2000 itself, and with the following leap year date;
  Performance testing by a number of users;
  On-site trials at a Coastguard Co-ordination Centre.

  All of these tests were done according to a pre-designed plan drawn up before delivery of the software by the supplier. They were performed on a test system set up using examples of the target hardware at both the client and server ends. Users were fully involved in both the planning and testing processes.

  As to training, a team of people drawn from Coastguard Operations Staff accompanied the installation team to each Co-ordination Centre and instructed Coastguard operators in the use of the new software and the difference between it and the previous version.

  ICCS is a separate major project where the current VHF and MF Radio Control Equipment in HM Coastguard will be replaced.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he is ensuring that private landlords fulfil their responsibilities to maintain the standard of rented accommodation. [94494]

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to ensure that private landlords fulfil their responsibilities to maintain the standard of rented accommodation. [94532]

  Mr. Mullin
  Local authorities are responsible for enforcing standards of fitness in privately rented properties. We intend to reform the housing fitness 500
  standard by introducing a hazard based rating system, which will enable local authorities to assess the fitness of privately rented housing more effectively. The introduction of mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation will place duties on landlords of this type of accommodation to maintain their properties to decent minimum standards and ensure the health and safety of their tenants.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for raising the quality of private rented accommodation. [94493]

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have for raising the quality of private rented accommodation. [94534]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are committed to introducing mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupations where the worst conditions are often found. This will place duties on landlords of this type of accommodation to maintain their properties to decent minimum standards and ensure the health and safety of their tenants. We also intend to reform the housing fitness standard by introducing a hazard-based rating system which will enable local authorities to assess the fitness of privately rented housing more effectively. In addition, we support the development of voluntary initiatives to raise standards in the private rented sector such as good practice codes and landlord accreditation schemes.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many families were made homeless within(a) Sefton and (b) Merseyside in each year since 1993; [94580]

  (2) how many people have been homeless during the last five years broken down by gender in Merseyside. [94648]

  Mr. Mullin
  Data on homelessness activity are reported each quarter by local authorities and this includes the number of households accepted as homeless and in priority need under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts. Further classification by gender, or numbers of people, is not collected. The following table summarises information provided by authorities in Merseyside since 1994:

  Households accepted as being unintentionally homeless and in priority need

  Year

  Sefton

  All Merseyside

  1994

  218

  3,235

  1995

  191

  2,900

  1996

  166

  2,557

  1997

  106

  2,093

  1998

  109

  1,995

  1999 1st half

  68

  11,030

  1 An estimate for non response from one authority is included in this figure

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to further reduce homelessness among(a) families and (b) young people. [94582]
  501
  Mr. Mullin
  The Government have a Manifesto commitment to impose a new duty on local authorities to protect those who are homeless through no fault of their own and are in priority need. This includes families with children and others who are regarded as vulnerable, which can include young people. Since taking office, we have already strengthened the legislation to give homeless people reasonable preference in the allocation of long-term social housing.

  My Department has set up an official-level sounding board with the local authority associations, Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing and others to discuss further proposals for change, on which we would propose to consult more widely in due course. In particular, we will be looking at ways of encouraging more partnership working at a local level, through the development of local homelessness strategies and preventive initiatives. We will also be considering further measures to ensure that housing solutions are sustainable in order to reduce the risk of homelessness recurring.

  The Department has also established a Youth Homelessness Action Partnership, again with both the voluntary and statutory sectors, to look at the particular problems faced by young people and to develop proposals for tackling them. Our revised Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Accommodation and Homelessness, due to be published around the end of the year, will recommend local authorities to treat young care-leavers, especially, as being vulnerable under the homelessness legislation.

  My Department is also contributing to follow-up work on the Social Exclusion Unit's reports, which have a particular bearing on young people, including "Bridging the Gap", and the "Report on Rough Sleeping". These measures include: the extension to young homeless people of the Education Maintenance Allowance pilots (which aim to encourage young people to remain in full-time education and so improve their life-skills); the introduction of a new Youth Support Service, with links to statutory and voluntary housing and homelessness agencies; and the establishment of the new Rough Sleepers Unit, which is co-ordinating Government action to achieve our target of reducing the number of people sleeping rough in England by two-thirds by 2002.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to use lottery funding to support projects and organisations which help the homeless. [94649]

  Mr. Mullin
  None. Responsibility for distributing proceeds from the National Lottery rests with a number of distributing bodies which make their decisions independently of Government.

  HM Coastguard
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recommendations contained within Lord Donaldson's report on a five-year strategy for HM Coastguard. [94509]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions accepts all of the recommendations contained in Lord Donaldson's Review of the Five-Year Strategy for HM Coastguard.
  502
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if any dedicated frequencies are going to be allocated for marine safety information broadcasts; and if there have been any operational difficulties utilising existing frequencies for marine safety information broadcasts. [94646]

  Mr. Hill
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) have applied to the Radio communications Agency for two additional VHF working frequencies which will be used primarily for Maritime Safety Information broadcasts. The MCA application was placed before the National Frequency Assignment Panel (NFAP) on Friday 15 October 1999.

  Operational difficulties utilising those frequencies assigned to Maritime Safety Information broadcasts have been limited to some mutual interference between HM Coastguard transmissions and those of port operators in Clydeport, Liverpool and Medway. Those difficulties have been overcome by avoiding transmissions on a frequency in use by the other authority and HM Coastguard's use of an alternative working frequency not normally assigned to Maritime Safety Information.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the new equipment used by HM Coastguard for Medilink Services varies from the original equipment used by BT coast radio stations; and what difficulties have been involved in its introduction. [94626]

  Mr. Hill
  The Medilink equipment, known as TeleConnect, installed in HM Coastguard Co-ordination Centres is specifically designed for simplex communications. This mode of communications allows only one operator to speak at any time. Hospital medical staff who might not be familiar with this mode of communications have received appropriate training from HM Coastguard.

  BT Coast Radio Stations were fitted with Medilink equipment which differs from HM Coastguard's equipment in that it provides duplex communications. This mode of communications is similar to that used, for instance, in normal telephone calls. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has applied to the Radio communications Agency for two of the hitherto BT duplex channels following closure of BT Coast Radio Stations.

  No difficulties were encountered with the introduction of Medilink equipment into HM Coastguard Co-ordination Centres. The TeleConnect Units installed for Medilink purposes have been used successfully on each occasion medical advice has been sought by vessels at sea.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents, by category, have been handled by each coastguard station during the last five years. [94644]

  Mr. Hill
  The following tables detail incidents, by category, handled by each Coastguard station during the last five years.
  503

  HM coastguard SAR activity: 1994

  District

  Total incidents

  Assistance rendered

  Assistance not rendered

  Hoax

  Number assisted

  Number rescued

  Lives lost

  Aberdeen

  362

  164

  193

  5

  447

  375

  7

  Belfast

  350

  172

  160

  18

  293

  94

  12

  Brixham

  690

  445

  236

  9

  712

  295

  4

  Clyde

  397

  218

  172

  7

  457

  133

  37

  Dover

  531

  258

  258

  15

  518

  258

  24

  Falmouth

  976

  357

  611

  8

  460

  413

  51

  Forth

  330

  167

  159

  4

  282

  157

  8

  Holyhead

  566

  315

  236

  15

  523

  257

  8

  Humber

  415

  308

  99

  8

  694

  241

  8

  Liverpool

  446

  257

  181

  8

  413

  174

  14

  Milford Haven

  444

  241

  197

  6

  277

  213

  5

  Oban

  235

  180

  52

  3

  335

  123

  4

  Pentland

  136

  76

  59

  1

  116

  40

  5

  Portland

  861

  512

  329

  20

  953

  511

  3

  Shetland

  152

  124

  27

  1

  384

  111

  4

  Solent

  1,188

  728

  426

  34

  1,465

  429

  32

  Stornoway

  198

  123

  72

  3

  182

  119

  9

  Swansea

  815

  426

  353

  36

  1,350

  435

  8

  Thames

  600

  392

  193

  15

  758

  395

  9

  Tyne Tees

  357

  231

  113

  13

  554

  169

  12

  Yarmouth

  360

  197

  146

  17

  495

  113

  8

  Total

  10,409

  5,891

  4,272

  246

  11,560

  5,067

  272

  HM coastguard SAR activity: 1995

  District

  Total incidents

  Assistance rendered

  Assistance not rendered

  Hoax

  Number assisted

  Number rescued

  Lives lost

  Aberdeen

  568

  246

  305

  17

  1,201

  675

  16

  Belfast

  396

  218

  166

  12

  346

  188

  9

  Brixham

  768

  499

  256

  13

  616

  535

  15

  Clyde

  449

  270

  163

  16

  407

  188

  18

  Dover

  751

  355

  379

  17

  1,232

  192

  21

  Falmouth

  1,044

  377

  663

  4

  468

  428

  26

  Forth

  332

  174

  153

  5

  412

  151

  5

  Holyhead

  660

  354

  291

  15

  491

  290

  13

  Humber

  523

  391

  127

  5

  744

  237

  11

  Liverpool

  531

  317

  200

  14

  557

  221

  11

  Milford Haven

  561

  289

  255

  17

  443

  222

  8

  Oban

  288

  209

  73

  6

  371

  133

  8

  Pentland

  136

  93

  40

  3

  255

  37

  8

  Portland

  981

  602

  368

  11

  953

  511

  12

  Shetland

  226

  178

  48

  0

  301

  134

  4

  Solent

  1,279

  828

  420

  31

  1,610

  480

  13

  Stornoway

  242

  169

  70

  3

  249

  149

  14

  Swansea

  1,112

  618

  471

  23

  753

  672

  8

  Thames

  894

  635

  241

  18

  996

  397

  11

  Tyne Tees

  374

  236

  131

  7

  515

  142

  8

  Yarmouth

  578

  247

  317

  14

  851

  155

  6

  Total

  12,693

  7,313

  5,152

  251

  13,872

  8,051

  245

  HM coastguard SAR activity: 1996

  District

  Total incidents

  Assistance rendered

  Assistance not rendered

  Hoax

  Number assisted

  Number rescued

  Lives lost

  Aberdeen

  670

  188

  469

  13

  661

  362

  7

  Belfast

  303

  174

  114

  15

  362

  96

  5

  Brixham

  720

  456

  255

  9

  898

  445

  9

  Clyde

  415

  256

  150

  9

  392

  171

  18

  Dover

  559

  258

  294

  7

  1,625

  140

  13

  Falmouth

  895

  345

  544

  6

  578

  331

  31

  Forth

  316

  160

  137

  19

  240

  158

  11

  Holyhead

  553

  322

  210

  21

  495

  247

  4

  Humber

  508

  375

  129

  4

  683

  272

  11

  Liverpool

  523

  274

  235

  14

  419

  161

  12

  Milford Haven

  445

  253

  180

  12

  459

  260

  7

  Oban

  255

  180

  70

  5

  333

  163

  5

  Pentland

  133

  85

  46

  2

  216

  28

  4

  Portland

  874

  548

  318

  8

  845

  405

  8

  Shetland

  123

  90

  32

  1

  225

  62

  4

  504 505

  HM coastguard SAR activity: 1996

  District

  Total incidents

  Assistance rendered

  Assistance not rendered

  Hoax

  Number assisted

  Number rescued

  Lives lost

  Solent

  1,207

  751

  418

  38

  1,844

  478

  31

  Stornoway

  224

  149

  74

  1

  311

  110

  9

  Swansea

  958

  515

  411

  32

  562

  504

  10

  Thames

  771

  512

  252

  7

  2,298

  380

  6

  Tyne Tees

  334

  219

  98

  17

  463

  125

  6

  Yarmouth

  505

  191

  303

  11

  317

  111

  5

  Total

  11,291

  6,301

  4,739

  251

  14,226

  5,009

  216

  HM coastguard SAR activity: 1997

  District

  Total incidents

  Assistance rendered

  Assistance not rendered

  Hoax

  Number assisted

  Number rescued

  Lives lost

  Aberdeen

  763

  217

  536

  10

  643

  195

  14

  Belfast

  292

  167

  113

  12

  333

  95

  10

  Brixham

  776

  476

  286

  14

  1,193

  300

  8

  Clyde

  457

  267

  176

  14

  565

  197

  15

  Dover

  619

  266

  340

  13

  420

  116

  15

  Falmouth

  975

  357

  612

  6

  351

  264

  64

  Forth

  330

  176

  149

  5

  343

  144

  9

  Holyhead

  638

  384

  239

  15

  480

  354

  8

  Humber

  489

  331

  153

  5

  761

  262

  9

  Liverpool

  691

  351

  321

  19

  821

  201

  8

  Milford Haven

  482

  266

  208

  8

  395

  242

  6

  Oban

  267

  222

  41

  4

  338

  163

  11

  Pentland

  140

  101

  39

  0

  307

  55

  7

  Portland

  814

  494

  307

  13

  722

  353

  10

  Shetland

  153

  133

  20

  0

  354

  73

  6

  Solent

  1,158

  768

  331

  59

  1,345

  685

  20

  Stornoway

  238

  154

  84

  0

  174

  124

  8

  Swansea

  795

  471

  309

  15

  567

  496

  11

  Thames

  705

  476

  196

  33

  833

  425

  4

  Tyne Tees

  378

  256

  108

  14

  568

  158

  3

  Yarmouth

  507

  223

  268

  16

  287

  182

  5

  Total

  11,667

  6,556

  4,836

  275

  11,800

  5,084

  251

  HM coastguard SAR activity: 1998

  District

  Total incidents

  Assistance rendered

  Assistance not rendered

  Hoax

  Number assisted

  Number rescued

  Lives lost

  Aberdeen

  788

  265

  515

  8

  413

  325

  12

  Belfast

  251

  161

  78

  12

  420

  112

  4

  Brixham

  767

  492

  252

  23

  1,679

  370

  7

  Clyde

  394

  198

  185

  11

  407

  131

  8

  Dover

  681

  353

  315

  13

  1,259

  105

  38

  Falmouth

  915

  278

  628

  9

  351

  306

  25

  Forth

  267

  156

  107

  4

  244

  177

  5

  Holyhead

  558

  288

  259

  11

  374

  243

  9

  Humber

  507

  335

  164

  8

  1,130

  254

  11

  Liverpool

  724

  385

  324

  15

  707

  207

  6

  Milford Haven

  443

  259

  179

  5

  510

  167

  8

  Oban

  288

  243

  45

  0

  436

  82

  10

  Pentland

  111

  77

  33

  1

  138

  43

  4

  Portland

  790

  458

  311

  21

  662

  424

  8

  Shetland

  141

  126

  15

  0

  411

  52

  4

  Solent

  1,066

  628

  386

  52

  2,014

  482

  33

  Stornoway

  211

  147

  61

  3

  153

  128

  9

  Swansea

  849

  444

  383

  22

  1,119

  247

  11

  Thames

  729

  484

  235

  10

  971

  247

  14

  Tyne Tees

  442

  256

  169

  17

  769

  136

  16

  Yarmouth

  631

  310

  297

  24

  328

  232

  7

  Total

  11,553

  6,343

  4,941

  269

  14,495

  4,470

  249

  Notes:

  Assistance Rendered—SAR Unit despatched and rendered assistance to a casualty.

  Assistance Not Rendered—SAR Unit called out or despatched but casualty resolved problem, others assisted first or False Alarm with Good Intent.

  Hoax—SAR Unit Called Out or despatched based on call with Malicious Intent.

  Persons Assisted—SAR Unit used to transfer or escort persons to safety but not from a life threatening situation.

  Persons Rescued—SAR Unit used to evacuate or escort persons to safety where but for the intervention lives would probably have been lost.
  506

  Pupil Funding
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average funding allocation per child attending(a) junior and (b) secondary schools in each year from 1992 to 1998 in the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. [94595]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Sefton's Standard Spending Assessment per pupil figures for Primary and Secondary Education from 1992–93 to 1998–99 are shown in the table.

  £

  Primary education SSA per pupil

  Secondary education SSA per pupil

  1992–93

  1,769

  2,586

  1993–94

  1,788

  2,596

  1994–95

  1,879

  2,630

  1995–96

  1,875

  2,492

  1996–97

  1,955

  2,590

  1997–98

  2,038

  2,662

  1998–99

  2,153

  2,789

  Road Traffic Reduction
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to set targets for road traffic reduction. [94459]

  Mr. Hill
  We intend to publish our first report on the issue of whether to set a national road traffic reduction target, under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998, by the end of this year.

  Forest Products
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has carried out or commissioned into the environmental consequences of the proposed World Trade Organisation agreement on forest products. [93836]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK and its EU partners are committed to the launch of a comprehensive Round of multilateral trade negotiations at the 3rd WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle (30 November-3 December). The UK does not believe that a sectoral approach to trade negotiations in advance of the Seattle Ministerial is the best way forward.

  The European Commission is currently undertaking a sustainability assessment of the WTO new Round. The UK supports this work and UK Government officials have met with the consultants to discuss progress. This study will consider the range of possible sustainability impacts in all trade sectors likely to be affected by the Round, including forest products, and will be used by the European Union to inform its negotiating position at Seattle and thereafter.

  Thameslink (Franchise Extensions)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Thameslink's plans for franchise extensions aimed at increasing capacity. [94134]
  508
  Mr. Hill
  The Franchising Director and Chief Executive of the Shadow SRA has recently invited franchises to submit bids for the renegotiation of passenger rail franchises, and encouraged them to include proposals for significant new investment in improving capacity, punctuality and reliability of services in their bids. He has also announced that he will prioritise those bids that he receives, and will take them forward for renegotiation over the coming months. The Franchising Director will review any renegotiation that he receives from Thameslink's franchise GOVIA as part of this process.

  Private Hire Vehicles (Control) Act 1998
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the regulations to bring into effect the provisions of the Private Hire Vehicles (Control) Act 1998. [94404]

  Mr. Hill
  During the summer we conducted jointly with the Public Carriage Office a consultation on proposals for regulating private hire vehicle operators in London. We are considering the responses, with the aim of publishing draft regulations as soon as possible. Further consultations will follow on proposals for regulating private hire drivers and vehicles.

  Train Operators' Performance
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what independent evaluations are commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) the Rail Regulator of the performance of train operators. [94020]

  Mr. Hill
  None. The Franchising Director is responsible for monitoring the performance of train operators. Performance data provided by train operators are independently and regularly checked for the Franchising Director by the University of Sheffield. Data relating to train operators' performance are also produced by Railtrack using trackside equipment. This data is independently audited.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends next to visit the Ribble Valley. [93660]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have no current plans to visit Ribble Valley.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Poland. [94573]

  Mr. Prescott
  I visited Warsaw on 20 September to attend informal high level consultations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The purpose of the meeting was to prepare for the Fifth Conference of the Parties to the Convention, to be held in Bonn from 25 October to 5 November 1999. The meeting was well attended by Ministers and other high level representatives, and proved a valuable opportunity to discuss a number of important issues. I was pleased to note that there is still strong political commitment to the process and the participants reaffirmed their determination
  509
  to drive the negotiations forward. I hope we can make good progress in Bonn and pave the way for a successful outcome at the Sixth Conference of the Parties, which is the deadline for decisions on key outstanding issues.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authority planning decisions have been overturned on appeal by(a) the Planning Inspector and (b) himself in each of the last two years. [93718]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated 19 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about local authority planning decisions that have been overturned by the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State over the past two years.
  The information requested is as follows:

  Planning appeals against refusal

  Decisions overturned by

  Appeal decided during

  Inspectors

  Secretary of State

  Total

  1997–98

  4,200

  31

  4,231

  1998–99

  4,001

  29

  4,030

  Regional Government
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many letters he has received from people living in Lancashire in support of a regional tier of government for the north-west. [94187]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None.

  Unoccupied Shops
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) shops and (b) dwellings above shops are currently unoccupied. [93695]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Some local authorities collect data on empty retail units, but we do not hold national figures. There are 315,000 existing dwellings over shops in total in England, of which 18 per cent. or approximately 57,000, are empty (1996 figures).

  New Homes (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 387, on new homes built in Lancashire in 1998, how many were built on (a) brownfield sites and (b) greenfield sites. [93673]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available. Estimates of the proportion of new homes built on previously developed land are available from the Department's Land Use Change Statistics, for Government Office Regions but not yet for counties.510
  Latest figures show that, in 1994, 57 per cent. of new dwellings were built on previously developed land in the north-west, and 43 per cent. were built on land that was not previously developed. These figures exclude new dwellings provided from conversion of existing buildings, for which reliable information is not available below national level.

  Estimates of the number of houses built are available from the Department's housing completion statistics at county level, but these do not distinguish houses built on greenfield and brownfield land.

  These sources are under review and will be developed to provide more detailed, timely information.

  Sussex Downs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make an announcement about the future structure and funding of the successor body to the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. [94463]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 29 September that he was asking the Countryside Agency to consider, in consultation with the local authorities concerned, designating a National Park in the South Downs. In the event of a National Park designation being confirmed, a South Downs National Park Authority could be expected to become the successor body to the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. Arrangements for the structure and funding of National Park Authorities are laid down in the Environment Act 1995. Almost three-quarters of the membership are made up of local councillors, including parish representatives. Current funding arrangements provide for 75% of core budgets to come direct from central Government, with the remaining 25% coming from constituent local authorities, compensated through the revenue support grant.

  I met the hon. Member as part of a delegation from East and West Sussex and Hampshire on 12 October. As I indicated then, the Countryside Agency will liaise closely with all the local authorities across the South Downs to ensure that any recommendations it makes for a National Park properly take into account the particular characteristics of the area. I also indicated that Ministers would place importance on there being a smooth transition from the Sussex Downs Conservation Board to a successor body.

  Bird-proofing
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation for compulsory proofing of premises against birds; and if he will make a statement. [94454]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Local authorities already have powers to deal with bird nuisance through a variety of measures including the Public Health Act 1961, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Government have no plans to introduce further legislation.

  "Renegade" Collision
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made with the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch's inquiry into a collision between the Irish fishing vessel "Renegade" and an unidentified merchant vessel which occurred on 26 July; if he will place a copy of the report of the inquiry in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [93942]

  Mr. Hill
  The Marine Accidents Investigation Branch will not be investigating the collision between the Irish fishing vessel "Renegade" and a merchant vessel as both vessels were non-UK registered and the accident happened outside UK territorial waters. However, the Irish authorities are investigating the incident.

  Disabled Rail Passengers
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Office of the Rail Regulator will publish the revised code of practice for disabled passengers. [94526]

  Mr. Hill
  The Rail Regulator has prepared a draft revision of his Code of Practice "Meeting the needs of Disabled Passengers". The draft version is currently subject to a technical consultation and the Regulator plans to publish the document in draft form during November 1999. He will invite comments from a wide range of interested parties including rail operators and representatives of disability groups.

  JANSC
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the training and arrangements for consultation on, and consideration of, the future operation of the JANSC or its successor body. [94338]

  Mr. Mullin
  The future role and operation of the successor body to the JANSC is currently being formulated, in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Defence. Once finalised, these will be encapsulated within formal Directions to the CAA, and made available to the House.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the time scale and arrangements for the exploration of his proposal for more conventional contractual arrangements for the provision of air traffic control services by NATS to BAA plc. [94337]

  Mr. Mullin
  Where NATS provides air traffic control services at an airport, it does so on the basis of a contract with the airport operator. However, the means by which it charges for these services differs between six of the BAA airports and other airports. Outside the BAA-run airports, NATS is paid by the airport operator, but in the case of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Gatwick, Glasgow, Heathrow and Stansted, the contractual arrangement between NATS and the BAA provides for NATS to charge airlines directly for its services. No other provider of air traffic control services at airports has the ability to recover its charges direct from the airlines.
  512
  The Government, in line with its expressed desire to explore the feasibility and desirability of a more conventional contractual arrangement, have recently written to representatives of the airlines, air users and the airport operators. These parties have been invited to comment on the arguments for and against direct charging for air traffic control provision at airports.

  The Government propose that the CAA, as regulator, should review how direct charging is working after the PPP is set up. In carrying out this review, the CAA will consult with air traffic control service providers, airport operators and users. The Government will take a final view as to whether the facility should be extended to all providers, or should be withdrawn, when this review is complete. It is not the Government's intention unilaterally to force an end to a charging method that, on reflection of the arguments, was acceptable to all three parties involved.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on those synergies which are to result from the public private partnership proposed by the Government for the future of National Air Traffic Services Ltd. [94322]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are determined to secure a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors. Private sector status will allow important investment and management decisions to be taken on commercial grounds while the public sector interest will be protected through the Golden Share, the shareholders agreements and the Government appointed partnership directors. There will also be a stakeholder council to provide a forum for consultation with all stakeholders in the partnership.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what level of proposed reduction in the Government's shareholding in NATS it will be required to seek prior parliamentary approval. [94330]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government intends to retain a 49 per cent. stake in NATS and will seek to ensure through legislation that there can be no reduction below this level without Parliamentary approval. In addition to this, a mechanism will be devised which will allow for limited dilution of the Government's stake if that is necessary in order to raise investment capital.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the detailed discussions which are to take place with potential strategic partners in the public private partnership proposed by the Government for the future of National Air Traffic Services Ltd on the suggested employee share scheme, setting out the arrangements for the timing and publication of the results of these discussions. [94323]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government have said that 5 per cent. of NATS shares will be made available for an employee share scheme. Details of that scheme are being developed and we intend to discuss proposals with pre-qualified potential strategic partners, and with employee representatives in due course. However, as the pre-qualification process cannot begin until well into the
  513
  Parliamentary process for the legislation which will enable the PPP to be effected this will not be for some time.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the dates and duration of the meetings held by (i) himself and (ii) his Ministers with representatives of trade unions representing staff at National Air Traffic Services Ltd in the six months prior to 27 July. [94320]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister met with representatives of the IPMS and PCS on 27 July 1999 to discuss the NATS PPP.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on employment levels of the Government's proposed sale of 51 per cent. of National Air Traffic Services Ltd in the (i) five years and (ii) 10 years following the sale. [94321]

  Mr. Mullin
  No formal assessment of staffing levels has been undertaken by the Government. However, it is expected that due to the continued increase in the growth of Air Traffic, coupled with the new opportunities the PPP will create, there should be no adverse effect on staffing levels as a result of the PPP.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the proportion of employees taken on by the public private partnership proposed for National Air Traffic Services Ltd who will be able to join the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme. [94331]

  Mr. Mullin
  All NATS staff who are in employment with the company at the time the public-private partnership is established will be entitled to remain in the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme. It will be up to the strategic partner to determine the pension arrangements to be offered to staff taken on by the partnership after it is established.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the decisions of the regulator proposed for Air Traffic Services in determining a dispute between the service provider and users envisaged under the public private partnership proposed for the future of National Air Traffic Services Ltd. will be open to judicial review. [94328]

  Mr. Mullin
  Decisions of the regulator will be open to judicial review in the same way as those of regulators in other regulated industries.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those potential strategic partners identified by the Government to date for participation in the public private partnership proposed for the future of National Air Traffic Services Ltd. [94324]

  Mr. Mullin
  The strategic partner for the NATS PPP will be selected following a competitive tender process. The Government will seek the widest possible participation in the process in the first instance, to enable them to pre-qualify a shortlist of quality and most appropriate candidates.
  514
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment has been made of the proposal that the employee share distribution involved in the public private partnership arrangements proposed for the future of National Air Traffic Services Ltd should include the distribution of shares into a Trust fund controlled by the employees. [94325]

  Mr. Mullin
  The form of the employee share scheme will be discussed with NATS staff representatives in due course. A Trust Fund is one option which will be considered.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the assurances to be given to leisure users of National Air Traffic Services Ltd on their exemption from certain charges under the proposed public private partnership. [94336]

  Mr. Mullin
  Leisure fliers are currently exempt from most air traffic control charges and NATS is not seeking to change this. There have, of course, long been differing views as to whether these exemptions should continue. But there will be full consultation with air users and other interested parties, if at any time in the future, there are proposals to remove these exemptions.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanism will be set up to assess on its merits each occasion when it is necessary for the United Kingdom to be represented in international fora on air traffic matters by(a) Government officials and (b) the private sector partner envisaged in the public private partnership proposed for National Air Traffic Services Ltd. [94327]

  Mr. Mullin
  The question of United Kingdom representation at international fora is presently being considered. Many international panels and study groups, upon which the UK is represented, are highly technical in nature. In such cases the prospect of a conflict between commercial and public interest may be minor, and outweighed by the benefit of having the best qualified body take the lead. The Government are the signatory to most international instruments and must, therefore, ensure both that all interests are taken into account in deciding the UK's negotiating position, and that all relevant sources of expertise are used to the greatest effect.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the dates and duration of the meetings held by (i) himself and (ii) his Ministers with the senior management of National Air Traffic Services Ltd in the six months prior to 27 July. [94319]

  Mr. Mullin
  In the six months up to 27 July, the Minister for Transport met with Senior Management of NATS on 4 March, and 8, 22 and 27 July. The DPM met with senior officials of NATS in a separate meeting on 27 July, and that meeting was also attended by the Minister for Transport.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to take powers of direction over National Air Traffic Services Ltd, the Civil Aviation Authority and UK civil aviation in times
  515
  of hostilities, severe international tension or great national emergency; and what will be the arrangements for consultation on these proposals. [94334]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government will need to be able to exercise control over NATS operations, and over UK civil aviation in the event of crisis, war, severe international tension or national emergency. The Government therefore intends to bring forward legislative proposals to take powers to direct the CAA, NATS and any other owner or operator of a relevant asset to:participate in planning for an emergency;
  in the case of the CAA, to discharge its functions in accordance with the directions;
  in the case of owners of assets and operators of air services, manage the asset or provide the service in accordance with the directions.

  The Government will be seeking the consent of Parliament to these powers of direction being available in times of hostilities, severe international tension or great national emergency.

  The Government's proposals were set out in the consultation paper "A public/private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd (NATS)", published on 20 October 1998, and in the Government's report on the responses received, which was published on 27 July 1999.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contingency arrangements are to be put in place to ensure the uninterrupted provision of air traffic control services and the compliance of the United Kingdom with its international obligations in the event of insolvency of a strategic partner in the proposed public private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd. [94326]

  Mr. Mullin
  The United Kingdom is bound by the Chicago Convention to provide continued air navigation services in national airspace. Where the company is, or is likely to become, insolvent, the proposed legislation will provide that the Secretary of State and the regulator have powers to petition the courts for a special administration order, to appoint an administrator to manage the affairs of the company. The administrator will oversee the transfer to another company, as a going concern, sufficient of the licensee's business to ensure that the licensed activities can be properly carried out, and to ensure that the licensed activities are carried out pending completion of the transfer. It is envisioned that these powers would be applied in the event that NATS was or was likely to be unable to pay its debts, or if it would be just and equitable under the Insolvency Act for the company to be wound up.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what sanctions the Economic Regulator will be able to impose under the public private partnership proposed by the Government for the future of National Air Traffic Services Ltd. for any abuse of the monopoly position of the private sector strategic partner. [94335]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government feels that any proposed enforcement regime should be both prompt and effective. However, in order to ensure that the UK can provide an uninterrupted service—as the Chicago Convention requires—the holder of the en-route licence must be allowed to continue its licensed activities while any abuse 516
  of its monopoly position is rectified. To this end, the Government will be seeking powers for the CAA, as economic regulator, to secure, where necessary, Provisional or Final Enforcement Orders. These Orders will be used to prevent any contravention or likely contravention of a licence obligation. The regulator will be able to enforce such Orders through civil proceedings, in order to obtain appropriate relief.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanisms and criteria he will use under the public private partnership proposed by the Government for the future of National Air Traffic Services Ltd., to determine whether the strategic partner is, and remains, a fit and proper person whose ownership will not compromise the public interest or national security. [94333]

  Mr. Mullin
  The strategic partner will be selected via a rigorous, competitive process—to ensure that they have the pre-requisite financial capability, proven commercial management expertise and strategic rationale for investing in NATS.

  The Government will wish to satisfy them, at the earliest possible stage of the selection process, that the strategic partner passes all probity and national security examinations. The Government will also ensure resolution of any actual or perceived conflict of interest issues and that the partner is committed to maintaining and, where necessary, improving NATS provision of safe air traffic control services to users of UK airspace.

  The design of the remaining stages of the process will allow bidders the opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of the aviation industry and public interest concerns. Shortlisted bidders will be required to prepare thorough final offers which will detail their long term commercial business plans for NATS and allow them to provide commitments for the further development and enhancement of NATS infrastructure and the broadening of NATS management skill base.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the response by the trade unions representing NATS staff to the Government's plans for selling 51 per cent. of National Air Traffic Services Ltd. [94332]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Trade Unions response to the Government's proposals for the future of NATS was contained in a joint submission made by the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists and the Public and Commercial Services Union. In it, the Unions recognised the case for change, in order to access additional sources of capital investment, to meet the needs of maintaining existing safety and efficiency levels against increased traffic. However, they disagreed on the best way to achieve this, arguing that NATS should stay in the public sector, and putting forward as their preferred solution, an Independent Publicly Owned Company (IPOC) option.

  The Government considered the IPOC model, and a range of other options, both in deciding on their preferred option in the first instance and in considering the responses to the public consultation. There are many similarities between the IPOC model and the New

  517
  Partnership Company, but the Government believe that the New Partnership Company approach supplies all the solutions of an IPOC model, but with additional benefits.

  In common with the IPOC, the New Partnership Company secures access to private capital, separates regulation from operations, introduces economic regulation, involves all stakeholders in the company's future, provides for Government to appoint Partnership Directors, gives Government—and consequently the taxpayer—annual dividends, and provides on-going assurances that the company is operating properly in the national interest. However, the New Partnership Company also:
  removes any future risk of investment counting in the public accounts and therefore becoming subject to Government controls;
  enables private sector investment, project and commercial management expertise to be introduced;
  brings in genuine private sector efficiency drivers at the outset;
  gives the company more freedom to extend its operations world-wide, while minimising the risk to the taxpayer of possible financial failure;
  provides proceeds for use in other transport projects.

  The Unions also put forward a trust model (such as NavCanada) as an alternative to IPOC, if the Government's overriding objective was to raise proceeds for other transport projects. The Government also considered a trust model in deciding on their preferred option. They concluded that, while a trust might offer limited benefits, primarily the potential for involving airspace users and NATS staff, there were a number of weaknesses in the model. These included the lack of real commercial incentives or disciplines, making costs higher than they could be, difficulties in ensuring adequate accountability, and the potential complexity of the ownership structure.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what communication he has received from the institutions of the European Community concerning the proposed share of Her Majesty's Government in the re-organised National Air Traffic Services; and if he will list the articles of any treaty relating thereto. [94635]

  Mr. Mullin
  A copy of the Government's consultation paper, setting out the proposals for the Public-Private Partnership, was sent to the European Commission at the time of its Publication in October 1998. The commission acknowledged receipt of the document and said that it awaited, with interest, further developments.

  In July 1999, the Government sent a copy of their report on the responses to the consultation exercise to the Commission, and offered an explanatory presentation, at official level, of the proposals. Arrangements for this presentation, particularly on the proposed regulatory, are oversight of the new partnership company currently in hand.

  Housing Developments
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that substantial new housing developments have access to the necessary infrastructure and services; and if he will make a statement. [94157]
  518
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The draft policy planning guidance note 3 (Housing), which is now being finalised in the light of consultation, requires all major housing developments to be planned as communities. This implies adequate infrastructure and services.

  Commercial Airline Pilots
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the recruitment and training of pilots for commercial airlines. [94027]

  Mr. Mullin
  This is one of the issues that were considered by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs (ETRA) Transport Sub-Committee into Aviation Safety. The report was published on 21 July 1999.

  We are currently considering all of the Select Committee report's recommendations. Our response will be before the House as soon as possible.

  Wildlife Sites
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's legislative proposals on the protection of(a) SSSIs and (b) other wildlife sites; and what plans he has for the restoration of damaged sites. [94380]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government will bring forward legislation to ensure the better protection and management of SSSIs as soon as Parliamentary time permits. Measures to be taken were set out in "The Government's Framework for Action" on 2 August.

  Increased emphasis on positive management agreements, backed up by new powers to combat neglect, will lead to an improvement in condition for all our SSSIs through better protection and management.

  In addition, we have set up a Local Sites Review Group to consider how local authorities and other bodies can best contribute to the identification, protection and management of locally important sites.

  Lead Shot
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his proposals for the use of lead shot. [94378]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 1 September 1999, legislation to restrict the use of lead shot came into force in England. Regulations to restrict the use of lead shot in Scotland and Wales are a matter for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly respectively.

  The regulation prohibits the use of lead shot on or over all Ramsar sites, as well as those Special Protection Areas and other Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) that have been identified as being sites important for waterfowl by English Nature. The regulation will also apply to areas below the high water mark of ordinary spring tides (only some of which are already designated as SSSIs). Outside these areas, the regulation prohibits the use of lead shot for shooting all species of Anatidea (ducks and geese) together with moorhen, coot golden plover and snipe.

  A13
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contracts for the improvement of the A 13 have been let; when, under the terms of the contract, they were due to be completed; and when each contract is expected to be completed. [94365]

  Mr. Hill
  Three contracts have been let in recent years to improve the A13: West of Heathway to Thames Avenue, Thames Avenue to Wennington and Wennington to Mar Dyke.

  The contractual completion dates are, respectively, May 1999, March 1997 and August 1998.

  We expect the Heathway to Thames Avenue scheme to be finished around November/December 1999; the other two schemes were completed in May 1997 and October 1998 respectively.

  The West of Heathway scheme has been delayed by problems with statutory undertaker's equipment and there have been some difficulties with the design and construction of a complex viaduct. The other two schemes were delayed because of problems with earthworks.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93678]

  Mr. Prescott
  The spending on official publications since May 1997, which includes the costs incurred by the department in publishing, preparation, production and purchase of copies for official use, was £5,897,683. Where the Department makes use of a private sector publisher, the publishing, printing and design costs are generally met by the publisher as part of their acceptance of the risks of publication.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of his Department, excluding non-departmental public bodies and agencies, in the last five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93843]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A list of corporate internal publications produced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions since immediately before its creation in June 1997 has been placed in the Library. The Department's policy has been to rationalise the number of regular staff newsletters and magazines to improve communication and save money; periodic publications that have been incorporated into others have been marked with an asterisk.

  Information about the former departments of the Environment and Transport before April 1997 is not readily available and could be gathered only at disproportionate expense.

  Flaxmill
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in granting planning permission for Flaxmill; and if he will make a statement. [94123]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State has decided that the applications for planning permission and for listed building consent with regard to Flaxmill should not be referred to him for determination. He has notified Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council of his decision. This is now a matter for the local planning authority.

  Diesel Spillages
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation to make negligent spillage of diesel on highways an endorsable offence; and if he will make a statement. [93646]

  Mr. Hill
  There is an offence, under existing regulations, of "using a vehicle in a dangerous condition" the penalty for which in the case of goods vehicles and buses includes an endorsement of 3 penalty points. It would be for the police and the courts to decide whether such an offence might apply to a case where a motorist had spilled diesel on the road.

  The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 currently require that fuel tanks must be constructed and maintained in such a manner that neither liquid nor vapour can escape from them. Anyone failing to comply with these Regulations may be liable to a maximum fine of £2,500.

  The European Parliament is currently considering changes to the Fuel Tank Directive (70/221/EEC), which would require fuel caps to be securely attached to the tank. When applied in the UK this amendment should reduce the risk of spillage even further.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to include road accidents caused by diesel spillage as a separate category within road accident statistics; and if he will make a statement. [93645]

  Mr. Hill
  Data on the presence of oil or diesel on the road surface at the site of a road accident have been collected as a separate category within road accident statistics from the beginning of 1999. It was introduced following a review of the collection of national road accident statistics. No information is collected nationally on the contributory factors to accidents.

  Regional Planning (London)
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the regional planning process in London. [94288]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government is putting in place new procedures for the regional planning process in London. The proposals were outlined in the White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" and are contained in the Greater London Authority Bill currently before Parliament.
  521
  The Boroughs will remain the local planning authorities for their areas, but the Mayor will be responsible for drawing up strategic planning guidance in the form of a new Spatial Development Strategy (SDS) for London. The detailed content of the SDS will be for the Mayor to consider but, in general terms, it is expected to address all issues of strategic importance to the capital with a spatial dimension. The SDS will also provide a common spatial framework for all the Mayor's strategies and policies. Borough Unitary Development Plans will be required to be in general conformity with the SDS.

  Present strategic planning policy for London is contained in The Secretary of State's Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities, and its annexes. This will remain in place until the Mayor produces the first Spatial Development Strategy.

  The Mayor must also have a means of intervening in the development control process where issues of genuine strategic importance are concerned. The Mayor will therefore become a statutory consultee for planning applications of potential strategic importance. The Mayor will also have the power to direct a Borough to refuse planning permission for these cases where he or she considers this necessary on strategic grounds. The criteria for applications that will be notified to the Mayor were announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 15 March 1999, Official Report, columns 472-74, and will now be taken forward into secondary legislation. The Government will be carrying out further consultation on the draft secondary legislation associated with the Mayor's planning role shortly.

  The Mayor will also be responsible for representing London's interests on broader strategic planning matters, including at the regional level.

  Dangerous Goods Cargo
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many dangerous goods incidents attributed to the carriage of cargo have been reported to the CAA in the last 12 months; how many of these were investigated; how many of these were forwarded to the CPS for prosecution; and how many led to successful prosecutions. [94539]

  Mr. Mullin
  In the twelve months to the end of September 1999, the Civil Aviation Authority received 126 reports of incidents involving dangerous goods carried as cargo. The CAA's Dangerous Goods Office reviews the circumstances of all reported incidents and will take appropriate action. If an incident is the result of a deliberate action or has potentially serious consequences, it may be referred to the CAA's Aviation Regulation Enforcement and Investigation Branch for formal investigation. Five of the dangerous goods incidents reported in the last 12 months have been referred for formal investigation. So far, one of these incidents has resulted in a prosecution by the CAA. That prosecution was successful.

  Housing (North-west)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in meeting targets for housing on recycled land in the north-west. [94533]
  522
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department's Land Use Change Statistics show that, in 1994, 57% of new dwellings were built on previously developed land in the north-west, but these figures exclude conversions from existing buildings. The existing Regional Planning Guidance for the region emphasises the importance of channelling growth back into the main urban areas, but gives no targets. This guidance is currently being reviewed, and the issue of an appropriate target for the reuse of previously developed land and buildings for housing is under consideration.

  Audit Fees
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government take to regulate the size of audit fees for small village councils. [94531]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The setting of audit fees in respect of the audit of accounts is a statutory responsibility of the independent Audit Commission under Section 7 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. The Secretary of State has no powers to direct an auditor or the Audit Commission on the conduct of an audit.

  The Commission is aware of the burden that audit costs can impose on small parish councils and have introduced measures designed to reduce fees. Parish Council audit fees are charged at a rate that is 40% of that charged for principal authorities. Parishes with an income below £5,000 per annum can reduce the burden further by adopting the 'triennial scheme' which allows three annual audits to be undertaken together to save on the overheads associated with an audit.

  Sellafield MOX Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses were received to the public consultation which closed on 23 July on the Sellafield MOX plant; what proportions were in favour; and what proportion were received from abroad. [94154]

  Mr. Meacher
  A total of 332 responses were received during the public consultation period on the economic case for the Sellafield MOX plant. Of these, 16(5 per cent.) were in favour, and 32(10 per cent.) were from abroad.

  Green Ministers Committee
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon), 16 July 1999,Official Report, column 341, if he will list the Departments which did not send a Minister to the Green Ministers' meeting of 6 July, indicating the reasons given for non-attendance; and if he will make a statement. [94294]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Departments represented by Ministers were: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Law Officers Departments; Department of Trade and Industry; Home Office; Ministry of Defence; Department of Culture, Media and Sport; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and the Northern Ireland Office. Those represented by officials
  523
  were: the Chancellor's Departments; Cabinet Office; Department for Education and Employment; Department for Health; and Department of Social Security. The Departments not represented were: Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Lord Chancellor's Department; and the Department for International Development.

  Several Ministers were absent from the meeting because they were attending a ministerial awayday organised by the Cabinet Office on behalf of the Prime Minister.

  The first annual report of the Green Ministers Committee has been published since the meeting. This sets out in some detail the achievements and future plans of the Committee.

  Powered Garden Tools
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to bring forward measures to restrict the use of powered garden tools on Sundays. [93644]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have no plans to bring forward measures to restrict the use of powered garden tools on Sundays.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what dates Special Advisers from his Department have visited the United States of America on official business since 1 May 1997; which of his Special Advisers took part in each visit; and if he will list the meetings which these Special Advisers held with members and officials of the United States Government during each visit, specifying the date and location of each meeting and the names of the US members and officials at each meeting. [93959]

  Location

  Date

  Observation (ug/1)

  Pimlico, Dolphin Square, Well 1 and 2

  7 July 1997

  124

  Catford, Initial Services

  7 July 1997

  114

  Wimbledon, South Downs Works

  7 July 1997

  109

  Wandsworth, King George's Park

  7 July 1997

  109

  Warley, Warley Hospital

  3 July 1997

  58

  Holyport, Les Lions Farm

  1 July 1997

  50

  Sunbury, Pim Board and Co. Ltd.

  6 July 1998

  9.98

  Slough, Slough Trading Estate

  4 June 1998

  3.37

  Hounslow, Avis Rent-a-Car

  13 May 1998

  2.28

  Hounslow, Avis Rent-a-Car

  2 September 1998

  1.39

  Goosey, Church Farm

  29 April 1998

  1.36

  St. Albans, Mud Lane PS

  10 March 1999

  1.3

  Stanford-in-Vale, Sheeperoft Hill Farm

  29 April 1998

  1.22

  Pimlico, Dolphin Square, Well 1 and 2

  13 July 1999

  0.7

  Sunbury, Chertsey Road, Well 3

  6 July 1998

  0.7

  Pimlico, Dolphin Square, Well 1 and 2

  21 December 1998

  0.63

  Stansted Mountfitchet

  8 March 1999

  0.49

  Isleworth, Garvin House

  13 May 1998

  0.4

  Bicester, Wendlebury (Faccenda) Chicken

  16 February 1998

  0.31

  Chigwell, Epping Forest Country Club

  6 July 1998

  0.3

  Chalfont St. Giles

  19 March 1998

  0.22

  Abingdon, Vineyard Maltings

  27 April 1998

  0.21

  Rickmansworth, Tolpits

  17 March 1999

  0.21

  Newbury Racecourse

  20 May 1998

  0.18

  Epsom, Nonsuch

  25 September 1998

  0.14

  Cheam PS

  13 June 1998

  0.13

  524
  Mr. Prescott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 332. In addition, I was accompanied by a Special Adviser when I undertook a further visit to the United States of America in April 1999.

  Ministerial Meetings (United States)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what meetings he held with members and officials of the United States Government during his visit on 7 to 9 June 1998 to the United States of America for the UN Special Session on Drugs; and if he will list the date and location of each meeting, and the names of the members and officials of the United States Government at each meeting. [93950]

  Mr. Prescott
  None.

  MTBE Contamination
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what analysis he has carried out where MTBE has been found in ground water and aquifers; and if he will make a statement; [93666]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent of ground water contamination by MTBE; if he will list those sites where MTBE contamination has been detected; and if he will make a statement. [93665]

  Mr. Mullin
  At the request of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, the Environment Agency is undertaking a research project to establish the incidence of MTBE in England and Wales, the results of which are expected in the first half of next year. The Environment Agency has already monitored for MTBE at 300 sites in its Thames region. MTBE was found at the sites listed although my advice is that the observed concentrations are all below the level at which it has been suggested that health hazards may arise.
  525

  Location

  Date

  Observation (ug/1)

  Loudwater, Railko

  12 May 1998

  0.13

  Hillingdon, Blue Dragon Laundry

  13 May 1998

  0.13

  Reading, Battle Hospital

  15 May 1998

  0.12

  Bray, PS

  16 September 1998

  0.12

  Watford, Bushey Hall

  17 March 1999

  0.12

  Underground NCRS

  15 April 1999

  0.12

  Kenley PS

  25 February 1998

  0.11

  Watford, Eastbury PS

  17 March 1999

  0.11

  Binsted, Hawbridge Farm

  20 May 1998

  0.1

  FPSO (Fires)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contingency plans he has for responses to major fire on board any of the FPSO in severe weather conditions in the oil fields west of Shetland; and if he will make a statement. [94528]

  Mr. Meacher
  Arrangements are in place; the response to a major fire would be dealt with by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) in co-operation with operators of offshore installations and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). In line with Lord Donaldson's report on command and control at sea, DTI would co-ordinate in the event of an incident involving a Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) installation at anchor, where there is risk of or actual damage to the environment.

  Under health and safety law, operators must assess major accident hazards, including fires, and take appropriate measures to deal with them. The Health and Safety Executive enforces these requirements, and inspects the installations to ensure measures are in place.

  School Bus Transport
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to improve the safety of school bus transport. [94723]

  Mr. Hill
  The use of buses is already considered the safest way to transport children to and from schools. With the introduction of seat belts on forward facing seats in coaches and minibuses carrying groups of children on organised trips we have already implemented measures that improve the safety of these vehicles.

  Targets for service delivery for 1 October 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Current performance

  Target

  Housing benefit determinations (without an inspection). Statutory requirement—5 working days.

  60% within 4 working days

  65% within 4 working days

  71% within 5 working days

  80% with 5 working days

  Housing benefit pre-tenancy determinations. Statutory requirement—5 working days.

  65% within 3 working days

  70% within 3 working days

  95% within 5 working days

  99% within 5 working days

  Housing benefit redeterminations. Statutory requirement—20 working days.

  30% within 20 working days

  50% within 20 working days

  Housing renovations grant determinations. Statutory requirement—45 days.

  98% within 45 working days

  88% within 45 working days

  526
  A new School Travel Advisory Group has been set up to advise local authorities, school governors and teachers etc. on the best practices for operating school travel. It includes safety as part of its remit.

  Rent Service
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made with the establishment of the Rent Service as a Next Steps executive agency. [94817]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Rent Service was established as a Next Steps Executive Agency on 1 October 1999. Copies of the Agency's Framework Document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The aim of the Agency is to provide for rental valuations which are impartial and fair to tenants, landlords and taxpayers.

  I have set the following targets for the Agency for the remainder of 1999–2000:

  1. Achieve targets for service delivery set out in table below.

  2. Manage the Service within financial allocation.

  3. Implement new and streamlined management structure by end November 1999, including appointment of Area Managers, posts in the Quality Inspectorate and regional redetermination teams.

  4. Develop and implement effective Agency systems for finance, personnel, training and development, internal and external communication, and the quality control of valuation by 31 March 2000.

  5. Put in place by the end of October 1999 a detailed plan for the implementation of the new IT system and abide by that plan.

  6. Produce detailed action plan for phased rationalisation of the office structure in London by 31 October 1999 and implement first phase by 31 March 2000. Produce detailed action plan for reorganisation of the office structure outside London by 31 December 1999.

  7. Negotiate and conclude 1999 pay settlement for rent officers. Develop plan to negotiate harmonised terms and conditions for Agency staff by 31 March 2000.

  London Transport
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the Government's performance targets for(a) London

  Performance

  Targets

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  London Underground

  Train Service regularity (%)1

  94.3

  95.4

  93.5

  95.6

  n/a

  95.9

  95.7

  95.7

  Percentage of schedule operated

  93.6

  95.5

  94.5

  96.2

  96.9

  96.9

  96.5

  n/r

  Ticket purchase—queueing less than 3 mins (%)1

  93.9

  94.8

  96.0

  97.2

  n/a

  98.0

  98.0

  98.0

  Escalator availability (%)

  92.7

  93.3

  92.8

  92.7

  91.4

  93.0

  92.0

  92.0

  Lift availability (%)

  94.8

  95.8

  96.8

  95.5

  93.8

  96.0

  96.0

  95.0

  Excess journey time (mins)

  6.46

  —

  —

  —

  6.25

  —

  —

  —

  Customer satisfaction measures

  Train service (%)

  75

  75

  76

  76

  77

  77

  76

  76

  Information on stations and trains (%)

  77

  74

  74

  68,73

  75

  75

  73

  66,76

  Customer safety and security (%)

  81

  81

  83

  83

  83

  83

  83

  84

  Station staff helpfulness and availability (%)

  68

  67

  69

  64

  70

  70

  69

  65

  Train and station cleanliness (%)

  67

  66

  68

  63,68

  69

  69

  69

  66,70

  London Transport Buses

  Kilometres operated

  98.5

  98.7

  99.1

  99.2

  99.0

  99.0

  99.0

  99.0

  Low frequency routes departing on time

  69.0

  70.0

  70.3

  71.4

  77.0

  74.0

  74.0

  70.0

  Low frequency routes—departing early

  5.0

  5.0

  4.8

  4.7

  3.4

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  Night bus services—departing on time

  71.0

  66.2

  61.3

  61.4

  70.0

  65.0

  65.0

  65.0

  Excess waiting time on high frequency routes (min)

  2.0

  1.8

  1.8

  1.7

  1.4

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  Customer satisfaction measures

  Bus stations—overall quality of environment

  73

  68

  69

  67

  76

  71

  71

  71

  Bus stations—overall quality of information

  63

  63

  65

  66

  68

  68

  68

  67

  Condition of bus stops and shelters

  78

  57

  55

  53

  76

  57

  54

  54

  Internal cleanliness of buses

  75

  67

  59

  58

  83

  70

  63

  63

  External cleanliness of buses

  76

  66

  54

  54

  78

  69

  54

  54

  Staff helpfulness

  82

  60

  63

  64

  87

  66

  66

  66

  1 This measure was replaced in 1998–99 with a measure of excess journey time

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of her Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July quarterly report to the House. [93566]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Details of the Cabinet Office, its Agencies and associated public bodies—for which I am responsible—progress in tackling the bug are set out in our quarterly monitoring returns. These show that work on all business critical systems, embedded chips and telecommunications systems is now complete. The results of the October monthly review of progress of Departments and agencies in tackling the bug are due to be announced shortly by the President of the Council.

  There has been a slight slippage in ensuring the compliance of a few non-business critical applications and embedded systems. This work had been scheduled for
  528
  Underground and (b) London Buses have been met in the last two years. [91528]

  Mr. Hill
  [pursuant to the reply, 27 July 1999, c. 358-59]: The following table shows the performance and targets of both London Underground and London Buses.

  completion by the end of September. Some of this has now been completed and contingency arrangements have been invoked to ensure compliance of all systems by the end of October.

  In line with CCTA guidance, all areas including No. 10 will have Business Continuity Plans and Millennium Operating Regimes in place and tested by the end of October.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July quarterly report to the House. [93565]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department's millennium readiness programme was completed in April 1999. Prior to completion of the programme, all of the Department's
  529
  systems were subjected to a rigorous testing process. Consequently, there has been no slippage since the July quarterly report to the House.

  Where functions delivered by the Department involve the provision of public services, business continuity plans have been developed and tested. In addition to subjecting continuity plans to rigorous testing, each plan, and test results, have been subjected to independent assessment before being agreed.

  Similar progress has been made in the Employment Service where the millennium readiness programme was completed in June 1999 with business continuity plans completed and tested in August 1999.

  Details of the Department's and the Employment Service's progress in tackling the bug are set out in their quarterly monitoring returns. These are available in the Libraries of the House and are published on the internet. The results of the October monthly review of progress of Government Departments and agencies in tackling the bug are due to be announced shortly by the President of the Council.

  Vocational Programmes
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students are currently on(a) GNVQ and (b) NVQ programmes; and what proportion achieved their intended qualifications in each of the last five years. [94736]

  Mr. Wicks
  The figures requested are shown in the following table. Information on the proportion of students achieving GNVQ and NVQ qualifications is not available on a consistent basis for all GNVQs and NVQs.

  Table 1 Numbers of Level 3 qualifications awarded by type (1993/94–1997/98)

  Academic year qualification was issued

  Qualification type

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  2 or more GCE A Levels1

  164,469

  164,597

  169,345

  182,523

  188,173

  Advanced GNVQ

  1,210

  11,493

  28,078

  34,274

  39,011

  NVQ Level 3

  225,114

  248,682

  263,794

  290,385

  90,343

  Other VQs Level 33

  123,736

  101,965

  83,685

  66,560

  57,672

  1 The figures represent the number of people who have achieved two or more passes at A level. A levels are level 3 courses but a person needs to have two or more passes at A level to have achieved the same as an advanced GNVQ or a NVQ level 3.

  2 Figures are for United Kingdom only.

  3 Other (unregulated) vocational qualification only relate to those awarded by the following awarding bodies (Oxford Cambridge and RSA (OCR), Edexcel and City and Guilds).

  Level 2 Graduation Test
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has held with disability interests concerning the modification of the Level 2 graduation test at age 19 years for those with special educational needs. [94679]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Qualifications Curriculum Authority (QCA) will be consulting disability interests as part of its remit to develop and consult on options for a 'graduation' certificate.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he will make for
  530

  Numbers on NVQ/GNVQ programmes

  Thousand

  Numbers studying for:

  Academic year

  NVQs1

  GNVQs2

  1994–95

  660

  n/a

  1995–96

  799

  n/a

  1996–97

  871

  198

  1997–98

  789

  186

  1998–99

  856

  3—

  1 These are UK figures derived from the Labour Force Survey (Spring 1995 to Spring 1999).

  2 These are figures for England, Wales and Northern Ireland taken from the Joint Council for National Vocational Awarding Bodies annual press notice.

  3 To be published in November 1999.

  Able Pupils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to reflect the attainments of able pupils who take GCSEs early in school performance tables. [94740]

  Jacqui Smith
  The achievements of such pupils have been included in performance tables since they were first published in 1992.

  Level 3 Qualifications
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for the last five years the numbers and proportions of whole Level 3 qualifications obtained through(a) GCE A Level, (b) GNVQs, (c) NVQs and (d) other recognised qualifications. [94731]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Information on the proportion of people gaining level Figures are for England unless stated otherwise.

  further progression after Level 2 graduation at age 19 years; and if modern apprenticeships will remain open to young adults who have graduated from Level 2. [94684]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government is committed to offering continuing learning opportunities for young people. Those, for example, who have successfully completed NVQ qualifications at level 2 are encouraged to progress to further training or vocational education. Many will opt for Modern Apprenticeships, where funding is available until the young person's 25th birthday.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the starting-point of
  531
  annual income for the repayment of student loans which are in (a) income-contingent and (b) old-style mortgage loans. [94743]

  Mr. Wicks
  The starting point of annual income for the repayment of student loans which are income-contingent will be £10,000; the starting point of annual income for the repayment of student loans which are old-style mortgage loans is £18,192 in academic year 1999–2000. The repayment of income-contingent loans will be fairer than mortgage-style because it will be tied closely to income. Repayments will be based on 9 per cent. of income over £10,000 a year so that repayments will increase or decrease in line with changes in income. The repayment of mortgage style loans above the threshold is not income-contingent. A fixed proportion of the loan has to be repaid each year: someone earning £20,000 a year will repay the some monthly sum as someone earning £40,000.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce arrangements for the extension of loans to part-time students. [94745]

  Mr. Wicks
  My noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment announced on 29 January that from 2000–01 we would make loans available to part-time students on low incomes to help with the costs of study, and would announce details later this year. The Department is now analysing information from the Student Income and Expenditure Survey, and will make a further announcement before Christmas.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students hold means-tested loans; and what is their overall value. [94744]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Student Loans Company has informed me that at 15 October 1999, cheques have been issued to 325,000 students under the new student support arrangements. The total value of the loans was approximately £346 million. These figures are for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about delays in the delivery of student loan cheques following their arrival at college for the autumn term. [94675]

  Mr. Wicks
  To date, my Department has received one e-mail about delays in the delivery of this term's student loan cheques. Students who applied on time and provided the necessary documentation should have received their cheques: that is a considerable achievement by all concerned.

  Learning Accounts
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about the current acceptability of individual learning account credits to higher education institutions; and what advice he has circulated to them. [94732]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Department has not received any representation about the current acceptability of individual learning account credits to higher education institutions, nor have we issued specific advice to higher education institutions on the acceptability of credits.
  532
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many individual learning accounts are currently open; and what is their cumulative value. [94734]

  Mr. Wicks
  By the end of August 22,530 individual learning accounts were opened through Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs). The cumulative contribution from TEC resources to these accounts is £734,277. These are the first pilot accounts. The national framework will be rolled out as planned in 2000. Under that we expect to see a rapid build-up towards the target of 1 million accounts in 2002.

  Inspection Procedures
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for co-ordination of inspection procedures for post-compulsory education between Ofsted, the Further Education Funding Council Inspectorate and the Training Standards Council Inspectorate. [94761]

  Mr. Wicks
  Under the proposals in our "Learning to Succeed" White Paper (CM 4392), we will bring together the current arrangements for the inspection of provision for post-16 education, (excluding higher education), and of work-based training, into a single system.

  Ofsted will take responsibility for the inspection of 16-19 provisions in schools and colleges. For post-19 provision in colleges, and for work-based provision for all age-groups, there will be a new independent Inspectorate. The two Inspectorates will work together, where appropriate, to plan a joint inspection plan for sixth form, further education and tertiary colleges, working to a common inspection framework.

  Social Exclusion Unit Report
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many times the departmental-led Ministerial Group has met to progress the Social Exclusion Unit report (Cm 4405); and how many times the official cross-departmental implementation group has met. [94747]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Ministerial Steering Group has met once to progress the work set out in "Bridging the Gap: New Opportunities for 16–18 year olds not in education, employment or training". The official cross-departmental implementation group has met twice.

  Careers Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the relationship between the proposed Connections Support Service and the existing providers of careers education and advice, with specific reference to the professional qualifications and inspection regime; if the remit covers all young people; and who is to finance the service. [94683]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Social Exclusion Unit report "Bridging the Gap: New Opportunities for 16–18 year olds not in education, employment or training", published in July, outlined a new support service for all 13–19 year olds. Since then we have consulted widely on the service, including its functions, structure and professional formation. The consultation closed on 15 October and we
  533
  are considering responses. Decisions on the structure, professional qualifications, inspection and funding of the new service and how these will affect existing organisations providing careers education and advice to young people, will be taken following analysis of the consultation response.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice he has issued to higher education institutions about collection of tuition fees in circumstances where students have not yet received their loan cheques. [94676]

  Mr. Wicks
  Loan cheques are intended to cover maintenance costs rather than tuition fees and have already been issued to eligible students who applied on time and provided all the necessary documentation. We have asked higher education institutions to be flexible and sensitive in collecting tuition fees and not to bill or require payments from students whose financial assessments have not yet been completed. A copy of our written advice to institutions has been placed in the Library.

  Lecturers (Professional Qualifications)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he has made in developing new professional qualifications for lecturers in further education and the private training sector. [94762]

  Mr. Wicks
  All further education colleges in England will shortly be consulted about proposals. As regards the private training sector, the Employment National Training Organisation (ENTO) is currently reviewing the range and scope of its qualifications.

  Adult Education (Funding)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on standards fund grants for adult and continuing education. [94756]

  Mr. Wicks
  The level of the 2000–01 Standards Fund grant for Local Authority Lifelong Learning Development Plans will be announced shortly. Local education authorities have an important role in lifelong learning and the grant next year will be significantly higher than this. We want authorities to use this money to reach new learners, to improve the quality of learning opportunities they offer, and to strengthen their own internal planning and their links with other learning providers. That is the way to ensure the learning opportunities they offer best meet the needs of the people they serve.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the withdrawal of local authority discretionary award schemes and the implications of new funding arrangements for improving access to further education. [94735]

  Mr. Wicks
  The discretionary awards scheme was not working well with large variations in funding in different parts of the country with consequential effects on access. A number of letters have been received about the new further education student support arrangements in 1999–2000. But more money will be available overall so 534
  that, in general, students are better off than in the previous year and than would have been the case had we allowed discretionary awards to continue for this year.

  Study Leave
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what basis his Department is planning for 50 per cent. participation in the right to time off for study or training; and if he plans any incentives to providers to achieve this level of participation. [94681]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Department made a planning and costing assumption, published in the 1997 Regulatory Appraisal, based on our estimate of the number of young people aged 16 and 17 in employment, not qualified to Level 2, and not working towards a Level 2 qualification. This is a new entitlement, and performance will be kept under review. Employers can apply to the local TEC for a contribution towards the cost of the study or training.

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he proposes to put in place to secure an element of moral and social education and pastoral arrangements in post-16 education. [94759]

  Mr. Wicks
  It is a matter for the individual institutions and private training providers to decide how they address moral and social education and pastoral arrangements for their post-16 students. There is no compulsory curriculum post-16, and therefore no requirement to study any particular subjects. However, for example, the new GCE A-level specifications have been written to identify, as appropriate to the subject, ways in which the study of the area can contribute to an understanding of spiritual, moral, ethical, social and cultural issues.

  Hardship Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce the result of his consultation exercise on hardship loans. [94746]

  Mr. Wicks
  The review of Hardship Loans and Access Funds will be completed by Christmas and the outcome will be announced in the new year.

  Schools Access Initiative
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress with the Schools Access Initiative. [94725]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Schools Access Initiative gives capital support to make more mainstream schools accessible to pupils with disabilities and those with sensory impairments. It has run each year since 1996 and a total of £25 million had been allocated by March 1999. We have allocated a further £20 million in 1999–2000 which will benefit over 1,600 schools and are planning further big increases for the following two years.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on local education authorities' progress in developing special educational needs development plans. [94724]

  Jacqui Smith
  From 1 October 1998 LEAs have a statutory duty under Section 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to carry out all their functions to promote high standards. Education Development Plans are three-year plans whose purpose is to draw together the main actions, which LEAs are taking in pursuit of this statutory duty. They will increase accountability to schools, local partners and to Government.

  Targets for special schools and information on how LEAs plan to improve standards achieved by pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in their schools must be reflected in the main body of the EDP. The SEN Annex (Annex 4) gives further more detailed information about the LEA's policy.

  All LEAs now have an EDP, and almost all have been approved for three years from April 1999 to March 20002. The Department will continue to monitor and evaluate EDPs during this period.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a premium will be available for work-based training of those with special educational needs. [94752]

  Mr. Wicks
  The funding which the Department provides to Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) for work-based training includes an element to cover the additional costs incurred in providing quality training for those with special training needs.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils in England carried statements of special educational need in each of the last 10 years; and what proportion of the total of pupils they represented. [94680]

  Jacqui Smith
  The available information is shown in the following table.

  Number and percentage of pupils with statement of special educational needs in England Position in January each year

  Year

  Number of pupils with a statement of special educational needs

  Percentage of pupils with a statement of special educational needs

  1999

  248,041

  3.0

  1998

  242,294

  2.9

  1997

  234,629

  2.9

  1996

  227,348

  2.8

  1995

  211,307

  2.6

  1994

  194,541

  2.5

  1993

  178,029

  2.3

  1992

  160,759

  2.1

  1991

  153,228

  2.0

  1990

  159,485

  2.1

  1989

  155,191

  2.1

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for improving the transition planning for those aged 16 years with special educational needs. [94753]
  536
  Jacqui Smith
  The Government intend to change the law in order to require local education authorities to conduct the 'transition review' of a child's statement during academic year 9. At present the transition review takes place after the child's 14th birthday, which means that the review may not in practice be undertaken until year 10. Where the young person leaves school at age 16 he or she may therefore have had only one review which has focused on the personal 'transition plan'. The proposed change will ensure that 16-year-old school leavers who have statements of special educational needs will have had the benefit of at least two and in most cases three annual reviews at which planning for their transition from school has been actively and effectively addressed. Further guidance on good practice in transition planning will be provided in the revised SEN Code of Practice.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to encourage local education authorities to alter the balance of their provision for children with special educational needs between(a) privately funded institutions, (b) publicly funded special schools and (c) inclusion in mainstream schools, respectively. [94729]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is for local education authorities to decide the pattern of provision they need to meet the special educational needs of pupils in their area.

  Where parents want a mainstream setting for their child, our policy is to try to provide it. Equally, where more specialist provision is what is sought, it is important that parents' wishes are respected. Our approach has been practical, rather than dogmatic, with an acceptance that the key objectives must be to safeguard the interests of all children and to ensure that they achieve to their full potential. We are advocating inclusion by choice and have underlined that there remains a continuing and vital role for specialist schools.

  We are seeking to join up the different sectors (maintained, independent and voluntary) and establish more effective links between the special and mainstream schools. Through the establishment of the SEN regional co-ordination projects local authorities are being encouraged to work with each other and with the voluntary and private sectors to better plan and meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what initiatives he has taken to improve the education provision within the special needs sector within Sefton Metropolitan Borough. [94587]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's Programme of Action: Meeting Special Educational Needs, published in November last year, announced a package of measures designed to improve special educational needs provision across the country. As part of the targeted support available to local education authorities in 1999–2000, Sefton Metropolitan Borough was allocated £182,987 under the Special Educational Needs Standards Fund Programme and a further £152,800 under the Schools Access Initiative to make more primary and secondary schools accessible to disabled pupils.

  These targeted resources are additional to the substantial increase in resources available to local education authorities via the Standard Spending Assessment. Sefton's Standard Spending Assessment for

  537
  1999–2000 was £122.2 million, an increase of £5.7 million on the previous year. It is for local education authorities to determine, within the total resources available to them, the level of resources available for special educational needs provision.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary and secondary children with(a) learning and (b) physical difficulties are accommodated within the mainstream school system in Sefton Metropolitan Borough. [94588]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, in January 1998, of the 27,882 pupils in maintained primary schools in Sefton Metropolitan Borough, 369 were pupils with a statement of special educational needs and 4,239 were pupils with special educational needs but without a statement. Of the 19,744 pupils in maintained secondary schools in Sefton Metropolitan Borough, 506 were pupils with a statement of special educational needs and 2,020 were pupils with special educational needs but without a statement.

  Academic Standards
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he plans on the maintenance of academic standards while extending participation in higher education to 50 per cent. of young people. [94678]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that 50 per cent. of young adults will be able to enter higher education by the age of 30. Increased participation is likely to be largely in high quality, shorter qualifications valued by employers. Maintenance and improvement of standards would be central to any consultation.

  Young Carers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to support learning at a distance by young people who have responsibilities as carers. [94748]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is already a comprehensive range of distance learning materials available for young people which can be accessed by those young people who have caring responsibilities.

  Education Business Partnerships
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to complete a national network of education business partnerships. [94757]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There is already a national network of education business partnerships in place. We are, however, working closely with the National Education Business Partnership Network and others to strengthen the national, regional and local structures for promoting and encouraging greater collaboration between schools and business.

  Educational Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give details of pilot 538
  schemes for Educational Maintenance Allowances and define the basis on which income eligibility is to be calculated and the number of pupils affected. [94751]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is being piloted in 15 local education authorities (LEAs) across England to test the effectiveness of targeted financial support on post-16 participation and attainment rates. The 15 pilot LEAs are: Middlesbrough, Walsall, Southampton, Oldham, City of Nottingham, Bolton, Doncaster, Stoke-on-Trent, Gateshead, Cornwall, Leeds, Lewisham, Southwark, Greenwich, Lambeth. Different pilot variants are being tested in different areas.

  Young people resident in the pilot areas may be eligible to receive an EMA if they left Year 11 last summer, participate in full-time post-16 education at school or college, and satisfy a financial assessment based on their parents' annual gross taxable income. The full allowance (£30 in all areas except Nottingham and Oldham where £40 is the maximum) will be payable if the parents' gross taxable income is less than £13,000. For higher incomes, the amount will be tapered, down to a minimum of £5. No allowance will be payable where the taxable income exceeds £30,000 (£20,000 in London). In the London LEAs, eligibility is restricted to young people living in selected wards; in Leeds to those who attended selected schools pre-16.

  The EMA will be paid during term-time only and will be stopped if the young person fails to comply with the terms of a learning agreement (such as not attending lessons) drawn up with the institution. Bonuses are payable for retention and achievement.

  We estimate that around 29,000 young people in the 15 pilot areas will be eligible for an EMA.

  Learning Direct Helpline
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the correlation between those accessing the Learning Direct helpline and their eventual attainment of(a) qualifications at Level 2 or above and (b) basic skills qualifications. [94738]

  Mr. Wills
  The information is not available from existing evaluation. We are currently designing continuing evaluation arrangements on the use made of Learning Direct.

  Small Business Service Areas
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give details of the network of local learning and skills councils and Small Business Service areas. [94755]

  Mr. Wicks
  When the Government published the "Learning to Succeed" White Paper and Small Business Service consultation document, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asked the Regional Development Agencies and the London Development Partnership to provide us with advice on potential local Learning and Skills Councils, and Small Business Service boundaries.

  Ministers are currently considering the advice received and we intend to announce details of boundaries shortly.

  National Record of Achievement
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress to date with the National Record of Achievement in education. [94677]

  Mr. Wicks
  Following early trialling of the ideas proposed by the 1997 report of the National Record of Achievement Review Steering Group, materials under the title of "Progress File" have been developed and are being tested and adapted over the next three years with schools, colleges and employers in ten demonstration projects in different areas of England. The new materials are also available to other interested schools. The existing National Record of Achievement remains available to schools and training providers.

  Return Rates (Education)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the current social rate of return to(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) tertiary education. [94730]

  Mr. Wicks
  The estimated social rate of return to A-levels taken by young people is 14-21 per cent. The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education estimated the rate of return on first degrees at 7-9 per cent. in the first half of the 1990s, and there are some indications that a marginally higher figure may now be appropriate. Estimates for compulsory education are not available.

  Discount Card
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what detailed proposals he has for the 16 to 18 discount card; who will finance these discounts; what arrangements will be made to deal with complaints by(a) dissatisfied consumers and (b) potential providers who are excluded from the scheme; and what is the anticipated cost to public funds. [94750]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Youth Card will build on the current Learning card which is issued to all young people during their final year of compulsory education. When fully up and running it will reward young people in learning and help to remove some of the barriers to further learning by offering a range of attractive discounts covering transport, leisure, and the commercial sector.

  Discussions are taking place with a wide range of organisations to secure these discounts. The expectation is that the cost of discounts will be borne by those organisations willing to accept the Youth Card for discounting purposes. Consequently no significant additional public cost is anticipated.

  All those organisations willing to recognise the Youth Card for discounting purposes will be bound by contract to deliver the agreed discount and to ensure that any complaints are dealt with properly. This contract will be reviewed annually.

  School Sixth Forms
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce the results of his consultation on school sixth forms. [94754]
  540
  Mr. Wicks
  The consultation on the funding of school sixth forms closed on Friday 15 October. Some late responses are still being received. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce the results of the consultation after he has considered all views.

  Learning Support Assistants
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in developing professional qualifications, matched to NVQs, for learning support assistants. [94728]

  Jacqui Smith
  Work is currently in progress to develop a national framework of training and qualifications for teaching assistants. The Department is working on this with the Local Government National Training Organisation (LGNTO) in consultation with Local Educational Authorities, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and other bodies. This framework will cover all teaching assistants including those learning support assistants who support children with special educational needs. As part of the first phrase of this work, we have commissioned LGNTO to develop national occupational standards for all teaching assistants. This work is due to be completed in Spring 2000.

  "On a Wing and a Prayer"
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what reply he has made to MENCAP's report on school inclusion entitled, "On a Wing and a Prayer". [94727]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The DfEE is working closely with MENCAP. However, the publication of this report coincides with the publication of a DfEE commissioned report entitled "The Management, role and training of Learning Support Assistants". Both reports explore how learning support assistants work with pupils with special educational needs in inclusive settings. They each highlight good practice. The Government is already taking forward work relating to a number of the recommendations in the MENCAP report, as highlighted in the Teachers Green Paper. Specifically we are:working with the Local Government National Training Organisation to develop a national framework of training and qualifications;
  developing good practice materials on the effective deployment of teaching assistants, including learning support assistants;
  making available £350 million over this and the next two financial years to support the recruitment and training of an additional 20,000 (FTE) assistants, including learning support assistants.

  In addition, we are currently in discussion with MENCAP and the authors of the two reports about the possibility of a joint conference to discuss the research findings and identify ways forward for improving practice.

  "Learning to Succeed"
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has had with local education authorities(a) in the course of the preparation of the paper "Learning to Succeed" (Cm 4392) and (b) after the paper's publication. [94739]
  541
  Mr. Wicks
  Ministers and officials meet with the Local Government Association and individual local education authorities on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues including our proposals in "Learning to Succeed". We have also received written responses to the consultations associated with the White Paper from the Local Government Association and a large number of individual local education authorities.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the role of the voluntary sector in the implementation of Learning to Succeed. [94760]

  Mr. Wicks
  The voluntary sector has a number of important roles to play in implementing the proposals in 'Learning to Succeed'. These include helping to ensure that the education and training that the Learning and Skills Council provides is relevant to the needs of young people and adults and providing high quality opportunities to help young people and adults get and keep work. Voluntary organisations are particularly well placed to contribute their expertise in key areas such as tackling social exclusion and in the education and training of those with special or basic skill needs.

  Pupil Numbers (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average number of children by year group in primary and secondary schools within the Crosby constituency, in each year from 1992 to 1999. [94585]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on the number of pupils by year group is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the expected average number of children by year group in primary and secondary schools within the Crosby constituency in each year from 1999 to 2001. [94586]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many private finance initiatives are currently being promoted by Lancashire Education Authority. [94184]

  Jacqui Smith
  Lancashire Education Authority is currently engaged in replacing Fleetwood High School through the Private Finance Initiative.

  Science Laboratories
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list the cases where private finance initiative resources have been given to science laboratory development; [93706]

  (2) how much private funding initiative resource has contributed to capital budget funding for science laboratory development in the last five years. [93707]

  Mr. Wicks
  In the Schools sector, five Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects have been signed, with many more in the pipeline, to provide new or replacement 542
  secondary schools. All of these schools will have modern science laboratories fully capable of delivering the national curriculum. The PFI credits given by the Government to support these projects do not include separately identifiable amounts for specific aspects of each development.

  In the Higher Education sector two of the seven signed deals include modern facilities for teaching and research in the fields of medical, biological and clinical science. In the Further Education sector, the seven PH deals signed to date do not include specific science laboratory elements.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the results of the examination of the design needs of scientific laboratories in secondary schools under Building Bulletin 80. [93715]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has reviewed its guidance on science accommodation in secondary schools, and a revised building bulletin updating Building Bulletin 80, 'Science Accommodation in Secondary Schools: A Design Guide', will be published shortly.

  National Curriculum for Science
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment with whom consultations were held in the revision of the experiments carried out in the National Curriculum for Science in Schools. [93709]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority consulted a number of science associations, prior to preparing advice to the Secretary of State on proposals for a revised science curriculum. A full list of those consulted is contained at Annex 2 of the QCA's Report "Developing the School Curriculum", which was published on QCA's website www.qca.org.uk following the Secretary of State's announcement on 9 September. In addition all local authorities, teachers, governors, parents and other interested parties were able to contribute to the public consultation on the revised National Curriculum, which ran from May to July this year. On the basis of the QCA's advice we have strengthened the role of Scientific Enquiry within the Science curriculum by establishing it as a separate Attainment Target. Revised curriculum handbooks will be sent to schools in November and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Building Bulletin 80
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the distribution list for the replacement document for Building Bulletin 80. [93714]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department will distribute copies of the revised Building Bulletin 80, 'Science Accommodation in Secondary Schools: A Design Guide', to the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries and the British Library. The priced document will be available from the Stationery Office.

  Maths Year 2000
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support schools will be given in the forthcoming Maths Year 2000. [94538]
  543
  Ms Estelle Morris
  This September we launched the National Numeracy Strategy in primary schools, underpinned by a comprehensive programme of training. Maths Year 2000 aims to support teachers as they implement the strategy by creating a positive, "can-do" culture towards mathematics throughout the community.

  We are investing £105 million in the National Numeracy Strategy over two years. This includes up to £19.2 million available to provide maths resources in the classroom for 2000–2001. £6.75 million is being invested in the Maths Year which includes a total of £0.5 million specifically provided for local numeracy projects involving schools and their business partners. Many businesses will also be running their own schemes to support schools as their contribution towards the year.

  Schools will be able to find a range of ideas for ways to get involved through regular newsletters, a free calendar with puzzles and stories about the history of maths and, from December, the Maths Year Website (www.mathsyear2000.org).

  Teachers' Pay
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to introduce performance-related pay for teachers; and what recent representations he has received on this issue. [94159]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State submitted the Department's written evidence to the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) on 23 September, asking them to consider the Government's proposals for reform of teachers' pay, including a new upper pay spine for classroom teachers accessed via a performance threshold, and requesting the Review Body to make recommendations accordingly. A copy of this evidence is in the Library of the House. The formal consultation period on the Green Paper and its accompanying technical consultation document ended on 31 March. Detailed summaries of the responses to the consultation are also available in the Library of the House.

  The Department has continued to discuss the Government's proposals in detail with representatives of the teacher unions and employers.

  Corporal Punishment
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to introduce legislation to outlaw the use of(a) the cane and (b) other forms of corporal punishment in independent schools; and if he will make a statement. [94579]

  Jacqui Smith
  From this September, Section 131 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 outlawed corporal punishment for all pupils in maintained and non-maintained schools, and for children receiving nursery education.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93690]
  544
  Mr. Wills
  Within the Department's Advertising and Publicity Budget the total spend on publications since May 1997 is £4.106 million.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of his Department, excluding non-departmental public bodies and agencies, in the last five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93844]

  Mr. Wills
  Since the Department was created in 1995, it has produced the following internal communications for its staff:The News Centre—daily electronic information which announces key news about policy or work related issues published via the Department's intranet;
  BulletinBoard—a weekly paper publication which briefly outlines what has been on the week's Newscentres;
  BulletinBoard Link—issued weekly to staff on loan/secondment, career breaks, maternity leave and home workers, who do not have access to electronic information. It provides an outline of what has been on the Newscentre and details where to get more information;
  A Message From …—gives important strategic information from members of the Board. It is produced as required and available on paper and electronically; and
  Feedback—a staff magazine published six times a year.

  None of them bear a security classification.

  Employment Service Appeals Procedure
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in each of the last three years(a) how many cases were referred to the Employment Service Appeals Procedure, (b) what percentage of cases handled by the Employment Service was referred to the Employment Service Appeal Procedure, (c) what was the average time that cases referred to the Employment Services Appeals Procedure took to be resolved, and (d) what percentage of appeals taken to the Employment Service Appeals Procedure were withdrawn before reaching a final ruling; and if he will make a statement. [94593]

  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Lembit Öpik, dated 19 October 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question concerning statistical information about appeals received by the Employment Service over the last three years. This is something, which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  It may be helpful, by way of background, if I first explain a little about the Employment Service appeals procedure. Decisions on doubtful claims to Jobseeker's Allowance are made by Employment Service Adjudication Officers. If a jobseeker wishes to appeal against a decision given by the Employment Service Adjudication Officer, they complete a form giving their reasons for appeal. The Adjudication Officer then re-examines the case, collects any further information that may be required from the jobseeker and the employer, and either revises the decision in the jobseekers favour or

  545
  prepares a written submission to The Appeals Service, which is not part of the Employment Service. On receipt of the submission, The Appeals Service allocates a date when the case can be heard by an appeals tribunal and deals with all subsequent administration such as notifying the jobseekers of the outcome of the appeal.
  Against this background, the following table shows the number of appeals received by the Employment Service over the last three operational years.

  Operational year

  Number of appeals received by the Employment Service

  1996–97

  18,628

  1997–98

  30,312

  1998–99

  19,261

  The following table shows the number of appeals received as a percentage of all the decisions given by Employment Service Adjudication Officers.

  Operational year

  Percentage of decisions appealed against

  1996–97

  1.2

  1997–98

  2.8

  1998–99

  2.2

  In answer to your question on what was the average time that cases referred to the Employment Service Appeals Procedure took to be resolved, the only information available on speed of process is the length of time appeals take to be processed by the Employment Service. The following table shows the length of time between the appeal being made by the jobseeker and processed by the Employment Service Adjudication Officer either by revising the decision in the jobseekers favour or referring the appeal submission to The Appeals Service.

  Percentage of appeals processed within the stated periods

  Operational year

  Up to 28 days

  29-56 days

  Over 57 days

  1996–97

  90

  8

  2

  1997–98

  83

  13

  4

  1998–99

  86

  12

  2

  As you will see, it is split into three periods, appeals processed within 28 days of receipt, those processed between 29 and 56 days after receipt and those not processed within 57 days. Because Employment Service Adjudication Officers often need to obtain further information from the jobseeker on receipt of an appeal, it is unusual for a decision to be revised or a submission to be prepared and referred to The Appeals Service immediately on receipt.
  On occasions these enquiries can be protracted which means that the Employment Service Adjudication Officer is not in a position to process the appeal quickly. However, the Employment Service sets performance targets to encourage appeal submissions to be processed as quickly as possible. These are that 70% of appeals must be processed within 28 days and 85% within 56 days. The Employment Service does not collect information on the time the appeal subsequently takes to be allocated a hearing date and resolved by The Appeal Service.
  Finally, I am sorry that the Employment Service does not keep information on the numbers of appeals, which were withdrawn before the Appeals Tribunal made a decision. This would be a matter for The Appeals Service which is the responsibility of the Department of Social Security.
  You may also be interested to know that from 18 October the appeals procedure will be changing with the implementation of the new Decision Making and Appeals arrangements.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Professor Barber
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date Professor Michael Barber was appointed as Standards and Effectiveness Adviser; when Professor Barber has travelled on official business to the United States of America since his appointment; and what meetings he held with members and officials of the United States Government during each visit. [93887]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Michael Barber was appointed as Head of the Standards and Effectiveness Unit on 2 May 1997.

  Michael Barber visited San Diego to speak at the National Centre on Education and the Economy's conference in January 1998. He met various state level officials but no representative of the US Government. He visited Washington DC in December 1998 to present to the World bank on education reform in the UK. While he was there, he met Bruce Reed, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. He visited the USA again in August 1999 to speak at the International Principals' Institute conference in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and on that occasion met Bruce Reed again and Andrew Rotherham, who shortly afterwards took up a post as education adviser to President Clinton's administration. He also gave a presentation to a group of officials in the Education Department in Washington DC.

  Postgraduate Students
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish(a) the number of students undertaking postgraduate university courses for (i) MA and (ii) PhD degrees in the arts and humanities and (b) the amount of finance provided by his Department to help sustain such students in each of the past five years. [94673]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available data for both student numbers and expenditure for the five most recent years are shown in the following tables.

  Students on Arts and Humanities1 courses in HE institutions in the UK

  Academic year

  MA

  PhD

  1994–95

  97,133

  20,524

  1995–96

  107,338

  23,523

  1996–97

  108,375

  25,924

  1997–98

  113,282

  26,849

  1998–992

  112,547

  27,082

  1 Excludes students on Combined courses who may study Arts and Humanities as part of their course.

  2 Provisional data.

  Departmental postgraduate expenditure 1 for the UK

  Financial year

  £ million

  1994–95

  18.3

  1995–96

  18.5

  1996–97

  18.0

  1997–98

  18.3

  1998–99

  18.8

  1 The Department allocates expenditure on postgraduate courses as a whole and it is not therefore possible to separately identify expenditure on MA and PhD courses.

  547
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the funds available to support students undertaking postgraduate courses in the arts and humanities; and if he will make a statement. [94674]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, welcomed the establishment of the Arts and Humanities Research Board to allocate postgraduate awards and research grants for arts and humanities courses. The total funding of the Board is over £44 million in 1999–2000, which includes funds for postgraduate arts and humanities courses. Decisions about the level of future funding for postgraduate courses in arts and humanities are under consideration.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to change the statutory basis for the Careers Service in England. [94033]

  Mr. Wicks
  Following publication in July of the Social Exclusion Unit's report on new opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds not in education and training, we have consulted widely about a new service to support young people including its functions and organisation. The consultation period ended on 15 October and we are considering the responses.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to integrate careers advice and guidance for young people with the service for adults; and if he will make a statement. [94039]

  Mr. Wicks
  Access to high quality information and advice on learning and career opportunities is essential for young people and adults to make well informed decisions about the range of learning and career opportunities open to them.

  Following publication in July of the Social Exclusion Unit's report on new opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds not in education and training, we have consulted widely about a new service to support young people, including its functions and organisation. The consultation period ended on 15 October and we are considering the responses.

  From April 2001, the Learning and Skills Council will be responsible for planning and funding local provision for adults. We will ensure that provision for clients of all ages is complementary.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to change the contracting system for the Careers Service; and if he will make a statement. [94035]

  Mr. Wicks
  Following publication in July of the Social Exclusion Unit's report on new opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds not in education and training, we have consulted widely about a new service to support young people including its functions and organisation. The consultation period ended on 15 October and we are considering the responses.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make additional funding available to Careers Service contractors for improved use of ICT. [94037]
  548
  Mr. Wicks
  The Government fund Careers Service contractors to deliver a range of services as set out in their contract with the Secretary of State. Contractors are expected to develop the use of ICT to deliver services more effectively.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve guidance to 18-year-olds who are in full time education. [94034]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State requires careers services to focus their help on young people, including 18-year-olds, who need most help to stay in, or progress in, education. The "Learning to Succeed" White Paper announced the creation of a new youth support service which will provide guidance and support for all young people aged 13-19, building on what is currently provided by the Careers Service, parts of the Youth Service and other organisations. Guidance for 18-year-olds currently given through their FE institution or from the Careers Service will continue under a new youth support service. Eighteen-year-olds in higher education will continue to receive guidance through their education institution.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce externally validated quality assessments of Careers Service contracts and contractors. [94038]

  Mr. Wicks
  The "Learning to Succeed" White Paper announced the creation of a new youth support service which would provide guidance and support for all young people aged 13-19, building on what is currently provided by the Careers Service, parts of the Youth Service and other organisations. Consultation on the new service ended on 15 October 1999. Quality assurance arrangements are being considered as part of that process.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to monitor the education and career progression of 18 to 25-year-olds. [94036]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government have invested significant resources to ensure that all adults, young and old, have access to high quality and co-ordinated information and advice on learning and careers opportunities. Services will be co-ordinated and delivered at local level through the lifelong learning partnerships. The partnerships will be expected to identify and target particular groups of people who, for various reasons, may lack confidence and need extra support and encouragement to access the learning opportunities open to them. The Government, through the Learning and Skills Council from April 2001, will monitor the success of the partnerships in achieving this objective.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people were employed by his Department in each of the years from 1993–94 to 1998–99; if he will break down the total into the categories(a) male, (b) female, (c) registered disability and (d) ethnic minority; and if his Department has an equal opportunities policy. [88684]
  549
  Mr. Wicks
  [pursuant to the reply, 30 June 1999, c.225]: The original answer failed to explain that information on people with a disability and people from an ethnic minority background is not held in the form requested before April 1996. The following table shows the breakdown of available DfEE staff figures from 1993–94 to 1998–99:

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Total employed

  Male

  Female

  Registered disability

  Ethnic minority

  1 April 1993

  8,978

  3,950

  5,028

  1—

  1—

  1 April 1994

  6,561

  2,887

  3,674

  1—

  1—

  1 April 1995

  5,683

  2,500

  3,183

  1—

  1—

  1 April 1996

  5,212

  2,345

  2,867

  240

  324

  1 April 1997

  4,795

  2,206

  2,589

  226

  312

  1 April 1998

  3,956

  1,838

  2,118

  191

  310

  1 April 1999

  4,094

  1,874

  2,220

  247

  347

  1 Information on people with a disability and people from an ethnic minority background is not held in the form requested before April 1996.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July Quarterly report to the House. [93571]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of the Ministry's progress in tackling the millennium bug are set out in our quarterly monitoring returns. These are available in the Libraries of the House and are published on the Internet. The results of the October monthly review of progress of Departments and agencies are due to be announced shortly by the President of the Council.

  Work on ensuring that all of the Ministry's internal systems are millennium ready has been completed, for both critical and non-critical systems. Testing will be ongoing to ensure that compliance is maintained. As indicated in the July quarterly Report to the House, work on IT and telecoms systems was completed earlier in the year. Work on embedded systems was not completed until September, in part because of the take-on of new buildings/systems.

  Business continuity planning (including contingency planning) and development of MAFF's MOR will be completed this month. As part of our MOR we will be ensuring that contact is maintained with key players in the food industry throughout the millennium period.

  With regard to the provision of related public services, millennium preparations in non-Departmental and other associated Public Bodies are being monitored and satisfactory progress is being maintained. Independent assessments of the preparedness of the food and groceries and flood defence sectors were reported to the July
  550
  National Infrastructure Forum. Emerging results for the food and groceries sector indicated blue for internal compliance and amber for business continuity planning, using Action 2000's colour coding system. The flood defence sector was assessed as 95 per cent. blue and 5 per cent. amber. The latest results of the independent assessments of these sectors (including continency planning) will be announced at the next National Infrastructure Forum on 21 October.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates special advisers from his Department have visited the United States of America on official business since 1 May 1997; which of his special advisers took part in each visit; and if he will list the meetings which these special advisers held with members and officials of the United States Government during each visit, specifying the date and location of each meeting and the names of the United States members and officials at each meeting. [93987]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  No special advisers from my Department have visited the United States of America on official business since 1 May 1997.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends next to visit the Ribble Valley. [93661]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I hope to visit the North-West Region this year to meet farmers and others, and would like to include a visit to the Ribble Valley in my itinerary. I will let the hon. Member know when a firm date has been established.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 1999,Official Report, column 495, if he will list the average size and weight of the (a) undersized and (b) oversized fish corresponding to his answer on percentages by weight for cod, haddock and whiting. [94341]

  Mr. Morley
  The average sizes and weights of the three species sampled as part of the 1997 CEFAS North Sea discard study are detailed in the following table.

  Species

  Average of

  Discards below MLS

  Discards above MLS

  Cod

  Length (cms)

  30.0

  36.0

  MLS=35 cms

  Weight (g)

  277

  455

  Haddock

  Length (cms)

  26.6

  21.2

  MLS=30 cms

  Weight (g)

  175

  279

  Whiting

  Length (cms)

  24.2

  29.1

  MLS=27 cms

  Weight (g)

  114

  202

  The actual estimates of the proportions of discarded fish, by number that was undersized, was cod 82 per cent., haddock 57 per cent. and whiting 67 per cent.

  By weight, the percentages were cod 73 per cent., haddock 46 per cent. and whiting 53 per cent.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Local Veterinary Inspectors carry out pre-export inspections during the hours of darkness. [93039]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the time of day when inspections are undertaken is not kept centrally. However, we are aware that many inspections are carried out in buildings under artificial light, irrespective of the time of day when they are undertaken. It is the Local Veterinary Inspector's responsibility as the certifying officer to ensure that the conditions during his inspection are such that he is able to carry out his certifying officer responsibilities properly.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he makes to ensure that his staff at Dover dockside are able to make proper inspections when livestock vehicles are loaded on to the ship during the hours of darkness. [93038]

  Mr. Morley
  State Veterinary Service staff stationed at Dover are equipped to carry out the necessary inspection of vehicles carrying livestock for export, whatever the time of that inspection.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to discourage regular sailings of the vessel which carries live farm animals from Dover to the continent at night; and if he will make a statement. [93040]

  Mr. Morley
  None. The timing of sailings of any vessel, whether it carries live animals or not, is a matter for the operators of the vessel and their customers, provided that the relevant regulations are obeyed.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the sailings of the vessel carrying live farm animals from Dover to the continent began during the hours of darkness in the last year for which figures are available. [93037]

  Table 1: Number of live sheep and pigs certified for export to other member states of the EU during the period 1 January 1999 to 26 July 1999

  Destination country

  Sheep for breeding

  Sheep for fattening

  Sheep for slaughter

  Pigs for breeding

  Pigs for fattening

  Pigs for slaughter

  Belgium

  —

  —

  —

  7,275

  —

  —

  Denmark

  —

  —

  757

  —

  —

  —

  France

  30

  70,777

  —

  2,984

  —

  —

  Germany

  1

  17,750

  —

  26,599

  —

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  193

  —

  —

  Italy

  —

  9,632

  —

  3,502

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  11

  77,394

  —

  10,467

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  —

  4,092

  177

  —

  —

  Republic of Ireland

  31

  —

  80

  57

  4,205

  55,452

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  2,081

  —

  —

  Total

  73

  175,553

  4,929

  53,335

  4,205

  55,452

  Source:

  GB figures were obtained from the Ministry's CENTAUR/Animo computer system. Department of Agriculture Northern Ireland figures were obtained from ANIMO messages sent to other member states vis the Eurocom computer system. The figures are provisional and subject to change.
  552
  Mr. Morley
  In the period 1 October 1998—30 September 1999, out of a total of 195 sailings of vessels carrying live farm animals 103 (52.8 per cent.) began between 8.00 pm and 6.00 am the following morning.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) live sheep and (b) live pigs have been exported for (i) slaughter, (ii) further fattening and (iii) breeding to date in 1999; and how many of each was exported to each individual country of destination. [93036]

  Mr. Morley
  The tables show the number of live sheep and live pigs exported from the United Kingdom during the period 1 January 1999 to 26 July 1999.

  Table 1 shows the number of animals certified for export from the UK to other member states during the period 1 January 1999 to 26 July 1999. These figures are derived from the electronic messages which European law requires exporting countries to send to importing countries to inform them of the number of animals being exported in a given consignment.

  The number of pigs exported to the Republic of Ireland for slaughter may have been influenced by a fire in a pig plant in Northern Ireland which reduced slaughtering capacity in the Province.

  Table 2 shows data for exports to third countries. Specifically, it shows the number of export health certificates, which were prepared and sent to official veterinarians for completion during the period 1 January 1999 to 26 July 1999. In the case of exports to third countries, precise figures of how many animals were ultimately exported are not available as there is no central record kept showing exactly how many animals were certified for export to third countries. The cost of collecting this level of detail would be disproportionate.

  There were no exports from Northern Ireland to third countries.

  In view of the continual updating of statistics, the figures in Tables 1 and 2 remain provisional and subject to change.
  553

  Table 2: Number of live sheep and pigs for which export health certificates were prepared for export from Great Britain to Third Counties during the period 1 January 1999 to 26 July 1999

  Destination country

  Sheep for breeding

  Sheep for fattening

  Sheep for slaughter

  Pigs for breeding

  Pigs for fattening

  Pigs for slaughter

  Canada

  —

  —

  —

  268

  —

  —

  China

  —

  —

  —

  4,588

  —

  —

  Czech Republic

  —

  —

  —

  183

  —

  —

  Japan

  —

  —

  —

  264

  —

  —

  Kenya

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Latvia

  —

  —

  —

  360

  —

  —

  Mexico

  —

  —

  —

  26

  —

  —

  Russia

  —

  —

  —

  50

  —

  —

  Slovenia

  —

  —

  —

  161

  —

  —

  St. Helena

  6

  —

  —

  20

  —

  —

  Thailand

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  —

  USA

  —

  —

  —

  114

  —

  —

  Total

  6

  0

  0

  6,081

  0

  0

  Note:

  There were no exports from Northern Ireland to third countries.

  Source:

  The Ministry's CENTAUR computer system. This information is provisional and subject to change. The central computer system is updated periodically to remove details of withdrawn export consignments from the records but we cannot guarantee that this information is complete. Confirmation of the actual numbers of animals exported could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Concordat (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish before the summer adjournment, the most recent draft concordat between the Department of Agriculture and the National Assembly for Wales. [92331]

  Ms Quin
  Work on the concordat between this Department and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales is proceeding well. We hope that formal agreement on the text can be reached shortly. We do not intend to publish the concordat in advance of that.

  Equal Treatment
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [93456]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 July 1999]: The Government are committed to making sure that its policies are fair and inclusive and take full account of the needs and experiences of all those affected by them.

  As part of this commitment, the Ministry has guidance in place to ensure that those involved in policy development check how the policy or programme will affect, either directly or indirectly, different groups of people and take action if necessary where any adverse differential impact is identified. Whilst this does not involve the establishment of a base line, it does involve the consultation of appropriate groups and consideration of their views. However, the nature of the Ministry's responsibilities means that much of its activity does not have a differential impact on different groups of people.

  Fur Farming
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink and fox factory farms there are, by county, in England and Wales. [93616]
  554
  Mr. Morley
  There are currently the following numbers of mink farms in England:

  County

  Number of licensed mink farms

  Cornwall

  1

  Dorset

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Lancashire

  5

  Northumberland

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  Total

  13

  There is no requirement to register fox fur farms. However, I am not aware of any in England.

  The situation in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales to report on.

  Market Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the title and purpose of each item of market and opinion research commissioned by or through his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997 stating in each case whether or not the results were published. [89688]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Employees
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many persons were employed in his Department(a) 10 years ago and (b) at the latest available date. [92716]

  Mr. Morley
  On 1 April 1989, there was 10,577 staff working in my Department and its agencies. On 1 January 1999 (the latest published information available) there
  555
  Was 9,711 staff working in MAFF and its agencies undertaking broadly comparable functions. In addition, there are 1,528 staff working for the Meat Hygiene Service who undertake functions which were the responsibility of local authorities in 1989.

  Government Patents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the Government patents held by his Department. [93080]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: The following sets out the key families of UK granted patents and patent numbers currently held by MAFF arising from Research and Development which it has funded. In a number of cases, patents have been granted (or are pending) in other countries.

  Patent Number

  UK Patents

  Alignment mechanism (Flax Harvester)

  2273942

  Bait and Trap

  2291776

  Biological Control of Post Harvest Disease

  2280113

  Carbon Monoxide Generating Composition

  2300567

  Continuous process for the Partial Sterilisation of Horticultural Materials

  2166633

  Crushing mechanism (Flax Harvester)

  2275274

  Detection of CNS Disease

  2291968

  Device for Assessing Processing Stresses

  2196740

  Equine Arteritis Virus, Peptides and Antibodies and their use in Diagnostic test

  2299994

  Identification of Fruit Juice Components

  2283568

  Insect Trap

  2240911

  Method, Device and Kit for Controlling Insects

  2174907

  Pest Trap

  2305104

  Process for the Destruction of Aflatoxin in Agricultural Products

  2108365

  Refrigeration Apparatus including a Frost Sensor

  2143945

  Separating mechanism (Flax Harvester)

  2273943

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Detection Methods

  2308659

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Detection Methods and Agent which were obtained

  2308658

  European patents (including UK)

  Detection of Heat Stable Proteins from Meat of Ruminants

  0714515

  Detection of Microbial Growth

  0705347

  Method and Kits for Detection of Bacteria

  0663016

  Method and Test Kits for Detection of Bacteriophage

  0714450

  Method for Testing for Salmonella

  0551325

  Methods, Agents and Kits for Detection of Organophosphorus Compounds

  0699305

  Salmonella Polynucleotide Sequence

  0551324

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Raynaud's Disease
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of young people suffering from Raynaud's disease who are in receipt of the full rate of Disability Living Allowance. [94053]

  Mr. Bayley
  Specific information on higher rate Disability Living Allowance recipients with Raynaud's Disease is not available. Sample counts show that there 556
  are a small number of DLA recipients (possibly around 100) aged under 16 in the wider group whose principal disabling condition is peripheral vascular disease including thrombosis and claudication, but this estimate is based on numbers too small to be reliable.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much maintenance is paid to families in receipt of Family Credit. [94049]

  Angela Eagle
  As at May 1999, there were a total of 790,000 families receiving Family Credit, of which 131,000 were receiving maintenance. The average amount of maintenance in payment was £32.85 a week.

  Family Credit was replaced by the new Working Families Tax Credit on 5 October.

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are not rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Based on 15 per cent. sample, figures are therefore subject to sampling error.

  Source:

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1999.

  Lone Parents (New Deal)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the progress of the New Deal for Lone Parents(a) nationally and (b) in the Vale of York; and if he will make a statement. [94158]

  Angela Eagle
  The New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) was launched nationally on 26 October 1998. The results of the national programme and those for North Yorkshire District, which covers the Vale of York, are available up to the end of July 1999. The information is in the table.

  North Yorkshire district

  National programme

  Initial interviews carried out

  725

  80,130

  Number agreeing to participate

  639

  71,480

  Number of jobs obtained

  188

  18,260

  Lone parents and organisations that represent them have welcomed NDLP and a vast majority of those attending an interview with a personal adviser have decided to participate in the programme.

  There were two earlier phases: phase one prototypes in eight areas from July 1997 and phase two, for new and repeat claims, from April 1998. The full independent evaluation of the prototype phase is now expected to be published by March next year.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July Quarterly report to the House. [93570]
  557
  Angela Eagle
  Details of the Department's and its Agencies' progress in tackling the Millennium bug are set out in our quarterly monitoring returns. These are available in the Libraries of the House and are published on the internet. The results of the October monthly review of progress of Departments and Agencies in tackling the bug are due to be announced shortly by the President of the Council.

  The Department's key benefit paying computer systems had all corrective work and testing complete by the end of 1998 allowing a full annual processing cycle before 2000. Additionally, all telecoms systems have been confirmed as compliant and the few remaining critical embedded systems (less than one per cent.) are receiving close management attention and will be cleared by 31 October. Since the President of the Council's quarterly Report to the House in July, there has been some very minor slippage in the embedded systems area, which poses no risk to the delivery of benefit.

  Contingency plans are in place; have been rehearsed; and continue to be refined to mitigate the latest assessment of risks, in particular those which specifically relate to the date change. The Department will have a Millennium Control Centre in operation over the period 1-5 January 2000, which will manage a range of readiness checks and pro-active communication on our status. The Departments key Social Security services of paying benefits, pensions and Child Support have been subject to independent assessment and each were assessed as "Blue" prior to Action 2000's National Infrastructure Forum in July. The results of the latest independent assessment of the "pay benefit" sector will be announced at the next National Infrastructure Forum on 21 October.

  Benzodiazepine
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he has issued regarding the handling of disability and incapacity benefit claims by people suffering from addiction to benzodiazepine drugs. [93719]

  Mr. Bayley
  Entitlement to state disability or incapacity benefits is dependent not on the diagnosis but on the functional effects resulting from the condition. The Department provides guidance regarding benzodiazepine and other substance abuse to benefit decision makers and doctors providing advice or undertaking examinations in connection with a State benefit.

  The Disability Handbook is available to all decision makers handling claims to Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance. It contains a section, which outlines the functional effects of drug abuse, including benzodiazepine abuse, on an individual's care needs. A copy of the Disability Handbook is available for consultation in the Library. Guidance for approved doctors undertaking All Work Test Assessments is contained in the Incapacity Benefit Handbook for Medical Services Doctors, which is also available in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of ex-offenders who qualify for a Social Fund grant but do not receive one because of the limited funds available; and if he will make a statement. [93928]
  558
  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is that in the financial year 1998–99 less than 10 per cent. of community care grant applications refused were on the grounds of insufficient priority.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the new Budget Loans system upon single people; what plans he has to improve the system as it affects single people; and if he will make a statement. [93986]

  Angela Eagle
  The new budgeting loan system is designed to improve fairness to all applicants, including single people, and to provide access to interest-free loans to as many eligible applicants as possible.

  Indications from the first six months of the scheme are that the proportion of successful applications from single people has increased.

  Monitoring of the new scheme is continuing, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will report on the first year of the new scheme in his next annual report on the Social Fund, due for publication next summer.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons local benefit agencies do not have flexibility in respect of their overall expenditure on Social Fund grants; if he will introduce greater flexibility; and if he will make a statement. [93929]

  Angela Eagle
  The national discretionary Social Fund budget is cash limited. The community care grant budget for 1999–2000 is £98 million.

  Allocating the community care grant budget to District offices ensures that local expenditure is targeted on those in greatest need while keeping expenditure under control. However, additional funding can be provided from the centrally held contingency reserve to any District faced with additional expenditure resulting from an emergency in their locality.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons Social Fund grants have been increased by less than inflation over the past two years; what assessment he has made of the impact of this on claimants; and if he will make a statement. [93927]

  Angela Eagle
  The Community Care Grant budget is reviewed annually. It was increased in April 1998 by £1 million to support greater help for homeless people. This increase, which was the first since 1994, has been maintained in the current year's budget allocation. As a result, the number of homeless people getting help more than doubled.

  British Pensioners (Overseas)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact on British citizens of the decision of the Australian Government to cease its topping-up procedures to compensate British citizens of pensionable age who live in Australia and whose United Kingdom pension entitlement is frozen. [93741]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Australian Government announced in July that it intended to terminate the bilateral Social Security Agreement with the United Kingdom. We have
  559
  not received formal notice of termination. The Agreement would terminate 12 months after formal notice was received.

  The Agreement has a bearing on UK pensioners in Australia only if they have lived there for less than 10 years. It helps them to satisfy Australia's 10-year residence test for its Age Pension. UK pension is deducted from any Age Pension due. About 3,000 UK pensioners in Australia receive Age Pension with the help of the Agreement. They would be unaffected by termination, as anyone already entitled to benefit with the help of the Agreement when it terminated would continue to be covered by its terms.

  If the Agreement is terminated, UK pensioners would have to have lived in Australia for 10 years before they could become entitled to Age Pension.

  Age Pension is subject to a test of income and assets, so the amount any pensioner receives, or whether they qualify at all, depends on their financial circumstances.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many British citizens living abroad have had their United Kingdom pension entitlement frozen. [93742]

  Mr. Rooker
  At present, of the 870,000 UK State Pensions paid to people living abroad, some 470,000 are frozen. That is, annual upratings are not paid after the date the person becomes entitled to the pension, or the date on which they left the UK if that is later.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will assess the cost of abolishing the provisions which freeze pension entitlement for British citizens living abroad; and if he will make a statement. [93743]

  Mr. Rooker
  The total annual cost of uprating all frozen UK basic State pensions paid overseas to the rate paid to pensioners resident in the UK would be some £300 million.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to change the rules covering disregard relating to war pensions, whereby only the first £10 of a war pension is disregarded when other benefits are calculated; and if he will make a statement. [94452]

  Mr. Bayley
  The mandatory disregards for War Disablement and War Widows Pensions that already exist in the income-related benefits recognise the special nature of these pensions, and ensure that the pensioners receive preferential treatment. For example, a war pensioner can have between £10 and £181 a week of his pension disregarded on a statutory basis.

  A full disregard of War Disablement and War Widows Pension in the income related benefits would cost in the region of an additional £160 million a year.

  Income Support
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have to change entitlement to payment of Income Support to claimants who remain in hospital for longer than six weeks; and if he will make a statement. [94584]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans at present to revise the rules regarding the payment of Income Support to people who remain in NHS hospitals for longer than 6 weeks. We continue to keep these rules under review.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if the child maintenance premium of £10 applies regardless of number of children; or if it applies for each child; [94050]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing the £10 child maintenance premium for parents on income support. [94045]

  Angela Eagle
  The new Child Support system will allow parents with care on Income Support (or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance) to keep up to £10 a week of maintenance paid irrespective of the number of children involved.

  The net cost to the Exchequer of introducing the child maintenance premium for existing parents with care is estimated to be £65 million in a full year, after allowing for abolition of the child maintenance bonus.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the categories of those on low incomes who are currently exempted from paying child maintenance, but who will become eligible for payment under the proposals in Cm 4349. [94058]

  Angela Eagle
  Non-resident parents who have been assessed to pay the minimum amount, including those on Income Support or Income-Based Jobseeker's Allowance, will no longer be exempt from paying maintenance where:they receive Incapacity Benefit, Maternity Allowance or various disability benefits; or
  they have children in their second family.

  However, a non-resident parent on benefit will be exempt from the minimum payment where he shares the care of a child for at least 52 nights a year.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the late payment penalty to be introduced within the reforms proposed in Cm 4349 will be calculated on the basis of (i) weekly, (ii) monthly and (iii) annually assessed maintenance; whether the fine will be cumulative; what will be the definition of late payment; and what recourse there will be when fines for late payment are not met. [94047]

  Angela Eagle
  The White Paper "A new contract for welfare: Children's rights and parents responsibilities" (Cm 4349) sets out our plans to introduce a straightforward penalty for late payment. The penalty will help to make sure that payments of child maintenance are made on time and to support negotiations aimed at getting payments flowing regularly.
  561
  A late payment penalty of up to 25 per cent. of the amount owed may be imposed. The penalty will be payable to the Secretary of State and may be levied at a discretionary rate for each week in which the maintenance is due but was not paid, but will not be compounded. Imposition of the penalty will be discretionary and reasons for late payment will be taken into account. Where late penalty payments have been imposed but remain unpaid enforcement measures will be taken to recover amounts due.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis he has estimated that one million or more children (Cm 4349, page 13) will benefit from child support from the non-resident parent as a result of changes outlined in the White Paper on reform of the CSA (Cm 4349). [94604]

  Angela Eagle
  The figure of one million is our best estimate of the number of children who will benefit from the reforms over time through a combination of a more effective system which will get more non-resident parents paying and more of what is due actually paid and of the new maintenance disregard in Income Support.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of non-resident parents who will pay weekly maintenance of(a) £5 or less, (b) £5 to £5.99, (c) £6 to £6.99, (d) £7 to £7.99, (e) £8 to £8.99, (f) £9 to £9.99 and (g) £10 and over. [94353]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is in the table.

  Number of maintenance assessments of non-resident parents in work under the proposed new scheme

  Maintenance assessments under the proposed new scheme

  Caseload (Thousands)

  £5 or less

  45

  £5 to £5.99

  5

  £6 to £6.99

  5

  £7 to £7.99

  5

  £8 to £8.99

  5

  £9 to £9.99

  5

  £10 or over

  465

  Total

  535

  Notes:

  1. New scheme maintenance modelled using data taken from August 1998 5 per cent. scan of Child Support Computer System.

  2. Caseloads calibrated to forecasts of caseload at 'A' day and rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  3. Table covers non-resident parents in paid work with a full maintenance assessment. Non-resident parents on benefit will normally be liable to pay £5 a week.

  All

  Up to 3 months

  3 to 6 months

  6 to 12 months

  Over 12 months

  Total for Scotland 1

  48,935

  3,864

  13,919

  22,218

  8,934

  Kirkwall (Orkney)

  69

  8

  27

  31

  3

  Lerwick (Shetland)

  56

  5

  13

  28

  10

  1 Including Orkney and Shetland

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to appeals registered and cleared at hearing between 1 January 1997 and 30 April 1999.

  2. The GAPS computer system was introduced in late 1997. This means that the figures for 1997 are artificially low.

  Source:

  100 per cent. download from the Independent Tribunals Service GAPS computer.
  562
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if compensation will be paid, and overpayments will be recoverable, where the default maintenance rate applied is found to be greater than the full maintenance assessment. [94048]

  Angela Eagle
  Paragraphs 37 to 39 of Chapter Two of the White Paper "A new contract for welfare: Children's rights and parents' responsibilities" (Cm4349) set out our plans for a default rate of maintenance when maintenance liability cannot be assessed straight away. The purpose of a default rate is to enable children to see the advantages of maintenance as soon as possible and to get non-resident parents into the habit of paying. The proposal is that it is set at or around the average assessment of average earnings.

  The full assessment will be payable from the date that all the information needed to complete it is provided. Maintenance liability for the past will only be recalculated if the full assessment is higher than the default rate.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much revenue he expects to receive as a result of doubling the proportion of lone parents on benefits who will receive maintenance payments; and by what date he expects this increased figure to have been achieved. [94046]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the new child support scheme, the increased number of lone parents receiving maintenance payments will result in reduced expenditure on social security benefits. These savings will build up from the introduction of the scheme and are expected to reach around £40 million a year after five years, taking into account the cost of the child maintenance premium and assuming cash compliance of 75 per cent. The reduction in spending will allow us to pay for the administrative costs of introducing the new scheme without increasing Government spending.

  Tribunal Hearings
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appellants from(a) Orkney, (b) Shetland and (c) Scotland had to wait (i) up to three months, (ii) three to six months, (iii) six to 12 months, and (iv) over 12 months from the date of lodging an appeal against the decision of an adjudication officer to the date of the tribunal hearing, in respect of appeals lodged since 1 January 1997. [94371]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral answer of 24 May 1999,Official Report, column 11, on housing benefit, what account was taken of the needs of students in his Department's review of Housing Benefit. [93956]

  Angela Eagle
  Most full-time students are not entitled to Housing Benefit as support for students comes through the educational maintenance system rather than Social Security. However, certain students in vulnerable groups, such as lone parents, remain eligible to claim. There are no plans to change this position.

  We intend publish a housing Green paper.

  Pensions Reform
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions he has held with his Irish

  Benefit

  Number of recipients (Thousand)

  Date

  Sample size (Percentage)

  Attendance Allowance

  1,232

  February 1999

  5

  Child Benefit

  7,060

  June 1999

  4

  Council Tax Benefit

  5,281

  August 1998

  1

  Death Benefit

  16

  December 1998

  100

  Disability Living Allowance

  2,042

  February 1999

  5

  Disability Working Allowance

  16

  January 1999

  100

  Family Credit

  788

  February 1999

  5

  Housing Benefit

  4,425

  August 1998

  1

  Incapacity Benefit

  1,600

  November 1998

  5

  Income Support

  3,815

  February 1999

  5

  Industrial Injuries Benefit1

  276

  April 1998

  10

  Invalid Care Allowance

  374

  June 1999

  100

  Jobseeker's Allowance2

  1,326

  February 1999

  5

  Maternity Allowance

  13

  August 1998

  5

  Reduced Earnings Allowance1

  157

  April 1998

  10

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  370

  November 1998

  5

  State Retirement Pension3

  10,867

  March 1999

  5

  War Pensions4,5,6

  302

  June 1999

  100

  Widows Benefit

  268

  March 1999

  5

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Jobseeker's Allowance represents all those claiming Unemployment-related benefit. This includes Jobseeker's Allowance (Contributory), Jobseeker's Allowance (income based) and those with National Insurance credits only.

  3 Figures are for all pensioners resident in GB and also overseas.

  4 Figures relate to payments made to War Pensioners in the United Kingdom and overseas.

  5 Figures are based on management information supplied by the War Pensions Agency.

  6 Figures include War Disablement Pensions, War Widows Pensions and Child Allowances.

  Note:

  Earnings Top-Up figures are excluded, as it is a pilot benefit.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Access to Justice Act
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to publish the legal aid Funding Code consequent on its Access to Justice Act 1999 reforms; and if he will make a statement. [94397]

  Mr. Lock
  The Legal Aid Board published a consultation paper on the new Funding Code in January 1999 at the Lord Chancellor's request. The Board intends to publish a report on that consultation, and a new draft of the Code for further consultation, on 26 October. This will constitute the consultation required by section 8(8) of the Access to Justice Act.
  564
  and Canadian counterparts regarding pensions reform; and if he will make a statement. [94458]

  Mr. Rooker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security met Pierre Pettigrew, Canadian Minister for Human Resources Development, on 12 January, and Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, on 25 June. They had wide-ranging discussions on a variety of topics of mutual interest, including pension reform.

  Benefits
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his most recent estimate of the number of people receiving each of the benefits administered by his Department. [92375]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to the reply, 22 July 1999, c. 577-80]: The numbers of recipients of each of the benefits administered by the Department are shown in the table below.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date the reforms in the Access to Justice Act 1999 relating to(a) conditional fee agreements and (b) legal aid will come into effect; and if he will make a statement. [94399]

  Mr. Lock
  On conditional fee agreements, my Department issued a consultation paper, "Conditional Fees: Sharing the Risks of Litigation", on 23 September. This fulfilled our commitment made during the passage of the Access to Justice Act, to consult before implementing the provisions in the Act on recovery of insurance premiums and success fees. Consultation closes on 26 November. Subject to the results, we plan to implement these provisions in the first quarter of next year.
  565
  On the legal aid reforms, implementation is planned to take place in several stages. On 4 January 2000, contracts for family, immigration, mental health and advice and assistance work will take effect under the Legal Aid Act 1988. These contracts will be continued when the relevant sections of Part I of the Access to Justice Act come into force in April 2000. The new Legal Services Commission and Community Legal Service will also be established in April; in the same month the Funding Code will take effect (subject to further public comment and parliamentary approval); contracting for individual high-cost cases will begin; and there will be new regulations governing financial eligibility and conditions. In October 2000, the Criminal Defence Service will replace criminal legal aid.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the Law Society's statements concerning the abolition of Queen's Counsel on the credibility of the Queen's Counsel system; and if he will make a statement. [94400]

  Mr. Lock
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is very disappointed that the Law Society has seen fit to adopt a concluded public position in advance of the publication of Sir Leonard Peach's report on the operation of the judicial appointments and Silk systems. He regards Silk as a kitemark of quality, which engenders public confidence and enables lawyers and clients to identify the leading members of the profession. He and his officials are absolutely committed to ensuring equality of opportunity, and he makes his decisions on Silk only after wide, extensive and highly structured consultation with those who are best placed to judge the applicants against the set criteria. In fairness to solicitor applicants, he will respond to the Law Society's withdrawal of co-operation by developing other channels of consultation to ensure that he can give fair consideration to their applications.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the(a) individuals and (b) organisations consulted as part of the secret soundings for appointments (i) to the judiciary and (ii) to leading counsel; and if he will make a statement. [94402]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor consults widely among the judiciary and senior members of the legal profession about the suitability of candidates for judicial appointment and Silk. He entirely rejects any suggestion that those arrangements constitute "secret soundings". Information about those who are consulted is publicly available. Assessments are provided in confidence, but many candidates take up the offer of feedback which includes the tenor of the assessments received.

  Judicial appointments
  In the case of judicial appointments, the list of those consulted depends on the nature of the judicial office to be filled. Those consulted about particular appointments are currently drawn from a list which includes the following individuals and organisations:
  566
  Individuals consulted

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  The Vice-Chancellor

  The President of the Family Division

  The Senior Presiding Judge, England and Wales

  Presiding Judges

  Judges of the Supreme Court

  Chancery Division Liaison Judges

  Family Division Liaison Judges

  The Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster

  All Circuit Judges

  The President of the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges

  An Administrative Law High Court Judge

  An Admiralty High Court Judge

  The High Court Judge in Charge of the Commercial List

  The High Court Judge in Charge of the Non Jury List (Queen's Bench Division)

  The Judge in Charge of the Technology and Construction Court

  The Judge Advocate General

  The Judge Advocate of the Fleet

  The Chief Naval Judge Advocate

  The Director of Legal Services, RAF

  The Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate

  The Chief Provincial Stipendiary Magistrate

  The Chief Immigration Adjudicator

  The President of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal

  The Chief Social Security Commissioner

  The President of the Independent Tribunal Service

  The President of the VAT and Duties Tribunal

  The President of the Employment Tribunals

  The President of the Lands Tribunal

  The Chief Chancery Master

  The Senior District Judge of the Family Division

  The right hon. Lord Justice Aldous, the hon. Mr. Justice Jacob and the hon. Mr. Justice Laddie (Intellectual Property Judges)

  The right hon. Lord Justice Schiemann, the hon. Mr. Justice Sullivan and the hon. Mr. Justice Harrison (Judges experienced in Planning)

  The hon. Mr. Justice Keene (Judge experienced in Planning and Local Government; Administrative and Public Law)

  His Honour Judge Toulmin QC (Judge experienced in EC Law)

  His Honour Judge Colyer QC and Mr. K. M. J. Lewison QC (Landlord and Tenant Law)

  The President of The Law Society

  Bar Mess Chairmen

  The Chairman of the Bar

  All Circuit Leaders

  The Vice-Chairman of the Bar

  Mr. J. J. McMullen QC (Employment and Industrial Relations)

  Mr. N. J. Forwood QC (EC Law)

  Mr. K. P. E. Lasok QC (Restrictive Practices and Monopolies)

  Ms W. Backhouse (Housing Law Practitioners)

  Any other consultees nominated by the applicant

  567
  Organisations consulted

  The Law Society

  The Technology and Construction Solicitors Association

  The Criminal Law Solicitors' Association

  The London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association

  The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

  The Solicitors' European Group

  The Solicitors' Family Law Association

  The Legal Aid Practitioners' Group

  The London Solicitors' Litigation Association

  The Solicitors' Association of High Court Advocates

  The Association of Pension Lawyers

  The Employment Lawyers' Association

  The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association

  The Insolvency Lawyers' Association

  The Intellectual Property Lawyers' Association

  The Education Law Association

  The Local Government Group

  The Race Relations Committee of the Bar

  The Sex Discrimination Committee of the Bar

  The Administrative Law Bar Association

  The Technology and Construction Bar Association

  The Chancery Bar Association

  The Northern Chancery Bar Association

  The Bristol and Cardiff Chancery Bar Association

  The Commercial Bar Association

  The Northern Circuit Commercial Bar Association

  The London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association

  The Personal Injury Bar Association

  The Professional Negligence Bar Association

  The Criminal Bar Association

  The Employment Law Bar Association

  The Bar European Group

  The Family Law Bar Association

  The Planning and Environment Law Bar Association

  The Revenue Bar Association

  The Parliamentary Bar Mess

  Army Legal Services

  Queen's Counsel

  For the 1999–2000 procedure, the consultees include:

  Individuals consulted

  The President of The Law Society

  Other Law Society consultees

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  Lords Justices of Appeal

  The Lord Chief Justice

  The Master of the Rolls

  The President of the Family Division

  The Vice-Chancellor

  The Senior Presiding Judge

  The Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

  568

  The Vice-President of the Queen's Bench Division

  All High Court Judges

  All Presiding Judges

  All Family Division Liaison Judges

  The Law Officers

  The Recorder of London

  The Common Serjeant

  Resident Circuit Judges

  Designated Civil Circuit Judges

  Designated Family Circuit Judges

  Central Criminal Court Judges

  Chancery Circuit Judges

  Mercantile Circuit Judges

  Judges of the Technology and Construction Court

  The President of the Employment Tribunal

  The President of the Lands Tribunal

  The President of the Independent Tribunal Service

  The President of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal

  The Presiding Special Commissioner of Income Tax

  The Senior Queen's Bench Master

  The Senior District Judge of the Family Division

  The Chief Social Security Commissioner

  All Circuit Leaders

  The Chairman of the Bar Messes on the South Eastern Circuit

  The Chairman of the Bar

  The Vice-Chairman of the Bar

  The Race Relations Committee of the Bar

  The Sex Discrimination Committee of the Bar

  Judges of the European Court of Human Rights

  Judges of the Court of Justice of the EC

  A Judge of the International Court of Justice, The Hague

  The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EC

  His Honour Judge Colyer QC (Landlord and Tenant Judge)

  N. Forwood QC (EC Law)

  Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC (Human Rights Law)

  S. Thorley QC (Intellectual Property Law)

  K. Lewison QC (Landlord and Tenant Law)

  V. Pugh QC and P. Valiance QC (Environmental Law)

  N. Blake QC (Immigration Law)

  R. Hartley QC (Defamation Law)

  J. Lever QC (Restrictive Practices and Monopolies Law)

  J. McMullen QC (Employment and Industrial Relations)

  R. S. Stone QC (Admiralty Law)

  The Chief Planning Inspector

  The Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  The Solicitor of the Inland Revenue

  Any other consultees nominated by the applicant

  569
  Organisations consulted

  The Law Society Equal Opportunities Committee

  The Association of Patent Solicitors

  The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

  The Association of Pension Lawyers

  The Commerce and Industry Group

  The Criminal Law Solicitors' Association

  The Education Law Association

  The Employment Lawyers' Association

  The Housing Law Practitioners Association

  The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association

  The Insolvency Lawyers' Association

  The Intellectual Property Lawyers' Association

  The Legal Aid Practitioners' Group

  The Local Government Group

  The London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association

  The London Solicitors' Litigation Association

  The Technology and Construction Solicitors' Association

  The Solicitors' Association of Higher Court Advocates

  The Solicitors' European Group

  The Solicitors' Family Law Association

  The Administrative Law Bar Association

  The Chancery Bar Association

  The London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association

  The Criminal Bar Association

  The Employment Law Bar Association

  The Family Law Bar Association

  The Local Government and Planning and Environmental Law Bar Association

  The Technology and Construction Bar Association

  The Parliamentary Bar Mess

  The Personal Injury Bar Association

  The Professional Negligence Bar Association

  The Revenue Bar Association.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the decision of the Law Society to boycott the secret soundings process on appointments to the judiciary and leading counsel; and if he will make a statement. [94401]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor is disappointed by the Law Society's decision to withdraw from the existing arrangements for consultation on candidates for judicial and Queen's Counsel appointments, which do not in any way constitute a "secret soundings process". He has valued the help he has received from the Law Society in assessing solicitors as candidates for appointment, and he finds it difficult to see how the interests of solicitors can be advanced by a decision to withhold the assistance previously given. In fairness to solicitor candidates, the Lord Chancellor will continue to consult such representative bodies as the Solicitors' Family Law Association and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association, and proposes also to develop other channels of consultation, potentially including solicitors' firms, senior practitioners and local and regional Law Societies.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to publish the report of Sir Leonard Peach into applications for judicial and QC appointments. [94426]
  570
  Mr. Lock
  Sir Leonard Peach's report will be published after it has been completed.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will extend the terms of reference of Sir Leonard Peach in his review of appointment arrangements to Queen's Counsel and the judiciary to reflect the views of the Law Society on the secret soundings system; and if he will make a statement. [94398]

  Mr. Lock
  The system of consultation on candidates for the judiciary and Queen's Counsel is not secret. Information about those who are consulted for assessments of suitability is publicly available. Assessments are sought in a structured way against the specific criteria for appointment; they are provided in confidence, but many candidates take up the offer of feedback, which includes the tenor of the assessments received. The scope for improvements in the consultation arrangements is within the terms of reference of the scrutiny of judicial appointments and Queen's Counsel selection procedures, which my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has asked Sir Leonard Peach to undertake. The Law Society has presented its views on the system to Sir Leonard, who will no doubt take these into account when he reports in due course.

  Road Accident Victims
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps the Court Service proposes to take to ensure that those representing road accident victims are able easily to comply with the notice requirement of the revised Motor Insurers Bureau uninsured drivers' agreement; and if he will make a statement. [94395]

  Jane Kennedy
  I do not foresee any action on the part of the Court Service being immediately necessary. However, I am of course willing to consider any suggestions that my hon. Friend may have. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will be providing a substantive response to this and other associated parliamentary questions, and proposes personally to contact my hon. Friend.

  Magistrates Courts (Sign Language)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to provide(a) sign language interpreters and (b) other facilities to enable people suffering from hearing loss to observe magistrates courts proceedings. [94403]

  Jane Kennedy
  Arrangements are in place for the provision of sign language interpreters for defendants and witnesses appearing in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. However, there are no plans to provide such interpreters for a member of the public who visits the court to observe the proceedings. The Lord Chancellor's Department has issued guidance to magistrate's courts committees and local authorities on the court environment and range of physical facilities that we would expect to be provided to enable those court users with hearing difficulties to observe magistrates court proceedings. Provision of such facilities is a matter for the magistrates courts committee and local authority.

  Civil Procedure Rules
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultation arrangements are(a) in place and (b) proposed in relation to proposed amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules; and if he will make a statement. [94396]

  Mr. Lock
  Papers sent to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee are also circulated to a number of other persons and bodies, including the Bar Council and the Law Society, who thus have an opportunity to comment. Major issues considered by the Committee are the subject of consultation papers, which receive a wide circulation.

  Impecunious Litigants
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the levels of court fees on impecunious litigants since the start of the Civil Justice Review; and if he will make a statement. [93730]

  Mr. Lock
  A new civil court fee structure was introduced on 26 April 1999, at the same time as the Civil Procedure Rules. Impecunious litigants continue either to be automatically exempt from paying fees or able to apply for fee remission or reduction. There have been minor changes to fee remission and exemption provisions: the wording of the hardship criterion is now the same in each Fees Order; Court Service guidelines on fee remission have been amended; and the automatic exemption provisions have been updated to take account of the introduction of Tax Credits. None of these changes has adversely affected the level at which relief is granted.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reconsider the requirements for litigants who wish to apply for reductions in court fees on the grounds of undue hardship following the Court of Appeal judgment in exparte Scarth; and if he will make a statement. [94393]

  Mr. Lock
  My officials are considering whether any changes should be made to the guidelines or legislation governing fee exemption and remission, in the light of the judgment in exparte Scarth. I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as I am able to let him know what conclusions I have reached.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93692]

  Mr. Lock
  The spending on official publications since May 1997 by the Lord Chancellor's Department was £4,407,500. This represents spending by LCDHQ, Court Service, Public Trust Office, Public Records Office, Office of the Official Solicitor and the Land Registry. This excludes the cost of publications produced for internal use. Where the Department makes use of a private sector publisher, printing and design costs are generally met by the publisher as part of their acceptance of the risks of publication.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how often his Department produces(a) LCD News, (b) Talkback,
  572
  (c) Hearsay and (d) Direct Brief; which of these publications are unclassified; and when each publication was first produced. [93934]

  Mr. Lock
  "LCD News" is published weekly and circulated to all staff in LCD HQ and the Court Service. It was first produced in 1972. It is unclassified. "Hearsay" is published bi-monthly and is circulated to staff in LCD HQ and the Court Service. It was first published in March/April 1997. It is unclassified. It replaced "Your Court," first published in October/November 1987, which was unclassified. "Talkback" was circulated to all LCD HQ staff on a six-weekly basis on average. It was first published in April 1997 and discontinued in February 1999. It was unclassified. "Direct Brief' is circulated to all Court Service staff. It is published monthly, with up to 3 to 4 "special" editions, as and when required, each year. It was first published in May 1997.

  Legal Aid (Northern Ireland)
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the amount of money paid out of legal aid in Northern Ireland for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99. [94343]

  Mr. Lock
  Expenditure in relation to civil legal aid, advice by way of representation, Green Form advice and assistance and criminal legal aid for the years 1995–96 to 1998–99 is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  1995–96

  25.78

  1996–97

  26.07

  1997–98

  28.85

  1998–99

  30.09

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93968]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 429.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of the Lord Chancellor's Department computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July quarterly report to the House. [93563]
  573
  Mr. Lock
  Year 2000 compliance work on all Business Critical Systems in the Department, its Agencies and other bodies which report to the Lord Chancellor is complete. No slippage on these systems has occurred since the July quarterly report. More details on progress, which has been made in tackling the Millennium Bug, are set out in our quarterly monitoring returns, available in the Libraries of the House and on the internet. The results of the October monthly progress review of Departments and Agencies are due to be published shortly by the President of the Council.

  The Departmental Business Continuity Plan and Millennium Operating Regime is complete and testing is under-way, which will be complete before the end of October.

  Our provision of key public services within the Criminal Justice System has been the subject of independent assessment and reported to the National Infrastructure Forum. For the July Forum under the Action 2000 colour coding system, the Magistrates' Courts were assessed as 53 per cent. Blue, 47 per cent. Amber, and the Crown Court 77 per cent. Blue, 23 per cent. Amber. The results of the latest independent assessment of these areas of the Department's responsibility within the Criminal Justice sector will be announced at the next National Infrastructure Forum on 21 October.

  Motoring Offences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to appoint specifically trained magistrates to handle road traffic cases. [94527]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government is currently considering the report by the Parliamentary Advisory Council Transport Safety (PACTS)—'Road Traffic law and enforcement: a driving force for casualty reduction'—which includes a recommendation that only magistrates with specialised training should deal with motoring offences. There are no plans to appoint specifically trained magistrates to handle road traffic cases, but we are considering the case for additional training for all magistrates in motoring offences, including the causes of road casualties and the means of reducing them.

WALES

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the costs of conversion of hospitals to mixed sex wards in Wales. [93134]

  Mr. Hanson
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: No estimate of costs of conversion of hospitals in Wales to mixed sex wards was made in the period up to 30 June 1999. Since 1 July, this has been a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  NHS Patients
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS trusts in Wales were paying private sector hospitals to treat NHS patients on 1 April; if he will list the hospitals; and what were the costs involved. [93129]
  574
  Mr. Hanson
  [holding answer 23 July 1999]: This information is not collected centrally, and since 1 July 1999 this has been a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Consultant Posts (NHS)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of consultant posts currently vacant in Wales by(a) specialty and (b) health authority. [93144]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: This is now a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. However, as the information is collected annually in September, the most recent figures relate to a time when the matter was the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The information is collected by speciality and by trust rather than by health authority and is contained in the following table as at 30 September 1998.

  Trust/speciality

  Number

  Wte1

  Carmarthen and District

  Radiology

  1

  1.0

  Dermatology

  1

  0.7

  Glan Clwyd Hospital

  Traumatic and orthopaedic surgery

  1

  1.0

  Glan Hafren

  Anaesthetics

  1

  1.0

  Glan-y-Mor

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  1

  1.0

  General medicine

  1

  1.0

  Gwynedd Community

  Mental illness

  1

  1.0

  Forensic psychiatry

  1

  1.0

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  Urology

  1

  1.0

  Cardiology

  1

  1.0

  Anaesthetics

  1

  1.0

  North Glamorgan

  Anaesthetics

  1

  1.0

  Pembrokeshire and Derwen

  Urology

  1

  1.0

  Palliative medicine

  1

  1.0

  Accident and emergency

  1

  1.0

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  2

  2.0

  Mental illness

  2

  2.0

  Old age psychiatry

  1

  1.0

  Rhondda

  Old age psychiatry

  1

  0.5

  Velindre

  Palliative medicine

  1

  0.7

  Clinical oncology

  1

  1.0

  Total

  23

  22.0

  Health authority area

  Bro Taf

  4

  3.3

  Dyfed Powys

  10

  9.7

  Gwent

  1

  1.0

  Morgannwg

  2

  2.0

  North Wales

  6

  6.0

  Total

  23

  22.0

  1 Whole time equivalent

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to reduce primary school class sizes in Wales. [93145]
  575
  Mr. Hanson
  [holding answer 26 July 1999]: The Secretary of State started to implement plans to reduce primary school class sizes in Wales from September 1998. Following the £3.7 million Welsh Office grant for infant class size reduction in 1998–99, the Schools Census for January 1999 showed that the number of large infant classes in Wales had reduced by 50 per cent. when compared with January 1998. Out of 100,000 pupils just 15,000 remained in classes of over 30.

  As a result of the £11.3 million allocated for 1999–2000, it is expected that 90 per cent. of the problem of large infant classes, which existed in 1997, will be solved.

  The Secretary of State has no further plans to reduce primary class size, as this is now a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement of progress on the millennium readiness of his Department's computer systems, and those for which it is responsible in the provision of public services; if contingency plans are in place; and what slippage has occurred since the July quarterly report to the House. [93573]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department is not responsible for any computer systems, which deliver public services. My Department's internal computer systems form part of a larger network, which also serves the National Assembly for Wales. A full inventory of every PC on this network has been undertaken, and progress is well advanced.

  I understand that contingency plans are in place and I am not aware of any slippage since the July quarterly report in the House. The National Assembly for Wales is responsible for millennium preparations in Wales, and Mrs. Edwina Hart made a statement to the Assembly on 23 September regarding this matter.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the titles of the in-house publications and newsletters which were produced for the staff of his Department, excluding non-departmental public bodies and agencies, in the last five years, specifying the dates on which each title was first produced, the frequency with which each title is produced and the current secrecy classification of each title. [93855]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The "Staff Bulletin" was first produced in November 1993. It is issued weekly, and it does not have a security classification.

  "Links" is a staff newspaper, which was first produced in November 1997. It is issued every two months, or six times a year, and it does not have a security classification.

  In addition, a range of ad-hoc publications have been produced by various divisions of the Department for internal distribution to staff, on topics such as the devolution process. Information on each of these individual, and generally one-off, items is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  576
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93683]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The figures are as follows:

  £

  The Welsh Office (May 1997-July 1999)

  May 1997-March 1998

  82,611

  April 1998-March 1999

  139,232

  April 1999-July 1999

  24,103

  The Office of the Secretary of State for Wales

  July 1999-13 October 1999

  0

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the carbon dioxide emissions reduction needed for a 20 per cent. reduction from the UK's 1990 levels by 2010 he expects to be delivered in Wales. [93866]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Following Kyoto in 1997, the United Kingdom has agreed a legally binding target to cut emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels over the period 2008–12. The UK Government also has a domestic goal to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. The Government and the devolved Administrations are currently developing a draft climate change programme, which will set out how the UK will deliver its Kyoto target and move towards its domestic goal. Consultation on the draft programme will take place towards the end of the year.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the agriculture shows in Wales he has(a) attended and (b) intends to visit this year. [94043]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have not attended any agriculture shows in Wales this year and have no plans to do so at present. However, following my appointment as Secretary of State, and reflecting my keen interest in the future of the Welsh farming industry, I hope to visit Welsh farms and attend agricultural events in Wales in the year ahead.

  Welsh Concordats
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on matters relating to concordats with the National Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [94152]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary agreements between the United Kingdom Government, Scottish Ministers and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales was published earlier this month (Cm 4444). Bi-lateral concordats between Whitehall Departments and the Assembly are being finalised.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with, and when he next intends to meet, the first Secretary and the Economic Development Secretary, regarding concordats relating to inward investment in Wales. [94174]
  577
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  One of the supplementary agreements to the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations concerned financial assistance to industry. I discussed this with the First Secretary before it was agreed. I meet the First Secretary and the Economic Development Secretary regularly to discuss a variety of topics.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when(a) he last met and (b) he plans next to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the Welsh Block for 2000–01. [94173]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly when we discuss a number of issues.

  Election Reform
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Electoral Reform Society regarding measures to increase the turnout for elections in Wales. [94181]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Employment Concordats
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with, and when he next intends to meet, the First Secretary and the Economic Development Secretary, regarding concordats relating to employment in Wales. [94175]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Concordats will set out the administrative arrangements between the Assembly and each Whitehall Department. That dealing with the management of issues relating to employment is for the Assembly to discuss with the Department for Education and Employment.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss assistance for Welsh beef farmers to export their beef; and if he will publish the minutes of these meetings. [94177]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friend and we discuss a range of issues. However, assistance to Welsh beef farmers is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, which is discussing related matters direct with my right hon. Friend.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with(a) the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and (b) the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the implementation of the findings of the Milk Marketing Council's report on the future of Milk Marque. [94179]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None. The National Assembly for Wales is pursuing this directly with my right hon. Friend.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions concerning measures to reduce traffic congestion between London and Cardiff; and if he informed the Economic Development Secretary in the National Assembly for Wales of the outcome. [94182]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  While I take a keen interest in transport issues in Wales and value the importance of good communications, the development of an integrated transport policy for Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly. I understand that Assembly officials are in direct contact with officials in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure that the Welsh Assembly complies with section 76(3) of the Government of Wales Act 1998. [94180]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Under Standing Order 6.7. of the Assembly, documents relating to plenary sessions are made available to me at the same time as they are to Assembly Members.

  Private Office (Running Costs)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of running his Private Office each year since 1995–96; and what estimate he has made of the cost of running the office in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [94176]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The cost of Ministerial Private Offices in the Welsh Office was as follows:

  £

  1995–96

  724,230

  1996–97

  720,625

  1997–98

  758,763

  1998–99

  820,240

  Estimated costs of the Ministerial Private Offices are:

  £

  1999–2000

  672,837

  2000–01

  682,930

  2001–02

  693,022

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the number of EU export-approved abattoirs in Wales; and if he has informed the Agriculture and Rural Economy Secretary of the Welsh Assembly of the outcome. [94178]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have held a number of discussions with my right hon. Friend on a variety of issues concerning Welsh Agriculture and I have met representatives of the NFU and FUW. The specific issue of EU export-approved abattoirs in Wales is, however, a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

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

Lord Woolmer of Leeds
Kenneth John Woolmer, Esquire, having been created Baron Woolmer of Leeds, of Leeds in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Gould of Potternewton and the Lord Paul, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Goldsmith
Peter Henry Goldsmith, QC, having been created Baron Goldsmith, of Allerton in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Williams of Mostyn and the Lord Steyn.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to visit the Netherlands to make a speech at the University of Leiden on Friday 22nd October when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Civil Servants: Memoirs
2.49 p.m.
Lord Chadlingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What limitations are placed on public servants in respect of publishing accounts of their time working for Ministers.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, serving civil servants are not permitted to publish personal memoirs reflecting their experience in government. Retired civil servants must seek the permission of the head of their former department and the head of the Home Civil Service before publishing such memoirs, in accordance with their continuing duties of confidentiality owed to the Crown as their former employer.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful response. I am sure he is aware that the total number of special advisers, paid for at the taxpayers' expense, has risen by some 50 per cent compared with the previous administration, to close
930
on 70 people. There are three times the previous number in Downing Street—a total of 22. What constraints are placed on those people regarding the confidential information they receive, whether they are paid for by the Government or the party, in the course of doing their job?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the rules I have described in relation to civil servants also apply to special advisers, who are themselves civil servants. Those rules are incorporated into their contract of employment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has there not been a great increase in breaches of the Official Secrets Act in recent years? What steps do the Government propose to take, if any, to deal with that problem?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is unlikely that there has been a great increase in breaches of the Official Secrets Act. I do not know what the position was before 1st May 1997, but I am sure there is not a substantial number of breaches at present.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, taking into account the extraordinary increase in the number of special advisers, can the Minister say whether they are subject to the Official Secrets Act, to the sanctions and obligations of that Act, as are public servants?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can confirm that they are subject not only to the terms of the Official Secrets Act but also to the same terms and conditions of employment as ordinary civil servants. Special advisers are indeed civil servants. In relation to the publishing of memoirs, they would be covered by precisely the same rubric that I set out originally.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is there a minimum time bar after retirement within which civil servants are not permitted to publish their memoirs?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is no specific time bar, but every retired civil servant who wishes to publish memoirs must seek the permission of the head of his or her former department and of the head of the Home Civil Service.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, when they cease to be special advisers, what happens to them? Are they put on to some unwilling department?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, they are put in the House of Lords.
Lord McNally: My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether his reply affects the marketability of my memoirs, "McNally and Callaghan, the Glory Years", as I have some distinct memories of the role of Mr Anthony Wedgwood Benn that I should not like lost to history?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, here is living proof of the answer I gave a few moments ago!

931
I believe that the noble Lord predated the present arrangements in relation to special advisers. If and in so far as he was covered by the existing rules, he would have to go through the same process as I have described, through the head of his former department and the head of the Home Civil Service.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as we approach the 21st century, it is just possible that we suffer from not enough special advisers rather than too many?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government's special advisers perform an extremely important and effective service.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is it not true that the reason why there has been such an increase in the number of special advisers is that Ministers do not trust the advice they receive from the Civil Service? Furthermore, having reminded us of the increase in the number of special advisers now serving in Whitehall, will the noble and learned Lord tell the House what has been the increase in the total salary package since the period of office of the previous government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the reply to the first question is a most emphatic "No". The special advisers are in a position to assist Ministers to work in co-operation with the Civil Service. Both the Civil Service and the Government regard the present arrangements as very satisfactory and they work happily together. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the second question.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, may I point out to the noble and learned Lord that his replies on the whole have been, to my surprise, broadly satisfactory?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Earl is surprised.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will the Minister please place in the Library a copy of the letter that he is to write to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall certainly do so.

European Union: Trade and Jurisdiction
2.54 p.m.
Lord Razzallasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek amendments to the revised convention on jurisdiction to ensure both that e-commerce in the European Union fully benefits from the single market and that consumers can obtain adequate cross-border redress.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, a draft proposal has been put forward by the European Commission to convert the revised convention to a regulation which says that a consumer who sues a trader can have the case heard in a court of the country where he lives if the trader has used a website to reach consumers. That seems to go further than the revised convention, and my department is consulting industry and consumers on what position we should take on this new development.
We are extremely keen to see e-commerce flourish in the EU, and with that in mind we shall seek in any representations we make to give consumers confidence and to minimise the cost to business.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am gratified that Her Majesty's Government have seized the problem. Will the Minister accept that, unless some change is made to the convention, the requirement to comply with the laws of a large number of European countries will place an unbearable burden in particular on small and medium-sized enterprises?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the issue here is that we have to balance giving confidence to the consumer with not burdening business with costs. Those issues are almost in contradiction, so we must get the balance right.
I should point out that this is a question of jurisdiction and not a question of law. Therefore, the problem of having to deal with a whole series of laws does not arise in this case.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one reason why more goods are not sold on the Web Europe-wide is the restrictive practice of manufacturers of allowing their warranties and guarantees to operate only within the country where the goods are sold? Is that type of big problem being tackled by the European Union?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is an entirely different question. The issue of where warranties and guarantees apply is presumably related to where the goods are sold.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, since the Question and the Minister's response so far seem to assume that there are indeed benefits to be had from our membership of the single market, will the noble Lord tell the House of any net benefits which we have derived from the single market—e-commerce included—which we could not have derived from within EFTA and the WTO?
Is the Minister aware that the latest government figures show that our trade with the EU is reducing and is in mounting deficit, whereas our trade with the rest of the world is increasing and continues in healthy surplus?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I realise that the noble Lord would like to leave the EU, but perhaps

933
I may assure him that the great mass of businesses are quite clear in this country that our economic prosperity depends on being part of the EU. That is where the great majority of our trade is, and the idea that we can leave and go and join NAFTA or any other body is a complete fairytale to most businesses which trade in the EU.
Lord Levene of Portsoken: My Lords, the City of London is concerned that if every electronic provider in Europe is made accountable to the individual laws of each country, the real benefit of an open and free market in Europe will be lost. Will the Minister therefore assure us that this new, critical and developing industry will not be smothered in that way at birth?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that there are two different issues here. One is the 1968 Brussels convention which deals with the question of jurisdiction. In this case, we are dealing with the question of private law between two people, one of whom is suing the trader for non-fulfilment.
Public regulation of e-commerce is controlled by the country in which the transaction takes place. Therefore, quite rightly, a seller needs to consider only the law of the country in which he operates.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister. First, would those regulations also cover people buying goods advertised on satellite television; for example, on Eurosport—to name a channel I was watching the other day? Secondly, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not just look narrowly at the European aspect of the matter, because e-commerce will be world-wide and people will be able to buy goods from the United States of America? Will the Minister assure me that the Government will be looking at e-commerce around the world, and not only in terms of Europe?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid that the issue of e-commerce regulations applying to Eurosport and so on is one which needs to be cleared up in the drafting of the regulation. I am sure that a lot of thought will be given to ensuring that our position is absolutely clear, so that there is no doubt about that particular point.
As far as concerns the question of "world-wide", one of the great advantages of the EU is that we have the mechanism to tackle those particular issues, which we do not have on a world-wide basis. That is one of the many benefits of which I am sure your Lordships are aware.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, with particular reference to e-commerce and small and medium-sized enterprises, will the noble Lord assure the House that national standards of one member state are fully recognised in all other member states of the EU?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is a similar question about where the jurisdiction lies.
934
As I said, as regards e-commerce, the question of the public law aspects—a different consideration—is related to the country in which the seller lives.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to be so good as to at least make an attempt to answer the question which I put to him. Is he aware that in the reply which he gave to me he made the classical error of saying that the majority of our trade is with the EU, whereas according to answers which I have received recently from his department, only some 45 per cent of our overseas trade is with the EU, and only 14 per cent of our trade in general—that is, our gross domestic product—lies with the EU? Would he care to agree that correction in his remarks?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, with regard to my earlier answer to the noble Lord, as the Leader of the Opposition said, "Make my day". Let us go on talking about the EU because it is extremely important that we continue to understand British industry's concern about this.
I turn now to the noble Lord's question. The answer is: yes, our trade with the EU constitutes slightly less than half our overall trade but, as your Lordships know, it still comprises the great bulk. As far as concerns benefits, I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand that Members on the other side of this House do not realise the benefit of free, open-trade markets. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has ably demonstrated that point to the Conservative Party in the past.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the Minister has twice now referred to business being virtually unanimously, or overwhelmingly, in favour of closer trade connections with the EU. Is he not aware that in this country some of the great family companies, including famous food retailers, have whole families divided on this matter?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, food retailers are obviously a very special case in this particular situation. However, I believe it is important to make a distinction between trading companies which trade world-wide and retailers. A retailer's position is very different, as indeed is the position of those such as importers. But I believe that your Lordships will find that the great majority of trading companies, on which our exports depend, are totally convinced of the value of the EU.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, how can the noble Lord talk about free trade when there is a ring fence around Europe?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, quite clearly we live in a world of trading blocs. The great move forward has been to create a free market within Europe. I hope that in due course that will spread further. At least it is a step in the right direction.

Armed Forces: Internal Complaints Procedure
3.3 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Armed Forces redress of complaint system is currently operating satisfactorily.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, complaints from members of the Armed Forces are treated seriously and are dealt with fairly. Recognising the importance to the Armed Forces of an effective internal procedure for the redress of complaints, we have been reviewing the procedures and have identified some scope for administrative improvements.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that Answer, which is most promising. Recently there have been too many cases where a period lasting as long as two years and over has elapsed between redress and compensation, even when the redress has been upheld. Is that not damaging to the morale of the individual serviceman or woman, his or her family and the unit? Indeed, is it not damaging to the reputation of the Armed Forces as an employer? It also has bad effects on recruitment and retention. In view of the fact that the Government have said that they will not introduce into the Armed Forces rights of association, will they urgently review the redress of complaints system?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his question and for his reference to morale in the Armed Forces. The present system deals with issues and complaints as low down as possible and as quickly as possible. Normally, complaints are settled by the chain of command, right up to the service board when that is necessary. Of course, the noble Earl is aware that the Armed Forces generally are not bound by employment legislation. At present, consideration is being given to the complaints and grievances procedures that exist within the Armed Forces generally. As far as concerns rights of association, it is Ministry of Defence policy not to have a union or a federation of services. My view is that that does not have a demoralising effect on morale of the Armed Forces.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in how many cases is that procedure invoked annually, and how long does each case take to resolve?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. I shall probably not be able to answer it specifically. However, I have looked at the figures concerned and I am, of course, prepared to write to the noble Lord. According to the latest available figures, there were about 180 cases. Of those, 57 were settled after a 12-month period. However, on occasions cases can be quite lengthy. The very fact that the procedures
936
are being looked at indicates that efforts are being made to shorten and, it is hoped, expedite those procedures.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord said that there had already been a review and recommendations for changes. Is the noble Lord able to tell us where we can find a description of that system, of the review and of the proposed changes that are to be made?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I gather that the Army has carried out some of the review. Its findings have not yet been published. The Armed Forces generally will need to study them to see whether they can be adopted on a general basis. The quinquennial review will take place in 2000–2001. That will provide the opportunity to change the law in this respect. Having said that, the changes that are likely to come into being are being considered. It would not be right for me at this time to judge either the extent of those changes or, indeed, assess the likely outcome of the review.

Long-term Carers: Status
3.9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are proposing to change the self-employed status of individual long-term carers looking after severely disabled people in their homes.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are not proposing to change the status of long-term carers. Whether a carer is self-employed for tax or employment law purposes depends on the terms and conditions on which he or she is engaged and works.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I understand that proposals of this kind are now the subject of consultation with the organisations concerned. In those consultations, will the Government take into account the fact that many carers in these situations have to work irregular hours and will not easily or suitably be converted into employees of care agencies? Do the Government agree that the most important consideration is that disabled people should not find that they are to be charged a great deal more for the help which they now receive in their homes, rather than in institutions?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it may help if I explain what is proposed in the consultation document. The proposal would change the terms of the contractual relationship, whether or not the person in question is self-employed. It would change the party responsible to the worker in relation to entitlements under the minimum wage and the working time directive. It is felt appropriate that that party should be the employment bureau, rather than

937
the individual—the long-term disabled person—so that that person does not have to deal with those issues; they will be dealt with by the employment bureau. That seems to me and, indeed, to Age Concern, to be a step in the right direction.
An issue relating to the payment of VAT arises. By making the employment relationship with the disabled person rather than themselves, a number of employment bureaux have avoided paying VAT. That is an issue of which we are aware, and we are considering it in the consultation process.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some years ago your Lordships' House discussed the idea that disabled people themselves should be able to choose how to spend such money? Tying this contract to a bureau would take that privilege of choice away from disabled people.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that this matter has anything to do with the issue of choice. A person being cared for can choose whether to use an individual, a bureau, or anyone else. We are consulting on the question of whether the employment responsibility in terms of these two specific issues—the minimum wage and the working time directive—rests with the hirer or with the employment bureau; but that does not affect the choice of the long-term disabled.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the terminology causes a problem? The word "carer" has come to be used for the unemployed and unpaid family carer who is the subject of the Government's National Carers' Strategy? Does the Minister also agree that the Government would be well advised to attach the word "paid" or the word "employed" to the word "carer" when noble Lords discuss this subject?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I take that point on board. Clearly, in this situation we are talking of paid carers.

Business
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Special European Council at Tampere.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
938
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, yesterday, at the commencement of the Report stage on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, with the assistance of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, raised an issue which is becoming an increasing procedural problem for the House in its scrutiny of legislation. More and more often, at a late stage, we receive a largo volume of long and significant amendments to the Bills under consideration.
As a result of that intervention, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, speaking on behalf of the Government, raised what appeared to me to be a novel suggestion in relation to the procedures of the House. He suggested that any provision that should have gone to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation should be debated on Report, but that the Government would ensure that such amendments were not put on the face of the Bill at that stage so that the Select Committee would have an opportunity to discuss such amendments before they were put on the face of the Bill at Third Reading.
On the Greater London Authority Bill it is too late for that kind of an intervention to be practical. However, the Minister will be well aware that we have protested at the volume and the complexity of the amendments that we have been obliged to consider at short notice. In considering the Greater London Authority Bill today we shall find ourselves dealing with yet another series of amendments, many of which are extremely complicated.
It occurred to me that the House should seek an assurance from the Minister that none of the amendments already agreed or those that we may agree are such as would normally cause concern to that committee. If we do not proceed in that way we shall be in danger of overloading the relevant Select Committee.
I am prepared to accept that the Minister ill need time to consider his answer to that matter. We have two more days on which we shall deal with this Bill on Report, and I would be happy to receive a proper answer on one of those days, if he chooses to deal with the matter in that way. I believe that this is a proper point to raise at this stage and I hope that the House will accept it.
Lord Renton: My Lords. I rise in support of the important point that my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has raised. Will the Government consider the procedure that has been followed for years in another place, whereby any new clauses or any far-reaching amendments tabled after the Committee stage of a Bill has been concluded can be re-committed and examined in detail, subject to the Report stage procedure, before the Report stage of the Bill is

939
undertaken? That works exceedingly well in the other place and ensures that the House is able to consider the detail of the new clauses or far-reaching amendments.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could colour his reply with the thought that when noble Lords on this side of the House were in government—as has been the case during the life of the present Government—a convention grew up that governments were bound to take seriously the strictures of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and that the committee's recommendations should be adopted.
With an enormous number of amendments being tabled, too often as a result of hurried legislation in another place, I believe it would be extremely helpful if the Government were able to respond to the intervention of my noble friend in the constructive way that other members of the present Government have responded—particularly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—when considering the increasingly important role that that committee will have in the constitution of this House in terms of considering legislation and the way that it is examined.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says, we have a large number of amendments, some of which are fairly complex. I also accept that this House must give due respect to the views of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.
However, as far as I can ascertain, the situation with regard to this Bill is different from that of the Immigration and Asylum Bill in that the amendments to that Bill created new regulatory powers which were not included at an earlier stage. We have amended some of those regulatory powers. I shall undertake to look carefully at those that remain to see whether we should take on board the point made by the noble Lord.
However, the vast majority of the amendments that were tabled early in the Report stage were tidying up and technical amendments, as the subsequent ones will be. Therefore, I do not accept that we are in a position where we should consider either recomittal or deferral of consideration of amendments because I do not believe that our amendments raise new issues of principle for the Select Committee.
Should it be drawn to my attention during the course of today or in respect of amendments yet to come, either by the noble Lord or by the authorities of the House, that I am over-generalising, then, before the commencement of the proceedings on Thursday, I undertake to correct that position and to take the necessary steps to ensure that consideration is given before completion of the Report stage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 105 [Power to redistribute capital receipts of functional bodies]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 318:
Page 59, line 44, at end insert ("provided that no such payment may be directed to be made by a body until that body's debts have been fully repaid").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 318 is grouped together with Amendments Nos. 319 to 326. They are all related to transparency, accuracy and accountability in relation to the capital expenditure programmes of the Greater London Authority.
Amendment No. 318 requires that capital debts of functional bodies should be paid off before capital receipts are transferred away from them. Amendment No. 319 requires that the available capital receipts be published in the Greater London Authority's budget. Amendment No. 320 requires grants between functional bodies to be published in the budget. Amendment No. 321 requires revenue grants to be specified in the component budget. Amendment No. 322 requires any transfers from the functional bodies to be added to and included in the capital spending plans. Amendment No. 323 requires the word "minimum" to be changed to "estimated" so that there is greater precision in the clause to which that relates. Amendment No. 324 is directed to the same purpose. Amendment No. 325 deals with the definition of the capital spending plan.
Amendment No. 326 is important because it deals with the comparison of performance on the capital spending programme year on year and, more importantly, the consequences of variations in capital spending year on year. Anybody who has had the experience of managing the capital programme of a large local authority—the Greater London Authority will certainly be a large local authority—knows that capital expenditure in its intimate detail is almost uncontrollable. There are many good reasons for that.
Capital spending programmes rely on access to sites which have to be purchased. That may be assumed to take only two or three months. It can often take much longer and difficulties then arise. The reverse also happens. One project in a plan is delayed and another project comes forward and is accelerated. The day-to-day management of all that is extremely difficult. Amendment No. 326 says that that should be looked at and recorded and, if there is an overspend in one year, it should be set out so that it is apparent what the consequences of that may be in any subsequent year.
This is an important group of amendments which significantly improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, similar amendments were tabled at Committee stage. This group of amendments would mean that a functional body could be required to give up part of its usable assets only if it had become debt-free. They would require the mayor to include in the capital spending plan a wide range of additional information.
Taken together, the amendments would greatly reduce the mayor's discretion in allocating capital resources to functional bodies and restrict the

941
mayor's ability to take decisions on the allocation of resources in the year. They are therefore not acceptable to the Government. We require that flexibility for the mayor. The additional information required in the amendments would require the mayor to include in the plan information which could be given only if, at the time when he came to prepare the capital spend for the forthcoming financial year, he had made and was in a position to make firm decisions about the distribution of such resources.
The amendments would constrain the use of any power conferred on the mayor to redistribute the capital receipts of functional bodies, particularly Amendments Nos. 318 to 326. They would greatly reduce the mayor's discretion to manage the total resources of the authority and its functional bodies in a sensible way. They would disadvantage the functional body because they would remove that flexibility. The mayor needs to be in a position to help to meet the expenditure needs of the functional bodies which can change during the course of a financial year, as the noble Lord will acknowledge, by making grants available and helping with the redistribution of resources. They are not matters to be tied down in a plan before the financial year begins and would unnecessarily constrain the allocation of resources within the new authority. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press them.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is difficult to say that I am grateful to the Minister for what is a disappointing reply, but I am not surprised by it. I shall study what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 319 not moved.]
Clause 106 [Capital grants between Authority and functional bodies]:
[Amendment No. 320 not moved.]
Clause 107 [Revenue grants between Authority and functional bodies]:
[Amendment No. 321 not moved.]
Clause 108 [Form and contents]:
[Amendments Nos. 323 to 326 not moved.]
Clause 109 [Preparation]:
[Amendments Nos. 327 to 329 not moved.]
Clause 113 [Proper financial administration and chief finance officer]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 330:
Page 65, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) No person may be the chief finance officer of two or more relevant authorities at the same time.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments clarifies the arrangements for appointing chief finance officers for the GLA and functional bodies. I shall take each amendment in turn.
Amendment No. 330 provides that no one individual simultaneously may be the chief finance officer of the GLA and a functional body or of two or
942
more functional bodies. This is needed to make absolutely certain that the GLA and functional bodies do not share chief finance officers. It is one of the key principles of the GLA finance system that each body is responsible for managing its own financial affairs once the GLA's consolidated budget has been set. Allowing the bodies to share chief finance officers would undermine that principle and could give rise to potential conflicts of interest.
Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 provide that the assembly appoints the GLA's chief finance officer and that the officer is designated from a member of staff appointed by the assembly rather than from staff appointed by the mayor. It has always been the intention that the assembly should appoint all three of the GLA's statutory officers, including its chief' finance officer, after consultation with the mayor. Without the amendment, the function of making the appointment would, by default, have fallen to the mayor.
Amendment No. 333 prohibits the mayor from being designated as the chief finance officer of TfL. though it allows TfL to appoint one of its members as chief finance officer rather than a member of staff. As the mayor may decide to chair TfL, 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 TfL and the chief finance officer's duty to ensure proper financial administration. The 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. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to ask what is apparent even to me is a silly question. Does it mean that a person could be a chief finance officer of one authority and a deputy chief finance officer of another?
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may add to the list of questions. I would not for a moment argue with the amendments which have been proposed; indeed, I think they are entirely right. It had not occurred to me that they were necessary. However, Amendment No. 333 gave me pause for thought. This is the amendment which provides that the mayor must not be the chief finance officer of TfL. Can the Minister confirm that, when one reads together the various provisions of the Bill, there is no functional body—or the authority itself—of which the mayor may be chief finance officer? In other words, can she confirm that this was a mopping-up provision and is not exceptional?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in answer to the question from the noble Baroness, I believe I can confirm that the mayor cannot do so. That is my understanding of the situation. In answer to his question, I can tell my noble friend Lord

943
Mishcon that I believe that the answer is no. However, I shall of course confirm that as soon as I am in a position to do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 331 to 334:
Page 65, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) The chief finance officer of the Authority must be a member of staff appointed under section 56(2) above.").
Page 65, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) The function of appointing the Authority's chief finance officer under subsection (2)(b) above shall be a function of the Authority which is exercisable on behalf of the Authority by the Assembly after consultation with the Mayor.").
Page 65, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) If the Mayor is a member of Transport for London, he must not be its chief finance officer.").
Page 65, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) In section 2 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (politically restricted posts) in subsection (6)(d) (the effect of which is that the chief finance officer appointed under certain provisions is included among "the chief statutory officers" for the purposes of that section) after "section 112 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988" there shall be inserted ", section 113(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 335:
Leave out Clause 113 and insert the following new Clause
PROPER FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
(" .—(1) The Authority shall—

(a) make arrangements for the proper administration of its financial affairs, and

(b) secure that one of its officers (its "chief finance officer") has responsibility for the administration of those affairs and for the oversight of the financial administration of the functional bodies.

(2) Every functional body shall—

(a) make arrangements for the proper administration of its financial affairs, and

(b) secure that one of its officers (its "chief finance officer") has responsibility for the administration of those affairs.

(3) In subsection (1)(b) and (2)(b) above, the reference to officers includes a reference to employees or members of staff and, in the case of Transport for London and the London Development Agency, includes a reference to members of the relevant Authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment suggests the deletion of Clause 113 and the insertion of what, in effect, would become a new Clause 113. Here one is dealing with what I suppose is really a matter of taste in drafting. There is a very significant difference between the two clauses—that is to say, the one which appears on the face of the Bill and the one that we have suggested should be in its place.
Clause 113 provides that there should be a "relevant authority", which means the authority, the GLA, or a functional body. It also provides that every relevant authority,
"shall make arrangements for the proper administration of its financial affairs",
944
and so on. That is all very fine; indeed, it will undoubtedly produce an arrangement which works. However, what it does not do is something which our proposed alternative would do. It does not, in our view, provide for the finance department of the authority to have sufficient oversight as regards the financial affairs of the functional bodies.
The Minister will no doubt say that the functional bodies are free and independent and are perfectly entitled to keep their affairs to themselves and manage themselves, subject to the overall constraints imposed by the mayor's budget. That will work extremely well until something goes wrong. At that point, the lines of accountability, which, under the Bill, are blurred, may present a problem. We like our proposed amendment rather better for that reason. The lines of accountability under our clause mean that, in managing their fiscal affairs, the functional bodies would be subject to the overall supervision of, and ultimately sanctioned by, the authority. We think that that arrangement is preferable. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as he said, the noble Lord's amendment would effectively ensure that the chief finance officers of the functional bodies reported to the chief finance officer of the GLA. We considered the alternative represented in the proposed new clause, but, contrary to the noble Lord's view, we felt that his proposition would be the one to blur the lines of accountability and add to confusion.
The mayor, subject to the assembly, will be responsible for setting the budgets of each of the four functional bodies but will not be accountable for the management of their financial affairs. That responsibility rests with the bodies and with the authorities themselves, as provided elsewhere in the Bill. For that reason, it is essential that the functional bodies—and, of course, the GLA—should each have their own chief finance officer. Each body and each authority will be responsible for ensuring probity, regularity, and so on, in financial management. Indeed, each will be expected to have regard to reports and recommendations made by its chief finance officer. As each functional body is responsible for its own financial affairs, it is not appropriate for the GLA's chief finance officer to have a further role in a functional body's finances. That would blur accountability and deprive each board and authority of a single source of specialist financial advice.
To reflect the mayor's interest, we have provided that where a chief finance officer of a functional body makes a report concerning a functional body he is required to provide a copy for each member of the relevant body, the mayor and the chair of the assembly. However, the responsibility for dealing with the report will rest with the board or the authority concerned, as made clear by the other provisions of the Bill. It cannot transfer this responsibility to the mayor, or indirectly to the mayor via the chief finance officer of the GLA.
We consider that the Bill provides for clearer arrangements for finance administration. Responsibility in that respect lies where it is set out in

945
the rest of the Bill. The amendment could lead to a blurring of the lines of accountability rather than what the noble Lord seeks. I hope, therefore, that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I admit to a marginal intellectual weakness in our amendment—I am surprised that the Minister did not mention this—in that it could be argued that it is centralising. However, we are dealing with the way in which the Greater London Authority is to work. Nothing in our amendment would prevent the functional bodies keeping their own accounts; nor would it prevent their dealing with matters properly. It would have provided a proper line of control back to the authority. None the less, I hear what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 116 [Functions of chief finance officer as regards reports]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 336:
Page 65, line 38, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 42 and insert ("Chairman of Transport for London or, in his absence, the Deputy Chairman of Transport for London".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would work in relation to Clause 116, which deals with what is to happen to reports of financial irregularities in one of the functional bodies that might come from the Audit Commission. As drafted, the Bill provides that any member might be appropriate to be the person who receives such reports from the finance officer. Alternatively, I believe it says that an employee of the functional body could be the appropriate person. We do not think that that is a proper way to deal with reports as significant as such reports might be.
One hopes that these reports would be extremely rare and that preferably they never occur. However, if they do occur, it is our view that they should be dealt with at the highest level in the functional body; namely, by its chairman or deputy chairman. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this requirement on the chief finance officer to consult with other officers of the authority in this clause seeks to ensure that there is agreement among the officers of the authority about the legality of the course of action being taken and all the relevant facts are clear. Where the chief finance officer completes a report about, say, the actions of Transport for London, the body must then consider it at a full meeting of the board. To require—as this amendment does—the chairman, and only the chairman, or his deputy to be consulted before the report is finalised would limit the discretion of Transport for London to appoint whom it sees fit to fulfil the consultation role, and appointments may change from time to time or from case to case.
The arrangements we propose will ensure that matters are considered properly and promptly by those with the necessary responsibility for taking action on them. I do not think that we should seek to
946
limit the discretion of Transport for London to appoint whom it considers most suitable to undertake these consultation roles. The other amendment in this group proposes that, where a chief finance officer completes a report, the mayor should publish it within seven days. I understand the intention behind this amendment. It is important that the GLA and the functional bodies are publicly accountable for their actions and that all relevant reports are publicly available. However, I do not consider this amendment is necessary because, where a chief finance officer completes a report under the provisions of Section 114 of the Local Government Act, the authority or functional body must consider it at a meeting within 21 days. That meeting must be convened in accordance with Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972, which requires that generally details of the agenda and the reports themselves must be made available three days before the meeting. There is therefore already a deadline.
Specific provision has been made for Transport for London to be subject to the provisions of that section of the 1972 Act. It will therefore have to hold a public meeting in those circumstances within 21 days and make the chief finance officer's report available. The responsibility for publication rests—as I think it rightly should—with the authority and with each functional body. I believe therefore that this amendment is not necessary. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw both of the amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hear what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 337 not moved.]

Special European Council, Tampere
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Together with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, I attended a special meeting of the European Council from 14th to 16th October, in Tampere, Finland. The main purpose of the meeting was to agree the priorities for action by the European Union and member states in the field of justice and home affairs.
"We agreed action in three areas. First, oil asylum and immigration, we agreed a common approach to the way in which member states deal with applications for asylum, to remove the incentive for asylum seekers to shop around, and to ensure that asylum seekers are dealt with in the first EU member state they enter.
"We agreed effective action against illegal immigration, especially against trafficking in people; a commitment by all EU member states, to

947
treat third country nationals who are legally resident in their countries fairly and without discrimination. All EU countries are now committed to providing equal access to education, healthcare and other benefits, as we do already for long-term residents in the UK.
"We agreed action in relation to the six countries of concern studied by the High Level Working Group, set up late last year—Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Morocco, Albania and Iraq—using a broad approach involving all available EU policy instruments to tackle poverty and other root causes of migration.
"Secondly, on judicial co-operation, we agreed that there were important areas where court decisions in one jurisdiction should be recognised elsewhere in the EU. This is needed to provide legal redress for individuals and companies when their problems, in business or leisure, originate in another member state; and to co-operate better in bringing criminals to justice.
"The British proposal that the cornerstone of policy in this area should be mutual recognition of court decisions, rather than the harmonisation of laws, was adopted unanimously. The European Council agreed that there must be drastic simplification of the present slow and laborious arrangements for giving effect in one member state to the decisions of a court in another member state.
"The European Council also decided that practical steps should be taken—for example agreeing on common procedures for making small claims across internal EU borders together with better information available to the public—in order to improve the access of all member states' citizens to justice throughout the European Union.
"Thirdly, on combating cross-border crime, the European Council decided on a series of measures. At the United Kingdom's suggestion, there is to be a new Task Force of European Police Chiefs working alongside Europol, to plan and organise joint police operations across Europe. There was also agreement on our proposal to set up a European Police College.
"A new body will be established, consisting of national prosecutors, magistrates and police officers, to assist and support investigation of organised crime and the prosecution of those involved.
"The principle of mutual recognition should apply to judicial decisions in criminal cases, particularly those required to secure evidence and seize assets.
"Action will be taken in due course to replace extradition with a simplified system for convicted criminals. We will also develop a fast track extradition process for those accused of serious crime.
"In addition, we agreed on a new focus among member states on youth crime, crime prevention and the protection of the victims of crime. A
948
comprehensive list of the action agreed by the European Council is to be found in the Council's Conclusions, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
"In addition to its main business, the Council discussed the situation in Pakistan, following the military takeover there. It also had a preliminary discussion of the prospects for EU enlargement, an issue which will be a major topic for the Helsinki European Council in December. It was unanimously agreed that our commitment to enlargement must proceed.
"In the margins of the European Council I made clear to the Prime Minister of France and the President of the European Commission that France's failure to permit the sale of British beef was unacceptable, and that the French Government had to implement the EU decision.
"The EU Scientific Committee is due to complete its review of the French Advisory Committee's report before the end of this month. If there is no new scientific evidence, the President of the Commission has agreed with me that he will insist that France implements the earlier ruling, and will take legal action if the French Government fail to do so.
"We will pursue every available avenue to ensure that British farmers can exercise their right under European law to sell beef throughout the EU, and of course it is only because of European law that we are able to do this with the backing of the law.
"At the Tampere Council we restated and safeguarded essential British national interests on asylum and immigration. We reached agreements with our European partners on law and order issues, which of their nature do not respect national boundaries and where international co-operation is vital. We restated the overwhelming scientific evidence on the safety of British beef and the fundamental importance of swift observance by the French Government of European Union law. In short it was, I believe, a successful Council in which we engaged constructively with our European partners in support of British national interests".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement today. What can I say other than that we welcome the progress that was apparently made at Tampere on a number of issues, for example, on co-operation against organised crime, on drug trafficking, on money laundering and on fraud? This is valuable and sensible co-operation which the whole House would support.
However, will the noble Baroness clarify the significance of the Prime Minister's agreement to measures to institute some common legal procedures across Europe? As she said, harmonisation of laws would be a bad idea. It is important that each government in Europe retain jurisdiction over their legal system. The noble Baroness will know that Italy,

949
for example, is presently considering major constitutional reform of the system of prosecution in legal cases. That is their business and not ours. Will the noble Baroness assure the House that none of the measures that the Prime Minister has agreed will undermine any part of our own historically distinct legal system or lead to a corpus juris in Europe? That is something that we would firmly oppose.
Perhaps I may turn now to the question of beef. The noble Baroness's right honourable friend did not secure agreement to the early lifting of the ban on British beef. Can she say when she believes the ban will be lifted in every country? Was the Prime Minister's special relationship with Chancellor Schröder, a co-signatory of the declaration on the third way, of value in lifting the ban? If so, how long will the ban remain in force in Germany?
Would it not help if the Government showed some confidence in our own beef by lifting the ludicrous ban on beef on the bone, as this House has consistently demanded since last summer? Perhaps I may formally ask at this stage for an early debate in the House on the problems of the UK livestock industry.
In his Statement, the Prime Minister said that the continuing ban on our beef was unacceptable. Why is it continuing? When he imposed new burdens on British business by importing the working time directive and the social chapter, he told the nation that his positive policy would bring gains for Britain. We already know the cost to British business, but where are the gains from this policy for British farmers?
We welcome the preliminary agreement at Tampere to invite the six second-wave countries to start EU membership negotiations. Enlargement will mean major changes in the way Europe operates; that is inevitable. The issue is what those changes will be. Is it not in the interests of Britain and Europe to argue, as we do, for a flexible Europe of nation states co-operating together? A government committed to that vision would be pressing for treaty amendments at the next IGC which will allow nations greater flexibility. Is that not necessary to protect the great strengths that nation states bring to Europe while at the same time enabling a wider Europe to work?
That is the position of the Opposition, which is very different from the position of the Government. They seem to believe that they can make progress in Europe only by surrendering British self-determination to Europe step by step. Did we not see the real agenda of the Government reflected in the report of the so-called three wise men, who include a much respected member of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury. The noble Lord was appointed a Minister by the Prime Minister; he is now an adviser to the Prime Minister. He became one of the three wise men with the approval of the Prime Minister. Does his report represent government policy, including as it does a recommendation that qualified majority voting should be the rule in Europe, and thus for the abolition of the national veto in key areas of policy? Were the Government aware in advance that these were likely to be the recommendations of the three wise men? Is that
950
why it would have been difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, to continue his distinguished ministerial career because his views on Europe are not those of Her Majesty's Government—or because they are one and the same?
I understand that Mr Prodi was the Prime Minister's own candidate for the presidency of the Commission. I hear that they are close friends; indeed, I hear that Mr Prodi was warmly welcomed at the Prime Minister's villa in Tuscany in August. Do all the propositions for European development put forward by Mr Prodi since the summer represent government policy? Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us how many of those matters have been discussed between Mr Prodi and the Prime Minister. If not, can the noble Baroness tell the House of two proposals from Mr Prodi or the wise men with which the Government disagree') If the Leader of the House is not able to answer today, I would be grateful if she would write to me on these points.
Would it not be in the interests of this country and of Europe as a whole for the Prime Minister to put forward the alternatives to these ideas rather than welcoming them and persisting with the fraudulent insistence that the advancement of any alternative proposals means withdrawal from the European Union? After all, if that had been the case, he would have told anyone arguing for the British rebate that they wanted to withdraw; he would have told anyone arguing for opt-outs from a single currency and a social charter that they wanted to withdraw. Is the noble Baroness aware that the only senior politicians to have stood for election on a platform of withdrawal from Europe are her very own right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary?
As my right honourable friend Mr Hague has rightly summarised, the people of this country want to be in Europe but not run by Europe. That is why they and we will support positive measures for further cooperation within Europe—as at Tampere on crime—but, on the other hand, both they and we will be vigilant against the stealth tactics of giving away British self-determination on the sidelines.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will accept that these are great matters and that no public relations campaign—however glossy and whoever may be involved—will obscure the key issues which have to be determined in Europe on which there is no third way, only ultimately yes or no in a referendum. Does the noble Baroness accept that it is not harming Europe or being non-European to state what is right for Britain in Europe? Does she further accept that the most minor criticisms of the European Union are not a fundamental attack on our membership? I look forward to the noble Baroness's reply.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I also thank the Leader of the House for her Statement, which was based upon what is unquestionably a summit of great importance and one in which large

951
steps forward were taken in co-operation within Europe, not least against organised crime, trafficking in people and the drugs trade.
As a member of another opposition party I suspect I will not find a great deal of harmony with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but, as he did, I start with the subject of beef. Can the Leader of the House say whether we are correct in believing that unless there was the machinery in the European Union, and if Britain was outside that machinery, there would be no way whatever in which we could directly challenge the French ban? The machinery is available to have the ban lifted. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the successful efforts he made at the summit to raise the matter.
Secondly, can the noble Baroness confirm that if this House is—as members of all parties claim it is—committed to the historic concept of enlargement, then institutional change cannot be avoided? Institutional change is an essential part of making an enlarged European Union work. I believe the wise men are to be congratulated on having grappled with some of the most difficult issues: the size of the Commission, the nature of voting and the strength or power of the European Parliament. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that enlargement inevitably means substantial institutional changes if we maintain our commitment to the former Communist states of eastern and central Europe that they will soon become members of the European Union.
Thirdly, does the Leader of the House agree that the steps taken in Tampere—to establish a task force of European police chiefs; to strengthen the work of Europol; to agree to mutual recognition of the work of the courts of Europe; and for different courts to accept the admissibility of evidence which might be gathered by different police forces within Europe—are a central part of the battle against organised crime and money laundering, which is rapidly getting out of control? Does she further agree that the very pragmatic, sensible and practical British public are right to decide that they will have nothing to do with those policies which suggest that no such response is needed? In short, does she agree that the public are living in the same age as the Government? I fear that there are some who live in a different age. In that context it is not surprising that some 56 per cent of the British public regard the stand on Europe of the Leader of the Opposition as a reason for not voting for him, rather than a reason for voting for him. It simply departs from reality—and reality is harsh and choices have to be made.
Finally, I turn to the major part of the Tampere Summit's conclusions and ask the Leader of the House three questions. First, can she say something about the strengthening of civil liberties and the extension of the European charter of rights to balance, as must properly be done, the greater powers given to European police forces and courts, with which we strongly agree?
952
Secondly, does the Leader of the House accept that mutual recognition in the courts would be of great benefit to consumers in this country, especially those who wish to pursue small claims, or to pursue their rights under the procedures of consumer action, and to those seeking maintenance or pursuing divorce proceedings against someone resident in another European country? The legal process should be speeded up and made less expensive.
Thirdly, does the Leader of the House agree with indications made at the Tampere Summit that it is absolutely vital that steps should be taken to establish common minimum standards for dealing with refugees and asylum seekers, and that measures should be put in place to stop the traffic in human beings? Does she further accept that a resolution must be reached over the differences between British and European courts on the issue of non-state acts of persecution, which has been discussed extensively during consideration of the Immigration and Asylum Bill?
Finally, does the Leader of the House agree that the Tampere declaration marks a major step forward in dealing with some of those diseases that afflict the whole of Europe? In that context, may I congratulate the noble Baroness and Her Majesty's Government on their position taken in Tampere on the issues of racism and xenophobia, and on their determination that minorities and third country nationals shall be treated with fairness and justice? That is very much what we on these Benches believe to be one of the great objectives of Europe: securing the rights of all people resident in the Continent.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their responses to the Statement and for their general recognition of the important steps forward that have been taken. I certainly endorse the final point made by the noble Baroness concerning the objectives of the summit; namely, protection of the rights of every citizen in Europe; the provision of greater safeguards for those rights; and wider opportunities for people in difficulties because their lives have been affected by different upheavals. Immigrants and asylum seekers need help to overcome their problems concerning issues of immigration and jurisdiction.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for emphasising their support for some of the points made at Tampere on questions of combating organised crime, particularly on issues of international crime such as money laundering, the drugs trade, trafficking in individuals and so forth. Those issues were very much part of the discussions and, indeed, of the presidency's conclusions. As the noble Baroness recognised in her final remarks, it is important that these matters are addressed on a pragmatic and practical basis by the members of the Union in terms of an exchange of good practice and a full understanding of the ways in which different systems work. We welcome and applaud the need for collaboration on the more effective introduction of

953
practical proposals for dealing with international crime. That was sensibly recognised by all Ministers at the summit, and was reflected in the conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rightly recognised that this is a different procedure from that of moving towards the harmonisation of legal systems, or indeed the organisation of a joint European corpus juris, as he mentioned in his closing remarks. The adoption of the UK language on mutual recognition is important, because that will mean more acceptance and understanding of the different standards and methods used in each other's legal systems. However, we recognise too that it is important to accept that the processes of a court in one country should be recognised and understood in another. It is well understood, for example, that within the British Isles we have two—indeed, three—systems of justice and differing legal arrangements. Between England and Scotland there is perfectly clear recognition of the significance and importance of each country's judicial systems and legal processes, without there being a common corpus juris, or indeed anything which could be described as the harmonisation of our laws.
The noble Baroness asked about the charter of rights. The point of the conclusion of the presidency and the Tampere declaration was to endorse the practical arrangements for the body established at the Cologne European Council and that fundamental rights applicable at Union level should be consolidated in a charter. As the noble Baroness may be aware, a group of some 60 people has been charged with preparing that draft before the Nice European Council in December 2000. The Tampere Council endorsed that proposal and agreed that the work should be taken forward with that end date in mind.
The noble Baroness also raised the matter of minor civil cases. I agree with her that mutual recognition of legal systems would, indeed, assist in the areas of consumer rights and small claims, as they are called in this country. They could be dealt with more effectively across the European Union. I agree that that is a way in which citizens of this country should feel a practical effect from the outcome of the Tampere Council.
I shall turn now from those practical and pragmatic conclusions, which I am sure the House will endorse for their useful contribution to Facilitating the organisation of individual citizens' lives within the European Union, to a more problematic area immediately identified by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; namely, British beef. Of course, as the noble Lord will be aware, we shall now wait until the EU scientific experts' meeting reaches its conclusions on 28th October. We are confident that the outcome of that meeting will be to endorse the position taken by the UK in assuring the European Union of the safety of British beef. We do, of course, need a swift settlement to this dispute so that British fanning and the beef industry can get on with the business of building our markets abroad. As the Prime Minister said in his Statement which I have repeated, and as has been declared in all of the informal statements made after the Tampere meeting, there appears to be no new evidence for the French to present to the EU scientific
954
experts' committee. Further, the Commission has given an undertaking that if new evidence is not produced to affect the outcome of the Eli scientific committee's conclusions, the Commission will take legal action against the French. We are convinced that that will be unnecessary, because we expect the scientific conclusions to endorse our legal position.
Of course it is right to say, as did the noble Baroness, that if we did not have the framework of European law, there would be no legal method of seeking redress. We would have to rely only on influence rather than on the structure of the law, which it is hoped will support what the scientific committee says and, if necessary, will be taken forward by the Commission. However, as I have said, we very much hope that it will not come to that.
On the question of enlargement, both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be aware t hat there is a common understanding between our partners that the April IGC meeting is intended to be a rather limited and pragmatic approach to the practical arrangements for enlargement rather than a form of "back to first principles" pulling up of the roots such as that which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggested may be appropriate. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road of a widespread and historical revision of European positions, on which I think he was attempting to draw me. As he said, there may be an opportunity for further discussion. There is always room for debate on such issues in your Lordships' House. However, I would be in very deep trouble with my noble friend the Chief Whip if I were to commit anyone to a dale or the possibility of an immediate debate of that kind. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be well aware, that is the kind of matter which needs to be decided through the usual channels.
The noble Lord raised a question which has been much referred to in press comments; namely, the report of the so-called "wise men". It is only fair to my noble friend Lord Simon to make it clear to the House that my noble friend was acting entirely in a private capacity in his membership of that committee. Indeed, as I understand it, the report was produced only for Senor Prodi, and not for the Council of Ministers. It is not even clear that Senor Prodi himself will accept all of its findings. Of course, any discussion on its implications would have to be taken forward by the Council of Ministers. The noble Lord will be only too aware that discussions on extending the remit of the Union, enlargement and its constitutional arrangements are not the business of the Commission but rather of the Council of Ministers.
The noble Lord asked me to identify matters which were not in agreement with government policy. I ask the noble Lord to look at the issue the other way round. The report which he mentioned is absolutely not the blueprint for a federal superstate. Let us identify, for example, the points that it does not mention. It does not mention European taxes; it does not mention a European army; and it does not ask for

955
an elected European government. It seems to me that, by omission, one could identify those things that one need not fear.
In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, described those parts of the Tampere Statement which were important and influential in affecting the lives of the citizens of the European Union. I agree with him entirely that they indicated valuable and sensible co-operation. That was the Government's aim at Tampere and that is what has been achieved.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I have noted the remarks made by my noble friend and I have also read, perhaps unwisely, the presidency conclusions which were available in all 20 pages of their text. Frankly, it is difficult to reconcile the tone and content of the one statement compared with the tone and content of the other. What we have before us and what was being discussed at Tampere is a major step towards "freedom, security and justice" throughout the whole of the European Union area. "Freedom, security and justice"—I thought that I had been living all my life in an area of freedom, security and justice. Therefore, I have a somewhat lukewarm approach to that claim.
But that was not the only claim. The member states also made great steps towards a common policy on asylum and immigration and, further, they set up a new body to study a charter of rights, which will be a kind of written constitution for the whole of Europe, if and when it is completed. Now there is a great difference here, is there not? I should like my noble friend to assure me and to confirm that the provisions of the protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty that was made in the names of Britain and Ireland still stand. Perhaps I may quote the terms of it. On Title III(a) of the treaty, dealing with asylum and immigration, the protocol states:
"None of the provisions shall be binding upon, or applicable in, the United Kingdom".
No common immigration and asylum policy for us! Does that still stand or has it been abandoned?
Secondly, can my noble friend confirm that the new proposals which she listed affecting Europol, the Eurojust unit and the European Police College are not just jumping off points for a European version of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the case of Europol and for the establishment of a European public prosecutor as part of the corpus juris plan, of which we have heard before? Finally, will my noble friend take on board the fact that from long experience what we have with our European friends is, first, the landing of a bridgehead in a new area of what were previously our
956
own national concerns, followed by a further attack as they march out of the bridgehead to take over a still larger area of our affairs?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend has trespassed on the time that other noble Lords may wish to use for brief comments and questions.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am tempted to say to my noble friend that, if he feels that he has been living under a system of European security and justice, he has not perhaps suffered from some of the problems of being an immigrant or an asylum seeker in some of those jurisdictions. In order to be brief, I can say in answer to all of his questions, no, there is no agreement under Tampere for there to be a common European asylum and immigration policy. There are pragmatic attempts, as was mentioned in the Statement, to try to make it possible for people seeking asylum to be treated equally in all of the different countries. No, there is no recommendation under Europol and Eurojust procedures for there to be a European public prosecutor. And, no—as I indicated in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the misreading of the understandings which were put forward in the brief summary document by the so-called "three wise men" and which has no executive influence over the IGC or anything else—there is no move towards a federal system of justice.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to get a little nearer the kernel of the matter. Signor Prodi and numerous European statesmen have said that their goal is a single European state and at every conference we see movement, little by little, closer to that goal. Now it is clear that the train is travelling faster in the direction of a single European state. If the Government really do not want to be on the train when it reaches its destination, at what stage do they plan to get off? That is the real question. Surely we are entitled to know the Government's sticking point.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I realise that it is possible for noble Lords to read into the most practical and pragmatic suggestions for basic arrangements, which I should have thought most noble Lords would support, some conspiracy towards federalism. However, as I tried to indicate in my earlier replies to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, there is little in the presidency's conclusions for Tampere that even the most conspiratorial eye could fall on and say that it fell into that category. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, there is even in this document, which is causing such excitement, the informal recommendations of the "three wise men". There is absolutely no indication, for example, of the three matters which I should have thought would have been central to the establishment of some kind of federal arrangement which would equate to a state. There is no suggestion of any harmonisation of taxes;

957
there is no call for a European army— and there is no suggestion that there should be an elected European government. In my, perhaps the noble Lord would say naive, view, any suggestion that we were moving towards a federal state would at least encompass some of those.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, as chairman of Sub-Committee F of the European Communities Committee, has asked me to apologise for the fact that he cannot be here. He has asked me to Indicate that the Select Committee, on which I too serve, will be looking at these proposals as part of its continuing work. Perhaps I may speak on behalf of the committee as a whole, whose membership included noble Lords of all political parties and of none. If noble Lords read our report which was debated last week they will see that we would strongly support the conclusions that were reached at Tampere on a practical and pragmatic basis and not on ideology or anything of that kind.
As a practising lawyer, one has to make a great reservation about the need for effective safeguards against the misuse of power, whether in this country or elsewhere in Europe. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House could indicate, without pinning down herself or her colleagues, whether that central weakness—the lack of effective safeguards—will be addressed. Can she give an assurance that political offences will not, for obvious reasons, be part of fast track and that, as far as concerns other matters, national courts will still be able to ensure the safeguard of a fair trial in other jurisdictions? Will the Government support some pan-European safeguards, whether in the charter of rights or in one of the two European courts, where national courts fail to provide those safeguards? Something of that kind would reassure concerned public opinion that one is not granting further powers without adequate checks and balances.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome for the proposals and his remarks on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The broad answer to his question is: yes indeed, the question of safeguards must always be developed alongside that of additional arrangements which may extend rights That is fairly clear in matters of jurisprudence as well as in every other legal and political sense.
On the question of the fast track towards extradition, the noble Lord will understand that an agreement was reached in principle. The details of any arrangements for such a procedure need to be taken forward slowly and practically, and with a firm undertaking to explore safeguards and mutual recognition of those safeguards. That has been the linchpin of the UK's proposals.
It should be recognised that when the House of Lords held an inquiry into the corpus juris proposals on combating EU fraud, the House welcomed the
958
mutual recognition proposals as, in its words, a more realistic way forward than corpus juris for building a European judicial system.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is not possible from the brief Statement made by the Prime Minister to have more than a general idea of what occurred at Tampere. Indeed, he himself says:
"A comprehensive list of the action agreed by the European Council is to be found in the Council's conclusions, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House".
I have already examined that document, and I have a query in regard to its authenticity. The document referring to the Tampere European Council is entitled, Presidency Conclusions. We have met this kind of statement before. Presidency conclusions have subsequently proved, in many vital respects, not to correspond exactly with what has occurred. At the conclusion of the debate in this House last week on Tampere, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, whether he could arrange to have the document authenticated as the true conclusions of the European Council. Can we be sure that the English text referred to is the official version of what will undoubtedly be quoted by the Commission in any proposals that it places before us?
As for the institutional implications of enlargement to which my noble friend refers, is she aware that such a lengthy document needs careful examination? The Presidency Conclusions occupy 19 pages. The institutional implications of enlargement set out by this rather queerly appointed triumvirate occupy a further 15. I submit to the Government and to the House that, before Parliament as a whole can form any conclusions as to what occurred, and as to the merits of the arguments put forward on our behalf, it will be necessary to debate the matter fully with all the documents in front of us.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am afraid that I am unable to help him as to the exact formal status of the document and the accuracy of its translation, largely because it would be difficult for me to be absolutely honest in committing myself in saying that I know this to be an exact representation in English of the Finnish original. If a further matter arises which I need to pursue with him, I shall write to my noble friend.
I was slightly concerned, my noble friend already having read the document, that his practical point about its accuracy and status related to some conclusion which, with his usual assiduousness, he had found in one version but not another. Regarding the status of the document and its translation, I can only help my noble friend in the way that I have. If there is anything further that I need to say to him, I shall of course do so.
I recognise my noble friend's wish to debate these issues at greater length and in a wider context. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the House is always interested to debate these matters and I am sure the usual channels will discuss that in the context of the general arrangement of the programme.

959
On the question of the report which my noble friend accords equal status with the conclusions of the ministerial council, I re-emphasise what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. It is a useful and informal report, but it is a report by independent individuals to the Commission. We do not yet know the Commission's response. In the context of the IGC, it will be the governments of the European Union who will decide the outcome, not the Commission. They have already agreed, at the Cologne Summit, that the IGC will be short and that it will be focused on the practical arrangements for enlargement.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House how it is expected to give practical effect to the conclusions reached in Finland? Will they be embodied in new legislation? If so, am I right in assuming that the detail of that legislation will tell us whether the suspicions entertained by a number of noble Lords regarding the Government's intentions are right? If they are to be embodied in legislation, when will that legislation be brought forward? If they are not, to what extent, and by what authority, will those conclusions be brought into effect?
Perhaps I may briefly ask about Pakistan. In view of the nature and failings of the Nawaz Sharif regime, would it not have been wiser to attempt to engage constructively with the new military regime in Pakistan to see whether it might be possible to agree internationally with that regime a timetable for a return to parliamentary government rather than to assume the worst at once—particularly in view, at the very least, of the muted response of the Pakistani people to the events of last week?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, in response to the noble Viscount's first point, I suspect that the Tampere proposals will be taken forward in a variety of ways. If we look, for example, at some of the detail of the proposals on the organisation of asylum and immigration, some are already envisaged in the Bill that is before the House. So in that instance, in a sense, we have acted and the European position is coming on line with some of our proposals in this area.
Some of the other matters mentioned in the Statement are matters of good practice. They are about the exchange of good practice and the understanding of practical institutional collaboration and co-operation, for example, on the question of exchange of information through the Europol system, which may lead to the more effective prosecution and resolution of civil cases, and on the question of small claims in the consumer field. As I understand it, that would simply be a matter of making the organisational machinery of exchange of information and understanding of each other's practice more effective. That could be achieved, for example, by utilising some of the new IT arrangements which enable Internet information to be exchanged and given good credence. There will be a variety of methods.
960
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, mentioned extradition. That would be a matter for legal change. As I said in my response to the noble Lord, that is in its early days of practical detailed planning. When it comes to the point of being put into practice, there would be need for a change in the law in that respect. My general reaction is that there would be a variety of ways of implementing these points. They are mostly about practical arrangements and the organisation of institutions.
On the question of Pakistan, the noble Viscount will be aware that we are reviewing aspects of our relationship with that country. There has been great concern about the military take-over. We can understand that there was an important need in the beginning to recognise that the military action taken was counter to all the democratic understandings of the basis on which, for example, the Commonwealth is founded. I am sure that the position of the Commonwealth will have been noted by your Lordships' House. The position taken by the Government in condemning the military take-over and urging an immediate return to democracy is supported by the Commonwealth. That is the forum in which we expect to take future relationships forward and the future development of our relationships with Pakistan.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a specific question arising out of the Statement. It relates to the charter of human rights for the European Union. Is the noble Baroness aware that it was briefly touched on at the COSAC meeting in Helsinki last week? There was little support from parliamentarians at that meeting for the concept of a new charter of human rights within the Union. People believed that the European charter of human rights, ranging over many more countries, was sufficient in itself or could possibly be amended to include other items, if necessary, rather than having a separate and parallel charter of human rights for the Union alone.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords, I am aware that there have been such concerns and that there is anxiety that there could be an overlap, for example, between the rights listed in the charter and the ECHR. However, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the working party of about 60 people, to which this Parliament will nominate two representatives, will examine the issue in detail.
However, it was felt at Tampere that there was scope for an additional charter of rights and that the working party for it should take it forward in the timeframe of looking to the European Council in December 2000. The fact that there could be perceived to be an overlap with the ECHR has already been recognised and will be taken into account if that practical work goes forward.

Greater London Authority Bill
4.32 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 117 [Duties of Authority or functional body as regards reports]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 338:
Page 67, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) Where the Assembly makes a recommendation at a meeting under subsection (3) above, the Mayor shall comply with that recommendation when making any decision under subsection (6) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 117 deals with the duties of the mayor of London and the assembly in relation to reports from the Audit Commission. Amendment No. 338 is directed to what happens when the assembly makes a recommendation about what the mayor should do.
Clause 117(9), new Section 115A(3) states:
"The Assembly shall consider the report at a meeting where it shall decide—

(a) whether it agrees or disagrees with the views contained in the report; and

(b) what action … it recommends that the Mayor should take in consequence of it".

Paragraph (7) states:
"In making any decision under subsection (6) above, the Mayor shall take account of any views or recommendations of the Assembly at the meeting".
We do not believe that that is strong enough. If the assembly feels sufficiently strongly about an issue to make a recommendation, we should bear in mind that this is a report from the Audit Commission dealing with a matter which might be of considerable significance because it will be as a result of some irregularity. We believe that the mayor should be obliged to comply with the recommendation where it is required.
We have argued with the Minister on many occasions. He feels that the mayor should be free of any power of the assembly to shackle him in any way whatever. We have never accepted that principle. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have never accepted that principle. We believe that the issue is worth raising in this context. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Lord indicated, the amendment would give the role of deciding what action which followed the report by the GLA's chief finance officer to the assembly would fall to the assembly. As we indicated, it would directly undermine the separation in the balance of powers between the mayor and assembly. I can go over the whole argument again, but as noble Lords opposite have taken a different view on balance and different views between themselves, I would not wish to go over it in detail.
The mayor is responsible for the strategic direction of the GLA and of the functional bodies. It is he or she who must decide what action, if any, to take in respect
962
of a report completed by the chief finance officer. Under our proposals, provision has already been made specifically to require the mayor to attend the meeting at which the assembly considers the report. Furthermore, the mayor must have regard to views and recommendations of the assembly at that meeting.
We have therefore already provided that the assembly shall have some influence on the matter, but in our structure for the authority the may or must retain the final responsibility for deciding how to respond to the report. I therefore ask I he noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, once again I batter my head against this wall. The only pleasant thing about battering one's head against a wall is that it is even more pleasant when one stops doing it. Nevertheless, we shall have, between us, to continue to reiterate the principle until we have finally done with the Bill. That time will arise, but we are not there yet. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Amendments of the Audit Commission Act 1998]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 339:
Page 230, line 14, at end insert—
("Studies of Authority by Commission at request of, Mayor
. In section 35 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (studies at request of bodies subject to audit) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Before exercising the power of the Greater London Authority to make a request under subsection (1) above, the Mayor of London shall consult the London Assembly.".").
The noble Lord said: M y Lords, this amendment would require the mayor to consult the assembly before asking the Audit Commission to promote or undertake studies to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management or operation of the GLA. Noble Lords opposite may therefore be gratified that we are writing in at least some influence over the proceedings for the assembly which we had previously failed to put into the Bill.
Amendment No. 340 is in the group and it places the same requirement on the mayor in respect of studies of a functional body. The Government believe that it would be sensible for the mayor to consult the assembly before requesting a study. The amendments fulfil the commitments which we gave during the Committee stage to consider the need to amend Schedule 7 in order to require the mayor to consult the assembly before requesting the Audit Commission to carry out value for money studies of the GLA or the functional bodies. I hope this is acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his gesture. It is a creep in the right direction rather than a bold step where man has feared to go before. Nevertheless, anything is welcome and to that extent, the amendments are welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 340:
Page 230, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) the London Assembly; and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 120 [Summary statement of accounts of Authority and functional bodies]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 341:
Page 68, line 18, at end insert ("except to the extent that the Authority would be required to prepare a statement of accounts under any other enactment or under regulations made under any other enactment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 341 is on the Marshalled List because we do not believe it is necessary to say in the Bill that for each financial year the authority shall prepare a summary statement of accounts. The authority is required to keep its accounts under so many Bills that if I were to list them we might be here for a long time. I do not believe that that would be helpful.
I do not suppose the Minister will accept the proposal but, as I have said elsewhere, we have a tendency in the Bill to duplicate work done only recently in this House. There are endless local government finance Bills which cover the point. I agree that the Bill seems to be a "catch-everything" Bill and probably other parts of it duplicate the requirements elsewhere. I had thought that the requirement to keep proper accounts—even a summary statement of accounts—was covered perfectly adequately under all forms of existing legislation dealing with local government finance. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this Bill has to do with the unique situation of the authority. The summary statement provided for in this clause will not duplicate any arrangements in the Bill or elsewhere under which the authority and functional authorities must prepare their accounts. Our intention is that the summary referred to in the clause should provide a short, readyto-read statement of the overall financial position of the authority and the functional bodies, thereby improving accountability. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that it will not be pursued.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am quite sure that the amendment is unnecessary. Equally, I am unsure whether the clause is necessary. However, that is merely a difference of degree between the Minister and myself. It is a common form of disagreement between the two sides of this House in considering the Bill. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 342:
Before Clause 122, insert the following new clause—
AMENDMENT OF CROSS-REFERENCES TO PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER I OF THIS PART
(" .—(1) In section 31(10)(a) of the Local Government Act 1999 (which refers to a provision of this Act which has since been renumbered) for "70(8)" there shall be substituted " 71(8)".
(2) Schedule (Amendments to Local Government Finance Act 1992) to this Act (which contains amendments to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 correcting references to provisions of this Act which have since been renumbered) shall have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 342 I shall speak to Amendment No. 360 which is grouped with it. Earlier this year the Local Government Act 1999 received Royal Assent. Part II of that Act refers to the budget requirement and tax-setting provisions of the GLA Bill: first, in Section 31 and, secondly, at several points in Schedule 1. Due to the insertion of a new clause in this Bill during Committee the numbers of the GLA budget requirement and tax-setting clauses have changed. These changes need to be reflected in the Local Government Act 1999, which is the purpose of these amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 342.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, Amendment No. 360 deals with all the amendments to the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It is almost impossible to check them in intimate detail. I confess to the House that I have been unable to do that—I reiterate a point that has been made so often—because of the detail and complexity of the Bill and the limited time available. I do not apologise for reiterating that point. It would have been nice to have had these amendments much sooner than we did, a fact of which we are all aware. I hope that I do not repeat that point, and I shall try to avoid doing so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 126 [General transport duty]:
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 342A:
Page 70, line 6, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections 254(4) and 255(3),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment and in doing so will speak also to my Amendments Nos. 496 and 511. Yesterday, The Times carried a letter from my good friend Nick Raynsford, MP, in which, listing what he sees as the "big three issues London faces" in electing a mayor, he puts transport first, the priority, as it were, of priorities. Nowhere is that judgment more strongly endorsed than among disabled and older people in London.
My noble friend Lord Whitty is aware of my interest in this Bill, as a patron for many years of Greater London Action on Disability (GLAD) and as the author of the Orange Badge Scheme for parking concessions for disabled people, which I legislated for in my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. My noble friend knows, too, from my comments in Committee that it was the nightmare for disabled people of the exclusion of four inner London boroughs from that scheme which prompted my Amendments Nos. 496 and 511, exempting as they do both from road user charging and workplace parking levies disabled people who rely crucially on cars for their independence.
In addition to the support of disability organisations and Age Concern, my amendments have the hacking of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The amendments recognise, in the words of the Joint Committee on Mobility for Disabled People (JCMD), over which Sir Peter Large has long presided with such distinction, that to impose charges and levies on disabled motorists with severe walking difficulties, for whom the private car is the only viable way of getting around, would be a cruel and unavoidable tax on disability.
The JCMD believes, as I do, that all such people should be exempted from road user charging and workplace parking levies throughout London. In a letter to me before the Bill's Committee stage, it applauded the Government for consulting on how this might be arranged, but added:
"If disabled people are to avoid being penalised in one area and not another, or penalised to a different extent in one area compared with another, it will be essential to agree a single national exemption scheme which must apply in and throughout London".
Happily, in my noble friend Lord Whitty we have a transport Minister who is at one with the organisations for disabled and older people in recognising that exemption from charges and levies for people who rely on cars for their independence ought to be decided, not by personal whim, but by the political will of Parliament. This is basically what my amendments are about.
Since my amendments were first debated in Committee, when my noble friend promised carefully to consider the case that I had argued for them, he has been as good as his word in writing to inform me that,
"The Government will endeavour to agree the structure of concessionary arrangements for disabled persons in local authority schemes in time for them to be included in the GLA Bill at Lords Report".
That was a most welcome reassurance in relation to these amendments, and I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House who have taken part in our debates on the problems and needs of London's disabled and older people will honour him for it. More especially, I know that my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth will be as appreciative as I am of his warmth and helpfulness at the meeting we had with him last week at the DETR, at which we were accompanied by leading representatives of GLAD, the JCMD, Dial-a-Ride, Taxi-Card Users and Age Concern. I look forward very much to my noble friend's further response to the amendments this afternoon. Meanwhile I understand that a helpful further letter from my noble friend about them is on its way to me even as I speak. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am quite sure that the House already knows that the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, are shared by those on this side of the House. I do not intend to
966
spend a lot of time on the matter. The Minister is aware of my views on the amendment, which I strongly support.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I also support the amendment. It is right to disclose that, like the noble Lord Morris of Manchester, I am a patron of Greater London Action on Disability, formerly the Greater London Association for the Disabled. That body is concerned that in our largest city there are several hundred thousand people who suffer from disabilities of one kind or another. It must be the responsibility of the new Greater London Authority to do what it can to help them. We are aware that under the general law of the country there are various provisions and administrative efforts made in order to provide disabled people with transport. I am so old that I remember that it was almost impossible for a person with disabled legs to get in and out of an ordinary railway carriage. Matters have improved somewhat since then. But a great deal of vigilance is needed and much more needs to be done. In considering this part of the Bill dealing with transport, I hope that the Government will bear in mind that perhaps the greatest current problem they have to deal with is the provision of transport for disabled people. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has said.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too support these amendments. There are more and more disabled people because we are becoming an elderly population. Disability comes with old age as well as to young people. There is great concern about parts of the City of London and London being closed to traffic. People cannot drive up to various theatres in London now which is causing considerable concern to disabled people, to those who help them and to taxi drivers. I hope that these amendments will be accepted.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I also hope that these amendments will be accepted. Like the noble Baroness, I shall not take up your Lordships' time by reiterating the reasons for supporting them. If the Minister is minded not to accept them, can he tell me whether the term "efficient" in Clause 126(1) requires the kind of consideration to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, referred to be taken into account by the mayor? It may be that my question would be better directed during the debate on a later group of amendments which includes the Minister's own amendment. It would be helpful to know how the Government interpret the term "efficient" in the context of the issues to which noble Lords have referred.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support this group of amendments. As I understand it, it is government policy to encourage the disabled to work and not rely solely on benefit. It would be a great disincentive to work if those who require their own private transport because of their disabilities have to pay additionally for the use of the roads and a parking place at their

967
place of work. If the Government do not accept these amendments it will be a considerable discouragement to the disabled who wish to work. It should be borne in mind that once they are working they will no longer be such a burden on the state but in fact will be supporting it in the taxes that they pay on their earnings.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and other noble Lords have made a powerful case. It is clear that some disabled people will have no alternative but to use specialised vehicles. They will not be deterred from using their cars because of the charges. Therefore, there is little point in raising them against such people. However, if this amendment is agreed to, the Secretary of State will have to be careful concerning those whom he exempts from charges. We do not want a free-for-all.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for raising these issues and for referring in a positive way to the discussions that we have had. Many noble Lords will recognise that the Government accept almost everything that has been said in the debate so far. We wish to provide an accessible form of transport for the disabled and the elderly.
Following the meeting to which my noble friend referred, we undertook to table amendments relating to a number of matters. We shall come to some of them later. They deal with the requirement on the mayor for consultation with disabled groups and on the timetable for providing such accessible transport.
As regards the specific issue of exemption from road user charging, substantive parts of my noble friend's amendments come later on in the chapter dealing with road user charging. I gave an undertaking during Committee stage and subsequently to endeavour to agree the structure of any national exemptions to road user charging for local authorities in time for them to be included in this Bill. However, that has not been possible because of the need to give wider consideration to the national picture. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that it is essential that any exemptions are clearly defined, equitable, practical to implement and not open to abuse, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said.
However, given that we do not as yet have a national structure, I am pleased to be able to inform the House today that the Government have tabled amendments which I believe will be taken on Thursday as regards the road user and congestion charging section of the Bill. They deal specifically with the points that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, raised. The amendments will make it clear that the Secretary of State can specify an exemption from charges for disabled persons. They will ensure that a national exemption will be the same in and outside London, which I believe was the main point that my noble friend and others were concerned about. Therefore, regulations will be made under that provision which
968
arises from our new amendments. We shall prepare them once the structure for the national concessionary arrangements has been finalised. That will be before any charging scheme is introduced in London. It is still possible for the mayor to grant exemptions in London that do not apply nationally, but the national exemptions will provide the minimum, which I am sure will meet most of the requirements raised during this debate.
Debating the amendments at the start of Part IV of the Bill has enabled me to outline the changes which the Government propose later on in the Bill. However, that has slightly pre-empted the other amendments tabled for today and probably Thursday, depending on the progress of the Bill. In substantive terms, it is better to bring in those amendments at that point rather than now. I believe that my noble friend viewed this amendment as a paving amendment and for raising these matters at the beginning of the transport section of the Bill. We have had the opportunity to deal with that. However, I suggest that we deal with the substantive points either in terms of my noble friend's other amendments or, preferably from my point of view, in the terms that the Government have now tabled which noble Lords will not yet have had time to consider.
I reply briefly to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The word "efficient" in Clause 126(1) is a wide term which encompasses efficient and effective policies in all areas. In Clause 127 the mayor is specifically required to pay particular attention to the concerns of those with mobility problems. Taken together they meet the requirements that she was seeking. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the more logical way to proceed is to look at the new amendments and deal with them when we reach the road user charging part of the Bill. I hope my noble friend will accept that. I thank him very much.
I also wish to put on record my thanks to those who came to see me two or three weeks ago concerning this issue. I believe that we have made progress. I hope that noble Lords agree that the Bill is better for that. There is now a clear duty on the mayor and TfL to provide accessible transport for the disabled citizens of our capital.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, at our meeting last week at the DETR my noble friend explained why timing makes it impossible to legislate now for national exemptions. We fully understood his difficulty in that regard. Moreover, I know that he will move as quickly as he can. I am most grateful to him for his response to the amendments and agree entirely with him that it will be best for definitive decisions to be taken later on the government amendments that he has now announced that he will be tabling.
I shall not be pressing Amendments Nos. 342A, 496 or 511 because we have received a far better response to the amendments than most people ever expected. Clearly their purpose is endorsed by the Minister and I believe that what we sought to achieve by the

969
amendments will be met. Again, I thank my noble friend very much for all his help and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 342B:
Page 70, line 7, after ("safe,") insert ("accessible,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister has referred to the slight discomfort we feel because of the way the amendments follow each other; they have not all been taken in one group.
Perhaps I may explain the purpose of the two small amendments to Clause 126. Amendment No. 342B inserts the words "accessible" into the existing list of required criteria for the services and facilities which they mayor's transport strategy will be expected to provide under subsection (1) of the clause. The services and facilities would need to be safe, accessible, integrated, efficient and economic. Amendment No. 343A would amend subsection (3)(a) so that the services and facilities would need to include those required to meet the needs of all persons living or working in, or visiting, Greater London.
The amendments are an attempt to respond to the concerns expressed on all sides of the House that the transport strategy should make proper provisions for the needs of people with disabilities. In Committee a number of amendments were tabled to cover various aspects concerning people with mobility problems. The Government expressed sympathy and reassurance that those needs were not likely to be ignored. But Ministers resisted an approach which would result in numerous references throughout the Bill to the needs of people with mobility problems.
The amendments attempt to place on the face of the Bill a requirement to consider the needs of people with mobility needs. I hope for a positive response from the Minister if not to the wording of these modest amendments at least to the idea underlying them. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ikon: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is important to have the provision written on the face of the Bill. Planners and all kinds of people forget. They do not mean to do so, but they forget. Therefore, having the provision written in the Bill would be helpful.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, noble Lords listening to earlier debates will accept that in the drafting of the Bill we are giving a clear priority to accessibility. In Clauses 126 and 127, the mayor's transport duties are designed to be inclusive and pick up neither mode of transport nor specific groups of users. However, while safety and integration are key issues, they also have to be accompanied by accessibility. In Clause 127 we have drawn attention to accessibility as one of the key aspects of the mayor's duty. Government amendments to that clause—I shall address them shortly in another
970
group—will strengthen further the involvement of the disabled and the need to commit a timetable to make transport more accessible to disabled groups and those with other access problems.
We have also made clear that door-to-door transport is a vital part of the picture. Again, I shall return to that issue in subsequent groups. I think, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary. Accessibility is already reflected in these clauses. With the agreement of the House, we hope to tighten that up shortly. The other provisions will be dealt with later. The provision is already in the Bill. It Will be re-emphasised when we reach the government amendments. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts that that is a better way to proceed.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am not sure that I accept that it is a better way to proceed. I do not think that "safe" means the same as "accessible". They are two quite different parts of a programme for transport. I am sorry that we are unable to put the word "accessible" in this part of the Bill. It would make a bold statement on the broad aims of the transport strategy. However, I am aware that the Minister has another amendment. We look forward to hearing what he says in proposing it. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 343:
Page 70, line 8, at end insert—

("( ) In developing and implementing policies in accordance with subsection (1) above the Mayor shall consult Transport for London as to its proposals to exercise borrowing powers pursuant to section 139(3A).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 359. The amendment relates to financing investment in London's transport. The amendment provides that the mayor will consult Transport for London on proposals to exercise borrowing powers. The second of my amendments sets out that in addition to its powers as a local authority, and subject to the approval of the mayor of the assembly, Transport for London may borrow money in the market for investing in improved transport in Greater London.
The importance of improving transport in our capital city can hardly be understated. Without improvement we are all aware, I believe, that there will be little incentive for travellers to leave the car at home and to choose another mode of transport. We are aware of the effects on air quality, and so on, of congestion on our streets. We are aware of the effects on social development. The ability to participate in activities may be affected by difficulties in travelling and being able to afford to travel; and we are aware of the need for improvement in transport as part of a programme of regeneration. If there is poor transport, a lack of variety of modes or inadequate connections, it must affect the regeneration of an area. In other

971
words, environmental, social and economic considerations are at the heart of the new authority's principal purposes.
Sadly, in addition, in the past two weeks there has been much increased public focus on the need for investment because of concern that lack of investment may mean a failure in safety standards. The priority must of course be safety. I believe that we would all agree on that. Doubts about safety impact on road congestion. If prospective rail and Tube travellers are concerned about the safety of the mode of transport, they may choose—possibly wrongly, given the statistics—to stay in their cars.
The GLA and its constituent parts are subject to the local authority finance regime. That should include credit approvals—in other words, approvals by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has control over the various categories of approval that can be given.
During the previous stage of the Bill, the Government made a point of not treating the GLA differently from other local authorities. I believe that it is different, in particular with regard to transport in London. None of our other cities has a transport system on the same scale or with the same scale of need for investment. That is not to say that other cities do not have problems, but let us get London right.
The unreliability and sheer discomfort of travelling in London are great. I know of people who, having moved job to work in London, are staggered by the difficulties involved in getting there. A great deal of discomfort was suffered this summer by the lack of air conditioning in the Underground.
I accept that investment is not the only approach to improving transport. Integrating land use and transport, changes in working practices and so forth are all important, but they are relatively small beer. We need investment not just to increase comfort but capacity; to improve signalling and rolling stock; to improve throughput; and to improve travelling conditions.
I accept that good work is being undertaken in the bus system in London. But there, too, a great deal is needed to improve the services and, I suggest, to assist in a cultural shift. One of the problems with buses is that so many of us view them as a poor relation and not the mode of first or obvious choice.
The amendments propose new borrowing powers which are limited to Transport for London; in other words, limited to the objective of improving our transport. It is true that one can go to the Secretary of State for permission to borrow; true that one can go to the Public Works Loan Board; and true that one can work with the private sector and use PFI initiatives. However, we know that those are not entirely straightforward.
In recent correspondence from the Minister, the description of the finance regime suggests that the Bill provides a robust system for controlling the use of credit by the GLA and functional bodies but one
972
which at the same time provides flexibility in deciding how to finance capital spending based on the well established local authority model.
Last week, in responding to the limited amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, relating to borrowing against a future income stream, the Minister said:
"I believe that the noble Lord can rest assured that the Government recognise both the economic and political imperatives".—[Official Report, 14/10/99; col. 654.]
I am aware of plans to publish a consultation paper on local government finance next year, but I do not believe that assurances that the Government understand the imperatives are sufficient unless Transport for London is in a position to use the widest possible range of sources of finance.
The Government are designing a new sector of government for our capital city. I applaud them for that, even though I do not agree with the structure. However, their continuing hold on the purse strings, and on the pen which signs on borrowing, lies ill with the claim that London is being allowed to run itself. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we are to some extent revisiting the territory dealt with a few days ago in the early hours of the morning. It was the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere. Admittedly, his amendment was slightly narrower and proposed borrowing against the revenue from road-user charging and workplace levies. On the other hand, the noble Baroness's amendment is wide ranging in its ability to borrow, well outside the normal requirements of local authority finance. Nevertheless, their objectives are the same and, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, we accept the basic argument that upfront expenditure on public transport and other infrastructure is absolutely necessary not only in order for the road-user charging system to work, but also for it to be politically acceptable. It was in that sense that I used the words "political and economic imperatives" the other night.
We accept that new charging schemes must be associated with improved public transport, which means investment. Of course, £5 billion-worth of investment is in the pipeline for London's public transport. In addition—and the noble Baroness slightly dismisses them—there is a range of possibilities within the Bill and the local authority finance structure for the GLA and the mayor to acquire additional moneys for spending on upfront investment. There are the credit approvals, which can be allocated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of TfL; there is additional funding through the GLA transport grant; and there are many forms of PFI which, provided they meet the criteria, TfL would be able to extend and mobilise as new forms of capital in order to engage in public transport infrastructure investment.

973
There is a bit of a presumption lying behind some of the criticism and perhaps behind the amendment. There is a misapprehension that no funding will be available for TfL to carry out these early improvements and that we must wait until revenue streams come in before we can spend the money. It is true that we anticipate that once the road-user charging systems are up and running, there will be a recycling, and hypothecation will lead to a self-sustaining system. Nevertheless, we accept the case that there should be upfront expenditure.
We disagree with the noble Baroness—and I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, the other night—that we need additional powers to mobilise the capital for that purpose. We believe that without breaching normal local government rules, without providing anything that is not already provided within the Bill, substantial resources will be available to TfL to provide for that infrastructure when added to the allocations which my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already made to improve the private and public transport sectors within London. Therefore, I do not believe that it is necessary to give the widesweeping borrowing powers, which the noble Baroness's amendment would allow and which would place the GLA in a category so substantially different from the rest of local government as to prove a problem. I therefore hope that she will not pursue the amendment but accept our intention that the pattern of expenditure will be the same as hers. Furthermore, our understanding of the acceptability of road-user charging in particular is the same as hers. I hope that she will not pursue the amendment today.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should not wish to suggest that the Minister does not believe wholeheartedly in what he is saying. I accept his assurances that the Government believe they have all that is necessary to enable the GLA and in particular TfL to invest. He talks about a range of possibilities. Apart from the public finance initiatives, those are all subject to the Secretary of State, which is our main objection and underlies the amendment.
I do not make the presumption that no funding will be available, but my amendment stems from the sheer scale of the programme. I accept that it may be possible to borrow against an income stream from road-user charging, but there are many unknowns about that. I accept that the Secretary of State may decide that plenty of funding will flow. What I do not see in the Bill is the opportunity for Transport for London to get to grips with the job and do it without having to go cap in hand to central Government. The Minister says that we need to understand that the amendment would put the GLA into a category substantially different from local government. I suggest that Transport for London, in particular, is in a category substantially different from local government.
We on these Benches feel strongly about this issue and, for that reason, given the stage vie have reached in the Bill, we wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 343) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Alderdice, L.

McNally, L.

Avebury, L.

Maddock, B.

Barker, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Bradshaw, L.

[Teller]

Calverley, L.

Morris, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Newby, L.

Carlisle, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ogmore, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Coleridge, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Dholakia, L.

Razzall, L.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Rennard, L.

Geraint, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grey, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hampton, L.

Swansea, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taverne, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

[Teller]

Jacobs, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thurso, V.

Leigh, L.

Tordoff.L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Elder, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Alli, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Amos, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ampthill, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Filkin, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gale, B.

Bach, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Barnett, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Goudie, B.

Berkeley, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Borrie, L.

Grantchester, L.

Brett, L.

Gregson, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Brookman, L.

Hacking, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hardy of Wath.L.

Burlison, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Hayman, B.

Christopher, L.

Healey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L

Crawley, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Davies of Coity.L.

Hoyle, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L

Desai, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L

Dixon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lora

Donoughue, L.

Chancellor)

Dormand of Easington, L.

Islwyn, L.

Dubs, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

975

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Privy Seal)

Prys-Davies, L.

Jeger, B.

Puttnam, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Judd, L.

Rea, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Richard, L.

Kintore, E.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Laming, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Serota, B.

Lipsey, L.

Shannon, E.

Lockwood, B.

Shepherd, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Longford, E.

Simon, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stair, E.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

[Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Marsh, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thornton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Uddin B

Milner of Leeds, L.

Varley, L.

Molloy, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Monkswell, L.

Walpole, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Warner, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Whitty, L.

Nicol, B.

Wilkins, B.

Parry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 343A not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 344:
Page 70, line 15, after ("London") insert (", including—

(i) those required for the protection of vulnerable road users, and

(ii) those required to promote interchange between different modes of transport").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment involves further changes to Clause 126(3). It ensures that the services and facilities which the transport strategy should provide will include, as well as those already on the face of the Bill,
"those required for the protection of vulnerable road users, and … those required to promote interchange between different modes of transport".
Again, those two subjects—vulnerable road users and/or cyclists; not cycling but cyclists—were mentioned on a number of occasions, as was the question of interchange facilities, during the course of our debates in Committee.
I believe we all know what "vulnerable road users" are. Broadly speaking, they are those people who always come off worst in a collision; those who, in other words, are not protected by the carapace of a car, bus, lorry or other such vehicle.
My argument in wishing to amend the Bill in this way is parallel to the argument which I used when proposing Amendments Nos. 242B and 243A. Once again, it is an attempt to have an important concern expressed by Members during the Committee stage placed in an economical and brief way on the face of the Bill at an early stage in the Bill. I believe that noble Lords understand those arguments. I have used them already in connection with the other amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having been here at the very beginning of her introduction of this amendment. However, I had studied it before she moved it. I well understand the good intention behind it but, if I may say so, from the drafting point of view, it produces a slight difficulty. It refers to,
"the protection of vulnerable road users".
In the experience of all of us, all road users are vulnerable in one way or another. One cannot get away from that. I say with deep respect that I believe that the amendment would make more sense if it referred just to "the protection of road users".
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. At the previous stage of the Bill she and I tabled a number of amendments. I believe this is a very constructive compromise of all those amendments which were produced at an earlier stage. Given the importance of cycling in the context of London and the mayor's duties, I shall take some time—not too much, I hope—to flesh out what the noble Baroness has said. I have, therefore, put my name to this amendment.
At previous stages of the Bill, I have been able to speak with the support of the cycling fraternity—in particular the LCC, which, as all noble Lords probably know, stands for the London Cycling Campaign. That body takes the matter seriously and hopes to use this Bill and the mayor's duties in order to complete the London cycling network and also to engage in constructive collaboration with the mayor.
I turn to the word "vulnerable" used by the noble Baroness. Thanks to the LCC, I have the benefit of having up-to-date figures for Greater London of the number of casualties who were travelling by pedal cycle and by other modes of transport. I believe that I have the official figures; they are taken from the London Research Centre report, which includes figures up to 1998. We have the official figures for all the London boroughs.
The number of casualties involving pedal cyclists up to the age of 24 has recently reduced and is continuing to reduce. However, to quote from the report:
"Adult pedal cyclist casualties are still over 50 per cent above the baseline".
I believe that that baseline is the one used in the White Paper in which the Government stated that they would reduce cyclist casualties by one-third. That is very laudable and commendable. But when we saw those figures, we wondered how big the reduction would be.

977
By drawing attention in the Bill to the word "vulnerable" I believe that the Government may be able to take the opportunity to encourage the trends to go in the right direction.
The same section of the report from which I have just quoted refers to the fact that the level of casualties for those above the age of 25,
"gives particular cause for concern, especially taking into account the national initiatives currently being taken to promote greater use of bicycles as a sustainable and healthy mode of transport".
As the Minister may point out, I realise that the word "safe" is included in the second line of this clause. Therefore, some consideration has been given to safety in the Bill. However, if the Government are trying to achieve those very commendable reductions in the level of cycle casualties, I do not believe that it does any harm to reinforce that by referring to "vulnerable road users".
Sometimes, when one produces a helpful amendment, as this is meant to be, other people then climb on the bandwagon and one feels that one's amendment is counter-productive. However, I must mention in the context of this report, which I happen to have, that there is also a reference to motor cycles. In the conclusion to the report on page 12, it is stated:
"In addition, it was found that for the third year in succession powered two-wheeler casualties increased, although they had previously shown a generally downward trend since 1989".
I realise that motor cyclists are vulnerable in a different way from cyclists. However, I believe that motor cyclists, in their own way, should be given the same consideration, using the rather interesting definition of "vulnerable" given by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, when she referred to "those who come off worst in a collision".
Paragraph (ii) of this amendment refers to "interchange between different modes". At the previous stage of the Bill, we produced amendments which might have been regarded as too detailed and too specific; for example, encouraging rail franchises to be renegotiated in dealing with bicycles. That may have been too ambitious. However, in my opinion this part of the amendment, as does the one I have just discussed, provides a very workable compromise. It provides a general exhortation and a general reminder to the mayor that the problems of interchanges, which are liable to be forgotten, should be remembered when the mayor tries to bring forward schemes.
By putting such a provision on the face of the Bill we give the mayor a weapon—perhaps that is not a friendly word to use—or a device which enables him to remind people who come forward with projects that he is under a duty to bear in mind the problems of interchanges of one type of travel with another. So I hope that the Minister will accept this compromise.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to support the intention behind the amendment. The real benefit of an idea such as this is how it will be perceived and the emphasis it will give to the subject. I hope that elected members and officials of the Greater London Authority and the local boroughs, as well as those in
978
the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will take this matter a little more seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned the word "vulnerable". Some road users are a great deal more vulnerable than others. There is also the question of education. The consultation document on safety, published this summer by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, mentioned the number of fatalities suffered by pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and so on. Of course, the highest fatalities are among cyclists and pedestrians. However, he failed to mention that cyclists and pedestrians are nearly all killed by motor vehicles. There is a difficulty of perception. I hope that the amendment will go some way to flagging up the fact that people need to take the needs of the vulnerable road users more seriously.
Recently there has been talk about what needs to be done to encourage interchange between modes of transport. I have heard that some rail franchise companies believe that they have achieved the objective of modal shift by putting up a bus timetable on the station door. That is not good enough. If this amendment shows that they must do something more proactive, as was said in Committee by a number of noble Lords, it will have achieved its objective.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I strongly support the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, but I believe that the Bill already adequately covers her concerns.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I commend the succinct intervention by the noble Earl. Broadly speaking, he has covered the point I was to make at rather greater length.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, on the issue of cycling, the Government have made a clear commitment to cycling and the London cycling network. The Bill will end the fragmentation of responsibility within London for cycling. Clearly, that covers the issue of safe cycling as well as the provision of cycle networks. The integrated transport strategy within London must provide for the safety of road users such as cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists.
The present wording refers to the,
"encouragement of safe, integrated … transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London".
Clearly, "safe" means safe for all road users including vulnerable groups.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out the slight difficulty of how one defines vulnerable groups because at various times all road users consider themselves vulnerable and indeed are vulnerable. I hope that this amendment will not be pressed because the intention of the provision in the Bill is clear from the reference to the word "safe". To include these words could lead to problems of definition.
On the second amendment in the group, the reference to integrated transport subsumes the commitment to interchanges of various sorts, including interchanges with public transport for

979
cyclists and pedestrians. I would assume that a major part of the mayor's commitment to an integrated transport policy, and to public transport that is more attractive to the citizens of London, would definitely include a commitment to provide such interchanges. Although these amendments point in the right direction, I believe that they are unnecessary having regard to what is already on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for their support. I refer particularly to the observation made by the noble Viscount, that the words on interchanges and vulnerable road users are a useful device which would give the mayor additional clout when he wants to promote such a matter. I shall return to that in a moment.
The phrase "vulnerable road users" is in constant use among transport planners. It means precisely those people who are the most vulnerable. Of course, everyone is vulnerable. One can be vulnerable in a car, but one is a great deal more vulnerable when not in a car and when one's body is not protected by a steel surround. Broadly speaking, people who fall into that category—children, pedestrians and so on—are often referred to as vulnerable road users.
Having come from local government, I am always conscious of the way in which such provisions are read and interpreted. It seems to me that an Act, a planning direction, a PPT or whatever, should indicate clearly the direction in which the Government want to go, otherwise there will always be those, in any local authority, who will not agree with the policy.
I am sure that there will be those involved in authorities who will say, "Bicycling is not important", "Cyclists are not important", or "We pay enough attention to pedestrians, look how wide our pavements are". Hence, it is useful for an officer, who is recommending a course of action to a council, to be able to say, "I am sorry, but that attitude is not in accordance with the legislation". This provision tells people about that. For that reason I have been a little pernickety in putting forward this amendment.
However, I can see that I shall not get my way, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 127 [The Mayor's transport strategy]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 345:
Page 70, line 25, 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,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall take some time to deal with this group of amendments. I want to put on record the commitment that I mentioned earlier in relation to meeting the concerns of the disabled within London and within this House.
In Committee we debated a number of amendments on this subject, and I want to pull them all together.
I beg to move formally Amendment No. 345 and speak to Amendment No. 346.
During the passage of this Bill a number of individuals have expressed their concern that the Bill is not sufficiently inclusive of the needs of people who need more accessible transport services. I have discussed those with some noble Lords present and with others. We have considered all those arguments carefully and, while we believe that the existing Bill largely meets the concerns over consultation with organisations representing disabled and elderly people, I recognise that there is still some considerable concern on the issue. I accept that there are distinct advantages in giving a clear signal about the importance that we attach to such issues. For that reason we have tabled Amendments Nos. 345 and 346.
Amendment No. 346 clearly requires the mayor to consult groups representing persons with mobility problems when preparing the transport strategy.
Amendment No. 345 explicitly requires that the mayor sets out in the transport strategy a timetable for the implementation of his or her proposals for the provision of transport which is accessible to persons with mobility problems.
I stress that these amendments are targeted specifically at the transport strategy, in recognition of the particular impact the strategy will have on those with mobility problems. The amendments, taken together, will ensure that transport for those with mobility problems will be key to the mayor's development of a transport strategy.
As it was raised, I should like to take a few moments to restate our position on transport services specifically for disabled people. In addition to the amendments, I hope that my remarks will give further reassurance to noble Lords.
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 seen as part of the mainstream transport infrastructure and not as an "add-on". That means the design of transport strategies, the design of the physical nature of transport and the access and information relating to public transport; the needs of the disabled and others with mobility and access problems need to be built in. We must not forget the reality that many Londoners with mobility problems rely not on mainstream public transport, but 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.
During our debates in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised the issue of funding for the Taxicarcl scheme in the interim period before the mayor assumes responsibility for the scheme. I subsequently wrote to the noble Baroness on the subject, and I hope it will be helpful if I reiterate the gist of my letter here.
Taxicard is currently a voluntary scheme. Those boroughs which participate in it are under no statutory obligation to do so and funding levels are a matter for the boroughs. That has naturally led to differences of approach from borough to borough, with eligible residents in some areas receiving different levels of service from those in others. Our proposals in the GLA Bill will give the mayor the ability to take a more cohesive approach—through his or her transport strategy and the boroughs' local implementation plans which will help to deliver the strategy. Each borough will be required to submit those plans to the mayor for his or her approval.
Users of the Taxicard scheme—and others like it—will benefit from the more co-ordinated approach in contrast to the present situation where decisions are left to individual boroughs. Given the reliance of many disabled Londoners on door-to-door transport, we have been concerned to hear reports that some boroughs have reduced funding or service levels in the pre-GLA period. Boroughs (including those which do not currently offer such a service) will need to bear in mind that they may have to revise any decisions they take now about funding or service levels once the mayor is on the scene. Even before the mayor is elected, boroughs will no doubt be watching carefully what mayoral candidates have to say on this issue. I therefore urge those boroughs which have reduced service levels for Taxicard to consider carefully how their decisions will impact on disabled Londoners, and what steps can be taken to mitigate any adverse effects.
I felt it was useful to cover that aspect of these provisions, otherwise the amendments may be taken to apply solely to public transport in its narrower sense. They do not; they cover also the issue of door-to-door services. Our amendments place the mayor under a duty in respect of mobility. They will send a clear message to the mayor as to what experience and expertise should be required in developing the strategy and ensure that the interests of those with mobility problems are fully represented.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, grouped with Amendment No. 345 are my Amendments Nos. 358 and 363. I say at the outset that I welcome Amendments Nos. 345 and 346. They go a long way to satisfying those disabled people who are interested in Transport for London.
I am delighted to hear that there is to be a clear timetable and proper consultation with organisations for and of people with disabilities. I am also delighted that the Government are committed to fully accessible transport. I know that that will take a few years to come through, for obvious financial and practical reasons. I am also delighted to learn that the new authority will be responsible for producing a scheme
982
for door-to-door transport. However, I hope that the Government will ensure that a proper Taxicard scheme is running and is maintained between now and the time that Transport for London is up and running or the new situation is in place. The so-called "millennium borough" of Greenwich has, I understand, no Taxicard scheme at all. It is not a policy for the third millennium. If we were starting the second millennium, it probably would not allow chariots on its streets!
Perhaps when he replies the Minister can respond to one further point, which will avoid my having to move Amendment No. 469 later on; that is, what will the position be on public transport with regard to the freedom pass for elderly people and those with severe disabilities? Will there be a comprehensive criterion for the pass throughout the whole of London, or will it still be the responsibility of individual boroughs with a disparity of treatment throughout the metropolis and consequent unfairness on different people, often with the same degree of mobility disability?
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, as my name is also attached to Amendments Nos. 358, 363 and 469 (the freedom pass, which comes a little later), I warmly welcome Amendments Nos. 345 and 346 and t hank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for the way in which he introduced them. I thank the Minister also for being so willing to listen and for the helpful meeting we had with the department the week before last. He came up with sensible and practical solutions. He said that it was right to give a clear signal. He has indeed given a clear signal. The Bill presents us with a great opportunity for improving public and door-to-door transport for people with disabilities. The Minister seized that opportunity most appropriately.
I welcome what the Minister said in relation to Taxicard. It is important to ensure that it continues. I am not a Taxicard user because I am not a resident of London, but I use accessible taxis and it changed my life enormously. I welcome the amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I was grateful for the letter sent to me by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and am glad that he read the contents out to the House. I was not able to attend the last meeting, but the previous one was of great help in discussing this issue. We have had considerable co-operation from his department which we all appreciated.
I particularly like Amendment No. 346. If we have consultation, then the genuine problems will be aired and people will be made aware of whether or not things are working. The timetable in Amendment No. 345 is a practical matter. We all hope and expect to see equal access, on which my noble friend Lord Swinfen commented—Amendment No. 358—but difficulties will arise. For instance, it may not always be possible to install a lift at an underground station.
I draw the Minister's attention to the speech made earlier today by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she went into the question of how disability can occur at any age, but is very often linked with old age.

983
The basic freedom passes for everyone are one of the real essentials. They have saved the boroughs an enormous amount of money in terms of social services because they have kept people mobile and enabled them to get around on their own. They are therefore very worthwhile. I believe my noble friend Lord Swinfen, when he referred to freedom passes a moment ago, was speaking of freedom passes for younger people with disabilities or who were disadvantaged rather than those of retiring age.
I have one question for the Minister about freedom passes for people of ordinary retiring age. Some of the boroughs that I have come across are definitely not issuing these passes to men at the same age as applies to women. I know that the European Court took a decision in this respect as regards swimming pools, and so on, and said that equal benefits should be available to men and women at the same age. However, certain boroughs have been a little reluctant to implement the policy. I hope that the GLA will change that and make the age of eligibility for these passes the same for men and women.
I know that there is talk about the retirement age for women being extended to 65, so it is possible that the age of eligibility will go up rather than come down; but it is really an issue of equality. Nevertheless, I support the amendments and thank the Minister again for what he has done on this issue.
6 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Gardner, are really the experts in this matter. Those of us who have tried to help them in their efforts have never ceased to be astounded by their persistence and endurance in putting forward such matters. I believe that they and those whom they represent have now, to some extent, got their reward for the long hours of hard work. I join with other speakers in thanking the Minister for having listened to these concerns and for having reflected them in these amendments.
I very much welcome the timetable for the implementation of the proposals contained in the transport strategy. That is a small but important addition to the duties of the mayor when proposing and carrying out his strategy. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, mentioned the fact that men and women should be able to obtain a bus pass at the same age. I should point out that this question will be raised later when we reach Amendment No. 468A.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we on these Benches also believe in comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for all disabled people. The challenge is to ensure that proper provision is made. Therefore, we welcome the Government's amendment, which was moved by the Minister, and the way in which the noble Lord has paid
984
attention to the concerns expressed by my noble friends Lord Swinfen and Lady Gardner of Parkes and by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the comments from noble Lords about these two amendments, which are widely acceptable and which will, undoubtedly, send a clear signal to the mayor about the priority that he needs to give to those with mobility and accessibility problems of all sorts, especially the disabled. I believe that both amendments were generally supported, although the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, drew us into an area which will actually be addressed later in our proceedings with his own amendment and, indeed, with others from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.
Perhaps I may say a few words here in that respect because, clearly, there is an overlap. There is indeed concern about the future of concessionary travel arrangements and the freedom pass. The Bill provides for the existing scheme to continue. Decisions on eligibility are currently with the boroughs. I understand that GLAD has undertaken research on this to ascertain where there are differential areas, and it will be necessary for us to consider the outcome.
However, the Bill also provides for the boroughs to set up a joint committee on the future of the scheme which will, of itself, lead to a more comprehensive and integrated approach. Such a committee will take votes by way of qualified majority voting, but I shall explain that in more detail when we reach that part of the Bill. Although we are not directly imposing a single scheme through the authority, the boroughs will still have the prime responsibility. I believe that that mechanism may well prove to deliver many of the objectives sought by the noble Lord and by other speakers who have taken part in this debate.
I turn now to the question of the retirement age. This is a somewhat wider question and one to which we shall return. In this particular scheme—probably in all schemes—it is the case that eligibility is linked to retirement age. That is probably a wider problem, which can be resolved either now or when we come to deal with the appropriate amendment.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 346:
Page 70, line 28, at end insert—
("(3A) In preparing or revising the transport strategy the Mayor shall consult'—

(a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and

(b) such other persons or bodies which represent the interests of persons with mobility problems as he considers it appropriate to consult;

and this subsection is without prejudice to section 34 above.").
Clause 128 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 347::
Page 70, line 36, leave out ("direct") and insert ("request").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 348 and 349, all of which relate to making the

985
Secretary of State's powers a matter of "request" rather than of direction. Amendments Nos. 350 and 351 tabled by the Conservative Front Bench are included in this grouping, the first of which proposes to make a direction by the Secretary of State subject to a veto by the assembly. The second amendment, Amendment No. 351, proposes to delete Clause 128 entirely. I should say that I fully support their approach to the clause.
We moved a similar amendment in Committee. At that stage, I asked why it was necessary to have such a provision in the Bill given the fact that the provisions of Clause 33(5) require the mayor to bring national policies into his strategy. Clause 128 deals with the situation where the transport strategy is inconsistent with national policies relating to transport and that inconsistency is detrimental to an area outside London.
I also pointed out in Committee that, if areas outside London were affected by the mayor's strategy, it seemed to me that he should be negotiating directly with those concerned. We would expect adjoining local authorities to undertake neighbourly discussions—I do not believe that other local authorities are subject to specific direction in quite this way—if one starts on a course which might affect its neighbour. I make this point quite seriously. It seems to me that the very process of negotiation is part of policy development. I do not believe that it is healthy for a local authority to be subject to direction by some other body or person who says, "You shall not do that". It would be much better if authorities which have to live together, or live next to one another, were to work out a way of doing so. That view may be regarded by your Lordships as naïve, but I prefer to think of it as optimistic.
The Minister responded in Committee by saying that there is a responsibility on central government to act on behalf of the nation as a whole. He also said—and no doubt will say again—that these are reserve powers. Throughout the course of our proceedings on the Bill we have often heard that it is "inconceivable" that the mayor could do a certain thing, or fail to do so. However, I think it is only inconceivable when we on these Benches, or other opposition Benches, conceive of it. If the mayor and the assembly are so little to be trusted, are the Government really wise to be creating them? I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for explaining my amendments a little, but I should like to expand upon what she said. Clause 128 allows the Secretary of State to direct the mayor to revise the transport strategy if it is inconsistent with national transport policy and detrimental to any area outside Greater London.
Amendment No. 350 provides that no such direction shall take effect if,
"rejected by a resolution of the Assembly".
986
As an alternative—and to tempt the Minister —I have also tabled Amendment No. 351, which proposes to delete this clause. I accept that this might be a little bit of a blunt instrument, but the Secretary of State should not be able to dictate the contents of the transport strategy to the mayor against the wishes of the assembly. For him to be able to do so would undermine the integrity of the authority's strategy for transport in London.
This matter returns to one of our central objections to the overall philosophy of this Bill. If there is to be a London authority it should be a genuine one treated as being composed of responsible adults and not tied to the apron strings of the Secretary of State. I follow absolutely what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said about that. The Minister now has a choice of amendments to accept; the only question is which one he will select. He could choose the amendment from the Liberal Democrat. Benches or he could accept one of ours.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, will the Minister explain to your Lordships why he considers it necessary to have this draconian power in relation to transport when Clause 33—which the House has already dealt with which concerns the mayor's strategies—already contains an obligation to ensure that the strategies, including the transport strategy, are consistent with national policies and international obligations? It seems to me that the Government must have in mind something very particular with regard to transport and that if they wish this specific power to be included in relation to transport they seek in effect to be the transport authority for London, and the mayor and the assembly will be a sham.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to the Opposition for giving me a whole range of possibilities in terms of meeting their objective. I am sure it will disappoint them greatly when I say that I shall not accept any of them.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that, as I understand the position, the powers in Clause 33 require the mayor to have regard to the need to achieve consistency with national policies. There are no additional powers for the Secretary of State in that clause. The powers with regard to transport are much greater than for any other local authority. Therefore we consider that we need at least reserve powers in t his area. We considered carefully what the balance of power should be between the mayor and the Secretary of State. Let me make it quite clear—as noble Lords' speeches may have elided this—that these powers could not be triggered simply because the Secretary of State thinks the strategy is out of step with national policies. It must be out of step with national policies and be detrimental to areas outside Greater London. Therefore there is a double hurdle to clear before the Secretary of State could use these powers.
One can envisage a situation in which the mayor might pursue an extreme anti-car policy, or indeed an extreme pro-car policy, for the GLA. area, which

987
would undoubtedly have serious effects on neighbouring areas. Essex, for example, might object seriously to such a policy. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that ideally such situations would be sorted out between the Greater London Authority and neighbouring authorities, but where that did not occur and where a neighbouring authority could clearly demonstrate that its interests were being harmed the Secretary of State must have a reserve power to intervene in such extreme circumstances.
I regret that these amendments would remove that ultimate power. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not pursue them. Indeed it would be to the detriment of those areas which immediately surround London—and, potentially, other areas of the country too—if we removed these powers from the Bill, or left the position subject to voluntary action. As I say, I hope that these amendments will not be pursued.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am disappointed but not surprised. I knew that reserve powers for extreme cases would be mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, made precisely—but much more carefully—the point that I made about Clause 33. There is no sanction if the mayor breaches Clause 33. That makes one wonder about an awful lot of the Bill. However, I shall not spend time wondering about that as I shall probably tempt the Government to make practically the whole of the Bill subject to directions by the Secretary of State, clause by clause, and we have enough of that as it is. We profoundly disagree with the Government's approach to this matter. Having made that point entirely clear, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 348 to 351 not moved.]
Clause 129 [Duties of London borough councils etc.]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 351A:
Page 71. line 12, 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).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 351A I wish to speak also to the amendments that are grouped with it. This takes us to a new area. However, at two points during the Committee stage we touched on how the Royal Parks relate to the mayor's transport strategy, particularly in relation to highways. We undertook to return to that matter. The government Amendments Nos. 351A, 484ZA and 493D seek to fulfil that undertaking by requiring 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 authorities. The details are spelt out in the amendments. I hope, therefore, that as noble Lords expressed concerns earlier they will accept that these
988
amendments meet the situation where decisions relating to Royal Parks could undermine borough or GLA strategies in regard to highway transport in particular. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I hope that the Minister can explain this matter further. I have always been concerned about Hyde Park in particular, which is an important traffic artery from the north to the south. Apart from that route there is only Kensington Church Street, where traffic flows in the one direction, and perhaps Park Lane where it flows in both directions. All kinds of steps have been taken in the park to reduce the traffic flow. Consequently the same volume of traffic no longer passes through, but there is now quite a lot of stationary traffic emitting fumes. I know that an underpass has been proposed to solve the problem of the fumes, as people like to walk in the park without breathing in fumes. But who would make a decision on that? I believe that in time there will be demands for traffic relief measures in Hyde Park.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on a most excellent series of amendments. I expressed concern about the omission of such measures previously. I assume that they will mean that those who run the Royal Parks will not be able to close the Mall to traffic for three weeks for resurfacing without consulting someone. The person they may consult may have some professional knowledge as to how that may be done without closing the Mall to traffic for three weeks. As I say, this is an excellent series of amendments.
I have two further comments which I think are relevant. The Royal Parks Agency might appreciate that it would be nice to see speed limits enforced in the parks occasionally. We have a cycling strategy for London. There are a few white lines and a few paths in Hyde Park. However, you get to Hyde Park Corner—thank goodness something is being done about that—and then you try to get through the Mall and down Constitution Hill. Those are wide roads but they have no facilities for cyclists whatsoever. Cars travel extremely fast on those roads. I hope that this measure will provide an opportunity for the best professionals in the GLA to impart some of their knowledge and introduce some modern thinking to the parks agency. I support what has been done in Hyde Park to reduce the speed of traffic. I do not agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said; I think it is important to reduce traffic speed in a place where there are many pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. It may be a through route but it behoves car drivers to go at a reasonable speed. I congratulate my noble friend and support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to correct him.

989
I was not complaining about the speed; I was complaining about the fumes from stationary traffic. That is a rather different matter.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the amendment covers the points raised both in relation to speed and congestion. Although I am taking the amendments together, Amendment No. 493D covers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. Where the Royal Parks Agency proposes to carry out anything which is likely to affect a road for which a different authority is the traffic authority—in this case mainly the boroughs of Kensington and Westminster—it must consult with that authority. Similarly the traffic authority must consult the Royal Parks under parallel arrangements. There is no provision in statute or in the regulations covering the Royal Parks which requires that consultation.
We saw a little problem in the Mall a short while ago and, as the noble Baroness said, there are continuing problems in Hyde Park. The amendments are not designed to allow the GLA to somehow override everything the Royal Parks wish to do—they are in a special category—but they should have a duty to consult the local traffic authority and Transport for London.
Clause 137 [Implementation by the Mayor]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 351B:
Page 75, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) Where the Mayor issues a direction 10 a London borough council under subsection (5) above, the council shall comply with the direction.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which requires a London borough to comply with a direction given by the mayor under Clause 137(5).
The amendment must be right. It would not make sense were we to be in a position where a borough could totally ignore a direction from the mayor in implementing his plans.
Clause 138 [Directions by the Mayor]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 352:
Page 75, leave out lines 43 and 44.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 352 I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 353 to 357 which stand in the names of my noble friends.
The first four amendments seek to delete the power of the mayor to give directions to boroughs in respect of certain functions which we believe should be dealt with by the boroughs. This makes clear who is elected to do what and the public would continue to see who is responsible for the different areas within the different tiers of government.
We believe that the kind of detail that is proposed will cloud the issue. The mayor's role should be visionary, enabling and strategic. As drafted, the Bill enables the mayor to direct borough councils in great detail. Without our amendments that power will remain in the Bill. It will simply encourage the mayor to become involved in the kind of functions that rightly belong to the borough.
Under Clause 138(1)(a) the mayor has the power to give general directions—that is fine—but Clause 138(1)(b) enables him to give specific directions of the way in which a borough is to exercise those functions. We believe that the way in which a borough implements a strategy should be a matter for the borough.
It gets worse. Under Clause 138(2)(b) the mayor has the power to dictate to a borough which bodies or persons must be consulted about a local implementation plan. He is not suggesting to boroughs who might be consulted; he is telling boroughs who must be consulted. Similar considerations apply in Clause 138(2)(e) where the mayor may direct the borough to implement proposals within a certain time. This kind of detail is a disincentive for the public to regard London boroughs as being accountable. It will encourage the mayor to fiddle in detail.
The issue was discussed in Committee on 28th June. The Minister said that the local implementation plans would be the key to successful implementation. Clause 130 defines in broad terms who the boroughs should work with and who to consult. Clause 131 clearly indicates to the boroughs that the mayor will not approve their implementation plans unless a number of criteria are fulfilled. There follow five pages in the Bill which deal with what will happen if the boroughs fail to comply. The Government added to this in Committee by the addition of Clause 132. We tried to be more positive at that point by moving Amendment No. 247A, which stated that the mayor shall approve a local implementation plan if he considers that it meets the criteria set out in subsection (3). The spirit of that amendment in Committee was correct but the Government were not able to accept it.
We believe that if the Government wish to stick by their guns and require the mayor to issue all these directions to the borough councils, at least he should consult the assembly before so doing. Amendment No. 356 seeks to achieve this. Perhaps more importantly, the mayor should consult the borough councils. Even if it is an informal consultation, it should be on the face of Bill that he consults borough councils before he issues directions, which are inflexible and detailed to the point of telling the boroughs which people they should consult.
At a time when the Government are pinning so much on best value, consultation, public opinion panels and encouraging borough councils to go down this road, it will undermine the spirit of that approach if the mayor directs exactly who should be consulted by the boroughs. One hopes that by the time the mayor issues his implementation plan to the boroughs they

991
will have carried out a lot of work on public consultation, perhaps far more than they have to date. We feel the amendments are important. I beg to move.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. No doubt we will be told by the Minister that these provisions are here for extreme cases where borough councils do not do their job properly. However, that ignores the temptation that these powers will be to the mayor, perhaps to members of the assembly, and, more importantly, to their officials. The temptation to meddle will be enormous.
If the Greater London Authority is to be properly strategic, as the noble Baroness said, it has to stay out of details such as this. When it is given specific power to get down to this kind of detailed level, inevitably it will. We shall see a return to some of the worst features of previous structures of local government in London.
Without doubt, there was a patronising attitude in County Hall among members of all parties, and officers in particular: the belief that London borough councils were good for dealing with allotments; they might possibly be capable of dealing with pedestrian crossings provided no traffic flowed over them; but, apart from that, all matters should be dealt with by the real experts—both members and officers—at County Hall. I suspect that enshrining in this legislation the ability of the mayor—who no doubt will be pressured by his officers and the assembly members—to deal in this way with local implementation plans will prove to be an unmitigated disaster. It should be resisted and I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to change the reserve powers which we consider would, in extreme circumstances, be needed in order to deliver the transport strategy. We envisage, as noble Lords have said, that the mayor will work closely with boroughs in order to deliver the strategy. But we believe that the mayor should have effective powers. These amendments would have the effect of frustrating the ability of the mayor to require boroughs to produce local implementation plans to carry forward the strategic transport strategy.
We believe that anything that undermines the system of local implementation plans strikes at the heart of the mayor's transport powers. I hope that we have made clear in everything we have said to date about the relationship between the mayor and the boroughs that we see it as absolutely vital that the two parties work together closely, co-operating, consulting and improving London's transport. We have made it clear that the spirit and principle of subsidiarity applies and that matters that can be done should be done at the appropriate level. That is why, for example, it is only right that the boroughs will have 95 per cent of London's roads because they are best placed to deal with local matters that arise in respect of such roads. We listened extremely carefully to the
992
representations of the boroughs and the Association of London Government and we are now amending the Bill on Report to provide for the concept of GLA side roads.
One theme which has been made clear through all our policies right back to the Green Paper and the White Paper is that if the GLA is to be a successful strategic authority for London, and to tackle transport issues at a pan—London level, it must have adequate powers to deal with wider initiatives. For example, matters which straddle more than one borough. I know that all sides of your Lordships' House would not want to see bus routes which cannot be implemented because they straddle more than one borough.
As we have said before, the mayor's strategy will set out a framework within which boroughs, the Mayor and TfL can work together. However, I have to say that in the event of problems or delays in one particular area, Londoners cannot afford to have important transport issues potentially bogged down in long-drawn-out wrangling because there is no mechanism for resolution. The powers of the mayor in the clauses on local implementation plans are carefully designed to deal with that eventuality. The powers are set within a broad framework that anticipates co-operation, mutual consultation and a spirit of joint working between mayor and boroughs. However, at the end of the day there must be powers in the plans for the mayor to settle things in the interests of Londoners.
I hope that, in the light of my reply, noble Lords will feel that the amendments should not be pursued.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for his support and for reminding us of some of the important lessons of history. The Minister said that these powers were likely to be called upon only in extreme circumstances, but I do not feel that what we are seeking to delete from the Bill would be likely, in extremis, to help solve anything if things should come to such a pass.
The spirit of including such detail in the Bill cuts across what the Minister has said on the principle of subsidiarity, with which I heartily agree—it is a good principle to hold. I am sad therefore that the provisions are to be left on the face of the Bill. The Government have put in place sufficient powers to address failing boroughs by many other means, not least in the recent local government Bill.
However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and I shall read her comments again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 353 to 359 not moved.]
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 360:
Before Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule—
("AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992
Introduction
1. Chapter IVA of Part I of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (which relates to limitation of council tax and precepts and which was inserted by Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1999) shall be amended as follows.
Challenge of maximum amount after designation for year under consideration
2.—(1) Section 52F shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6)(a) for "70 and 71" there shall be substituted " 71 and 72".
(3) In subsection (6)(b) for "80" there shall be substituted " 81".
Duty of designated precepting authority
3.—(1) Section 52J shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) for "70, 71 and 73 to 75 of and Schedule 6" there shall be substituted " 71, 72 and 74 to 76 of and Schedule 6".
(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for "73(2)" there shall be substituted " 74(2)", and

(b) in paragraph (h) for "74(3)" there shall be substituted " 75(3)".

(4) In subsection (6)—

(a) for "73(2)" (in both places where it occurs) there shall be substituted " 74(2)",

(b) for "74(3)" there shall be substituted " 75(3)", and

(c) for "74(4)" there shall be substituted " 75(4)".

(5) In subsection (8)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for "73(2)" there shall be substituted " 74(2)", and

(b) in paragraph (b) for "74(4)" there shall be substituted " 75(4)".

(6) In subsection (9)—

(a) for "73 and 74" there shall be substituted " 74 and 75", and

(b) for "74(2)" there shall be substituted " 75(2)".

(7) In subsection (10)(b)—

(a) for "73(3)(b)" there shall be substituted " 74(3)(b)" and

(b) for "74(5)(b)" there shall be substituted " 75(5)(b)".

Challenge of maximum amount after designation under section 52M or 52P
4.—(1) Section 52Q shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5)(a) for "70 and 71" there shall be substituted " 71 and 72".
(3) in subsection (5)(b) for "80" there shall be substituted " 81".
Duty of designated precepting authority
5.—(1) Section 52U shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsections (2)(a) and (3)(a) for "70 to 75" there shall be substituted " 71 to 76".
(3) In subsection (3)(b) for "70, 71 and 73 to 75 of and Schedule 6" there shall be substituted " 71, 72 and 74 to 76 of and Schedule 6".
(4) In subsection (6)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for "73(2)" there shall be substituted " 74(2)", and

(b) in paragraph (b) for "74(3)" there shall be substituted " 75(3)".

(5) In subsection (9)—

(a) for"73(2)"(in both places where it occurs) there shall be substituted " 74(2)",

(b) for "74(3)" there shall be substituted " 75(3)", and

(c) for "74(4)" there shall be substituted 75(4)".

(6) In subsection (11)—

(a) for "73(2)" there shall be substituted "74(2)", and

(b) for "74(4)" there shall be substituted " 75(4)".

(7) In subsection (12)—

(a) for "73 and 74" there shall be substituted " 74 and 75", and

(b) for "74(2)" there shall be substituted " 75(2)".

(8) In subsection (13)(b)—

(a) for "73(3)(b)" there shall be substituted " 74(3)(b)", and

(b) for "74(5)(b)" there shall be substituted " 75(5)(b)".

Meaning of budget requirement
6. In section 52W(2) for "70(8)" there shall be substituted " 71(8)".").
Schedule 8 [Transport for London]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 361:
Page 231, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) The Mayor shall not be a member of Transport for London.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 362 and 366. The amendments seek to remove the possibility that the mayor could be a member of Transport for London. Amendment No. 366 completes that process by removing the requirement that the mayor, if he is a member of Transport for London, is to be its chairman. Obviously those two points would —not be consistent.
On the fifth day in Committee I moved amendments to bring together the assembly and the mayor in order to appoint the members of TfL, as reported at col. 470 of Hansard. Subsequently I tabled another amendment to remove the requirement that the mayor should be the chair of TfL. Later the Committee discussed the problems which could arise if the appeals system in respect of granting bus contracts involved an appeal to the mayor from the decision of TfL. I acknowledge that this concern at least has attracted a response from the Government, as reflected in their Amendment 410, but I am not sure that it addresses the full measure of our concern. That concern principally relates to the provisions of the Bill which the amendments before the House seek to remove.
On reflection, we concluded that the clarity of the different roles of the mayor and Transport for London would be enhanced if the mayor were not a member of Transport for London at all; hence the amendments. However, we have not again attempted to prevent the mayor from appointing the members of Transport for London, having seen the force of the noble Baroness's argument on the matter. However, in an arrangement where the mayor will take the strategic lead on a range of different issues, and an extremely detailed system of delegation is written into the Bill, it seems undesirable for the mayor to be personally in charge of the

995
implementation of one of his strategies. It would tend to blur the role of the mayor; it may potentially involve her or him in undesirable personal conflict with the boroughs on matters of detail; and it may make it more difficult for the mayor to maintain a public stance as a strategic leader of a great city. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has raised an interesting point, but I am not sure what is the best answer. There are advantages, but there are also disadvantages. It should be noted that if the mayor is a member of TfL, by virtue of Schedule 8 on page 232 of the Bill, he must be its chairman. Interestingly, the schedule refers to "chairman" and "deputy chairman".
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will not be reopening that argument. I regret that we disagree with the noble Baroness on this point. Transport is such a significant issue in London that we believe that the mayor should have the option of deciding whether to engage directly in TfL himself, and if he does so, then it would be appropriate that he or she should be the chair.
Whichever of the amendments of the noble Baroness one considers, that option would be removed. That would place too great a political constraint on the mayor's decision—making and priorities. For that reason, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I have to say that we are in dispute with the Government on a matter of principle. The position of the mayor will be weakened if he or she is overly involved in day—to—day implementation of the strategy. However, I do not think that I will get anywhere with this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 362 and 363 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 364:
Page 232, line 2, after ("London") insert ("(including conditions as to remuneration)").
[Amendment No. 365 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 366 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 366A:
Page 232, line 40, at end insert—
("(ba) any wholly owned subsidiary (within the meaning of section 736(2) of the Companies Act 1985) of Transport for London,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 366B, 372 to 375, 375D, 376 to 380, 383, 384, 386, 392 to 394, 396A to 396E, 434 to 439, 447, 463, 466, 470, 528, 571, 578 and 576. This is a fairly large group
996
of amendments. They are largely technical in nature and make adjustments and additions to the powers of TfL to fit in with other parts of the Bill.
Amendment No. 366A enables TfL to delegate its functions to sub-committees and other bodies. Amendment No. 366B deals with the ability of TfL to engage in joint committees. Amendments Nos. 376 to 378 and 386 place a duty on TfL to provide information to the public about London public transport services. That issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in Committee. The amendments also give TfL a number of additional powers, including, in Amendment No. 380, the ability to provide intermodal freight facilities, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley in Committee. Other powers conferred by the amendments give the mayor the power to distribute property rights and liabilities among TfL, its subsidiaries and PPP companies; to provide for the tax status quo to continue; to enable TfL to join with boroughs to discharge functions through joint committees; to give TfL power to make by-laws for its railways and piers; and to give TfL the power to run the London Transport Museum.
The group also contains a number of minor technical and typographical amendments further clarifying TfL's functions and London Transport's existing powers on disposals and transfer schemes. I regret to say that it is possible that we may need to make some further minor changes in that light at Third Reading but I hope that we can keep those to an absolute minimum. I trust that the House will accept these amendments. But should noble Lords have any queries on any of the amendments, I shall endeavour to elucidate. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, this is an enormous and largely unrelated group of amendments. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will speak after me on this point. We shall have to see how the Bill looks after the Report stage. We reserve the right to return to these matters at a later stage.
The Minister mentioned Amendment No. 439, which allows the mayor to approve schemes for the transfer of key system assets between TfL, subsidiaries of TfL, PPP companies or PPP third parties. The power in relation to the PPP company or third party is subject to the provisions of the relevant PPP agreement. However, it is not immediately clear whether the assets involved have to be key systems assets under that agreement or whether they can be taken out of one PPP agreement with X limited and put into a second agreement with Y limited. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has the answer at his fingertips. Perhaps he will write to me on that point.
Amendment No. 447 introduces a new schedule. Paragraph 11 of that schedule introduces a bizarrely draconian power for TfL to demand information it requires from anyone. Why? If the property being transferred is from TfL to someone else, presumably TfL will already have that information. If it is in relation to a PPP company, the governing PPP agreement should already have dealt with that point.

997
Will Paragraph 11 not enable TfL to go on fishing expeditions for information? Irrespective of the underlying purpose of Paragraph 11, we will be tabling amendments at a later stage to insert a confidentiality provision. I look forward to the Minister's explanation of Paragraph 11.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, such a large grouping is a temptation. I regret to inform the House that I have fallen into temptation. I have one or two questions for the Minister.
Amendment No. 375 inserts a new clause. It states:
"The Secretary of State may by order made with the consent of the Treasury provide that Transport for London",
and so on. I presume that the consent of Parliament will also be required for the order. It would be interesting to know whether that is to be by affirmative or negative procedure. I regret that I have not had the time adequately to research which way round the procedure will be. I am taking the liberty of asking the Minister for that information.
I find Amendment No. 386 very curious indeed. It states:
"Transport for London shall make available such information as it thinks fit which … relates to public passenger transport services".
It continues:
"The information shall be made available, in such manner as Transport for London thinks fit, to … the general public".
It then goes on to refer to,
"such other persons as Transport for London thinks fit".
I am curious to know from the Minister who these "other persons" are who are not the general public. I can think of one person, but only one. I think that the drafting is a little curious on that point.
Amendment No. 447 introduces yet another schedule to the Bill. The Bill really is growing like Topsy. Having read the schedule, I found myself trying to understand it. The second part of the schedule is headed Contents of transfer schemes. Is states:
"The property, rights and liabilities which may be transferred by a transfer scheme include property, rights and liabilities which would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or assigned".
I should be grateful for an explanation of precisely what that means.
Sub-paragraph (2) states:
"No right of reverter, right of pre-emption, right of forfeiture, right of re-entry … shall operate or become exercisable as a result of any transfer of land or other property by virtue of a transfer scheme, or any instrument or agreement made in connection with a transfer scheme".
I should like an explanation of exactly what that convoluted phraseology might mean. I think I know what it means, but my thoughts are very hesitant indeed.
If I detected a common theme throughout this rather diverse grouping, it was finally destroyed—dare I say? —by Amendment No. 528, dealing with the transfer and disposal of historical records and relics. Although I accept that historical records and relics are
998
in a sense property, I could not see what that had to do with this grouping. My thought was: what have I missed, and what are the Government trying to hide? I am sure that the Minister and the Government are not trying to hide anything from us. I trust that the noble Lord will forgive my suspicious nature. However, I should be grateful for answers to the questions that I have posed.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I welcome the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, drew attention. It enables TfL to provide interchange facilities for freight transport. It is a most useful addition to the Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was able to follow some of the issues raised; on others, I fear that I shall have to write to noble Lords. Perhaps I may deal with them in the sequence in which the matters arise in the Bill.
In regard to Amendment 386 and the question of who are the "general public", the term "persons" refers to organisations; "general public" tends to imply individuals. Such organisations may include departments or other institutions with which TfL needs to maintain information flows.
A question arises as to which assets are referred to in Amendment No. 439 and what can be done with those assets. First, perhaps I may explain that the provisions in these amendments protect the assets of TfL. We are talking about key system assets. The amendments are necessary to ensure that designated assets can he returned to the public sector at the end of PPP contracts. They provide TfL with the flexibility to manage structural organisation of the PPP contracts. By and large, those contracts will be in the region of 30 years' duration. Transfer from one PPP to another is unlikely, but it is not entirely impossible. The amendments require the return of those designated assets to TfL at the end of that period.
Paragraph 11 of Amendment No. 447 is necessary to ensure that up-to-date information about the assets is available to TfL. Any information will be included in the original PPP agreements, as the noble Lord suggested. But that information may change over time. A PPP agreement lasting 30 years may require the PPP company to provide different information from that required at the beginning of the contract.
The last amendment referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, related to the London Transport museum and other historical areas. We regard it as part of the function of TfL to provide background on the development of transport within London and more broadly. We have therefore included that provision to give it the authority to do so. Both in relation to the museum and in relation to archival material on transport in general, that needs to be explicit in statute. There have been examples in the past where it has not been explicit and such material has been lost to posterity.

999
I shall have to write to the noble Lord in regard to his reference to an order with the authority of the Treasury. There was one other point where, I regret to say, I completely lost the noble Lord. I shall therefore need to reply in writing.
As to the coherence of this group of amendments—which may not be apparent at a casual glance, or even on detailed perusal—they clarify the overall powers for Tfl, in this and related clauses of the Bill. We need to pin it down in a number of respects. Some powers are relatively minor. Some, like that referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, which was also raised at an earlier stage by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, are important powers. Some are tidying up provisions. Nevertheless, we are attempting to put in place a coherent, final picture of TfL's responsibilities. I believe that the amendments achieve that. I shall write to noble Lords on outstanding issues. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 366B:
Page 233, line 29, at end insert
("Joint committees with local authorities
8A. —(1) Transport for London shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of the following provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for discharge of functions of a local authority by joint committees with other local authorities)—

(a) section 101(5),

(b) section 102 apart from subsection (1)(a) and subsection (4) to the extent that it would permit Transport for London to appoint a committee which is not a joint committee, and

(c) section 103.

(2) Nothing in section 13 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 shall require a person to be treated as a nonvoting member of a committee appointed by Transport for London and one or more other local authorities by virtue of section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 if that person is—

(a) appointed to the committee by Transport for London, and

(b) is not a member of Transport for London.").

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 367, I should inform the House that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 368 to 370A.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 367:
Page 234, line 17, leave out from ("any") to end of line 26 and insert ("matter that is brought up for consideration at a meeting of Transport for London he shall disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting; and, where such a disclosure is made —

(a) the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting; and

(b) the member shall not take any part in any deliberation or decision of Transport for London, or any of its committees or sub—committees, with respect to that matter.

1000
(2) A member need not attend in person at a meeting of Transport for London in order to make a disclosure which he is required to make under this paragraph if he takes reasonable steps to secure that the disclosure is made by a notice which is read and considered at the meeting.
(2A) The Mayor may, subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate, remove any disability imposed by virtue of this paragraph in any case where the number of members of Transport for London disabled by virtue of this paragraph at any one time would be so great a proportion of the whole as to impede the transaction of business.
(2B) The power of the Mayor under sub—paragraph (2A) above includes power to remove, either indefinitely or for any period, a disability which would otherwise attach to any member, or members of any description, by reason of such interests, and in respect of such matters, as may be specified or described by the Mayor.
(2C) Where the Mayor exercises the power under subparagraph (2A) above to remove a disability—

(a) he shall notify Transport for London that he has done so, and of his reasons for doing so, and

(b) the removal of the disability and the Mayor's reasons shall be recorded in the minutes of Transport for London.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to the remaining amendments in this group. Amendments Nos. 367A to 367E stand in my name.
When we discussed the question of members' interests in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, expressed concerns about the scope for members of TfL to take part in discussions on matters in which they had a direct interest. The noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Carnegy of Lour, also expressed concerns in the light of that debate. We explained that the Government agreed that the current provisions were probably too widely drawn and that we should be considering our own amendments.
Amendment No. 367 fulfils that undertaking by altering the requirements for TfL members to disclose interests and take part in discussions of such interests. The new arrangements are basely largely on those that already prevail in the Environment Agency.
Amendment No. 371 is a technical amendment to remove an unnecessary reference to allowances—members of TfL will in fact be paid rather than receive allowances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has tabled some amendments to which I shall reply in the course of this debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 367, Amendment No. 367A:
Line 14, leave out ("Mayor") and insert ("Chair").
The noble Baroness said: I gave the Minister notice of these amendments. One can get into rather a muddle explaining these kinds of proposals, and I thought it would be useful for the Minister to know in advance the points that I was trying to make. First, I should reassure the House that the amendments do not reopen the role of the mayor vis-à-vis Transport for London, which I dealt with in a previous group of amendments.
My concern is with the wording of the amendment moved by the Minister. It could be deceptive. I assume that the amendment is designed to allow the chair of TfL, whoever that may be, to remove the inability of a member of TfL to take part in discussions or decisions because of a declared interest. That is a power that very often resides in the hands of the chair of a committee, usually with the advice of a legal officer. In my view, it is important to attach that power to the office of chair of TfL, rather than to the office of mayor. The current wording suggests that the mayor will waive the limitation placed on the member of TfL, whether or not the mayor is chair of Transport for London. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's helpful amendment, which is similar in content to what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, suggested at Committee stage. The new sub—paragraph (2B) appears to allow the mayor to remove the disability for an individual member. I assume I am correct on that point. That is an improvement on the original subparagraph (2) because the mayor now has to remove the disability rather than apply it, if he sees the need. Our amendments are a little tougher than the Minister's amendment, but I shall not move them. I am grateful to the Minister for going a long way to meet our concerns.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for that support and can confirm that the noble Earl's interpretation of sub—paragraph (2B) is correct.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, first raised the issue with me, I thought that that was what I intended. I am now informed that that was not my intention at all. The intention behind the clause and putting the power in the hands of the mayor is to put the mayor in the same situation as the Secretary of State, as to whether or not he or she exercises the option of being chair of TfL. It is the same position as with the Secretary of State in relation to the Environment Agency. In other words, we are dealing with a priori disqualifications or otherwise, not problems which arise in the course of a meeting. Those would have to be dealt with by the chair on an ad hoc basis, whoever the chair may be.
It is the mayor's statutory right, as it is the right of the Secretary of State in the case of the Environment Agency, to decide on the issue of disclosure of interest. That was what was intended in the clause. Therefore, the arrangement does not mean that the person who can lift the disablement—that is, the mayor—can be present at the meeting. As with the Environment Agency, the Secretary of State is not normally present at such a meeting. The intention behind the clause is slightly different from what I previously assumed it to be, as did the noble Baroness. However, I hope that in the light of that she can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, that was an interesting and straightforward explanation of what the clause means. However, it raises the question why one would appoint anyone to be a member of TfL
1002
whose conflicting interests are so great that they require the mayor, acting as the Secretary of State might do in other circumstances with other bodies, to give that person some permanent exemption from the disadvantage or limitations on his activities as a member which would otherwise arise from his interests.
It would be better to take the noble Lord's new amendment away and examine it in the light of what he said and return, either informally with the Minister or more formally at Third Reading. We shall then have thoroughly taken on board exactly what the new clause means. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw our amendment to the noble Lord's amendment.
Amendment No. 367A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 367, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 367B to 367E, as amendments to Amendment No. 367, not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, by virtue of that agreement. Amendments Nos. 368 to 370A fall.
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 371:
Page 234, line 38. leave out sub-paragraph (6).
Clause 141 [General powers]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 372 and 373:
Page 78, line 2, leave out ("(3)(a)") and insert ("(3)"
Page 78, line 22, leave out ("(3)(a)") and insert ("(3)").
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 374:
Page 78, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Transport for London may not acquire any interest in a company whose shares are quoted on a recognised stock exchange (within the meaning of section 841 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) or traded on any public market (any such company being in this subsection a "quoted company").
( ) Where Transport for London acquires an interest in a company which subsequently becomes a quoted company then it shall be permitted such period of time as is reasonable: in all the circumstances (being a period not exceeding 2 years beginning on the day when such company first becomes a quoted company) to dispose of such holding for the best price as may be obtainable. and during such period such company shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Part as a company in which Transport for London holds an interest.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 374, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 382. In Committee, the Government dropped an original provision requiring the consent of the Secretary of State to any acquisitions. We welcome that sensible approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, indicated in Committee that there was no intention of allowing re-nationalisation or nationalisation of any company by the back door or otherwise. The amendments seek to help the Government by putting the issue beyond doubt.
The prohibition on holding listed shares will avoid the risk of TfL being tempted to speculate on the stock market. However, it is reasonable as it allows TfL to sell assets for shares. That could possibly occur under a PPP arrangement. TfL may also hold shares in subsidiaries that are privatised.
The reason for the two-year period of grace is that AIM flotations, whatever they are, typically have a two-year lock-in period for significant shareholders. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as they stand, the amendments would curtail the commercial and operational flexibility of TfL. As the noble Earl hinted, the Bill is not designed to facilitate the taking back into public ownership of, for example, privately operated bus companies. My noble friend made that clear in Committee. The transport powers we are giving the mayor are targeted at delivering better transport facilities and services. TfL's power may only be exercisable in this context for the purpose of discharging its functions. That means that TfL, may need to acquire certain services. The powers are not designed to enable the mayor to embark on speculative ventures. It means that TfL cannot play the stock market willy-nilly nor can it significantly extend the means of production, distribution or exchange.
I say that because the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, indicated at an earlier stage that he feared that this would be the means whereby TfL would be able to re-nationalise Railtrack. That is a little far-fetched, given the amount of money that would be required. On the other hand, it is possible that TfL and the mayor might want to acquire an interest in a smaller transport undertaking or in the circumstances where he or she felt that it would be helpful in providing better facilities and services to London. We see no reason why the mayor and TfL should not have the ability to do that. They could only do so in the context of discharging the functions set out in the Bill and in no wider context. I hope that the noble Earl will not pursue the matter because it would restrict the flexibility of TfL.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's response and will read carefully what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 375:
After Clause 141, insert the following new clause—
RESTRICTION ON EXERCISE OF CERTAIN POWERS EXCEPT THROUGH A LIMITED COMPANY
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made with the consent of the Treasury provide that Transport for London shall not carry on such activities as are specified in the order except through a company which is limited by shares and registered under the Companies Act 1985 and which is—

(a) a subsidiary of Transport for London; or

(b) a company which Transport for London formed, or joined with others in forming. by virtue of section 141(1) above and which does not fall within paragraph (a) above.

(2) The specification of an activity in an order under subsection (1) above shall not—

(a) prevent Transport for London from entering into or carrying out under section 141(2) or (3) above an agreement with a person for the carrying on of that activity by that person; or

(b) affect the validity of such an agreement.

(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that Transport for London is carrying out, or proposes to carry out, otherwise than in compliance with an order under subsection (I) above any activities specified in such an order—

(a) the Secretary of State may give a direction to Transport for London requiring it to comply with the order within such period as may be specified for the purpose in the order; and

(b) Transport for London shall be under a duty to comply with such a direction.

(4) If Transport for London does not comply with a direction under subsection (3) above in the case of an activity to which the direction relates, Transport for London shall be treated in respect of the carrying out of that activity as not being a local authority for the purposes of—

(a) section 519 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (exemption of local authorities from income tax and corporation tax); and

(b) section 271 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (exemption of local authorities from capital gains tax).").

Schedule 9 [Miscellaneous powers of Transport for London]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 375A:
Page 235, line 28, leave out from first ("London") to end of line 29.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest. The anxiety that this series of amendments represents is from those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and myself, live outside the area of Greater London government. We are therefore deprived of a vote in the election of the mayor. Nevertheless, for some time we hope to continue to enjoy (if that is the right word) the services of the Underground. We live in Loughton which is the site of the first station on the Central line that is outside the GLA area. The people of Loughton enjoy the benefits of the service but are not actively involved in the election of the mayor. Although I have lived in Loughton for less than 10 years, there is always a feeling that that which we pay for may be affected by decisions taken on a metropolitan basis.
The purpose of these amendments is not to seek a reassurance but to put down a marker. I know that the Minister cannot speak for the future mayor of London—perhaps even a Labour mayor. He may tell me that the face of the Bill is not the proper place for this amendment. However, what the Minister says on the record in open debate in this House will go a long way. The important words of Amendment No. 375C are:
"shall operate services provided under sub-paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) at the general level, frequency, and cost to the user as did London Regional Transport during 1998, or at improved levels and frequency".
We do not ask for an advantage; we want to guard against being either accidentally or deliberately disadvantaged by the transport policy that is in the gift of the mayor. The Minister will tell us that the face of the Bill is not the place in which to go into nitty-gritty of that kind, and my noble friend and I accept that. However, there have been some bad experiences in the past where those outside this particular remit, but nevertheless affected by it, find themselves at a disadvantage. We are anxious to secure protection from either ignorance or punitive action in the field of transport on the part of anyone with power to do that.
The Minister was kind enough to write to my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest on 27th July. He said that the flexibility of the mayor of London should not be inhibited in these matters. I have no "quabble" with that. "Quibble" is better than "quabble"; a "quabble" is a bit more than a quarrel but not quite as effective as a quibble. I have no quarrel with the general philosophy and division of powers.
We are also heartened by what was written into the Bill by way of amendment in July. Therefore, some of the protections that we seek are already there. As to one of the amendments. which was quite helpful, the Minister writes:
"The significant change is that it will be the mayor who takes the decisions, rather than the Secretary of State. However, in recognition of the position of those outside London, the amendment provides that persons aggrieved by a mayoral decision about discontinuance of services wholly or partly outside London will have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State".
I say to the Minister and the House—because the House approved it—that that is a good safeguard. I do not envisage for a moment that we shall reach that stage, but it is heartening to the people of Loughton, Theydon Bois, Debden and Epping—the stations affected—that if they were aggrieved by the decision of the mayor they would have a fall back. I also welcome the amendment whereby plans for fares and services should be the subject of consultation. One cannot go wrong by seeking advice and guidance from those who are affected in that way.
My noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest and I are well satisfied both with the amendments and the Minister's understanding and interpretation of them, but we take this opportunity to ask the Minister to reinforce our understanding that the people whom we seek to represent in this instance will be no worse off. While they do not seek an advantage, they do not want to be disadvantaged in future. I believe that Barnet is also included in those areas that may be affected. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend has done a real service by highlighting an important issue which he anticipates the Minister will be able to deal with satisfactorily. However, there was some doubt which led to my noble friend tabling this amendment. Whether it is a "quabble", quibble or whatever, I believe that my noble friend wants to find
1006
his place in the history books of London. Perhaps he will do so as a result of this. He should not try too hard because he is already there.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I fully accept the noble Lord's point that it is desirable to maintain, or even improve, the current level of services. But suppose that a major employer closes down in an outlying town. Demand for transport services will be reduced, and therefore frequencies may have to be adjusted. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment precludes that. On a more general note, I beheve that it is important to avoid cuts in service that chase falls in demand caused by cuts in service.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, despite the brief absence of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I can assure my noble friend that throughout the passage of this Bill I have always been concerned to protect the interests of the inhabitants of Essex, in particular those who rely on London Transport, and especially my noble friends Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Murray of Epping Forest. We have addressed those concerns in the Bill in two ways. First, the mayor's general transport duty will shape the overall approach that he or she takes on transport, including areas beyond London. Secondly, there are detailed provisions in Part IV which safeguard the interests of travellers who live outside the London boundary. I shall deal with those two aspects in turn.
In drawing up the strategy the mayor will have to take account of national policy, including the Government's integrated transport policy. By virtue of Clause 126 the mayor will be under a statutory duty to develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport services to, from and within Greater London. That encompasses passengers and customers outside the London boundary.
To deal with the more detailed provisions of Part IV, the powers in Schedule 9, which Transport for London will use to provide public passenger transport services between places outside the Greater London boundary, are very similar to those which London Transport currently has under the London Regional Transport Act 1984. We do not envisage that that situation will change significantly. However, in recognition of the position of those who live outside London, Clause 181 provides that persons aggrieved by a mayoral decision about discontinuance of services wholly or partly outside London will have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. We believe that that approach strikes the right balance between giving the mayor operational control over TfL services and protecting the interests of those who live outside London.
I cannot accept my noble friend's amendments as they stand because, as he indicated, I have already informed him that the mayor will need flexibility to make sensible decisions on the level and provision of transport services. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that one could not set these things in concrete. Flexibility is required. To specify fare and service levels

1007
on the face of the Bill would deny that flexibility. Incidentally, it will also give the Secretary of State greater powers than the Bill envisages. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will note in that context my resistance to going down that road.
Services beyond the London boundary cannot be seen in isolation from the totality of the operation of the Underground network. Setting service standards in one area will undoubtedly have an effect on the rest of the system. That again will reduce the mayor's ability to cater for changes in travel requirements throughout the system, both in and outside London.
I hope that these reassurances and the others that I gave to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and to the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, in writing will reassure them that the interests of those who use the London transport network outside London will be looked after under the new setup. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I certainly intend to withdraw my amendment. I express to the Minister my satisfaction and that of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who is sitting in his place, that the Minister has gone as far as he can. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised the interesting point that there may be normal commercial assessments resulting in a service being reduced because the number of users had declined.
Our amendment refers to the general level, frequency and cost of services. That implies some flexibility. A decline in the number of users means that any community will expect some adjustment.
That leads me to the point made by the Minister that the Bill could not be expected to create exceptional circumstances for the outer London areas. We shall be satisfied provided we receive the same treatment as those within the London boundary. From past experience, we are concerned that opportunities have been taken to treat those living outside the circle in less favourable ways than those inside the boundaries. I can assure the Minister that I am deeply grateful for the care he has taken tonight and previously in correspondence. He has gone a very long way to satisfy our concerns and, I am sure, those of the people we represent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 375B and 375C not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 375D to 380:
Page 236, line 33. leave out ("(3)(a)") and insert ("(1)(a)").
Page 237, line 41. leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 238, line 1, leave out ("means") and insert ("includes").
Page 238, line 3, leave out from ("services") to end of line 4 and insert (", the reservation of seats in vehicles used in the provision of those services and the provision of information about those services to members of the general public").
Page 238, line 23, at end insert ("arising from the activities it carries on in the discharge of its functions.").
1008
Page 238, line 23, at end insert—
("Intermodal freight facilities
13A. Transport for London may provide and maintain facilities for the transfer of freight—

(a) from a railway to any other mode of transport,

(b) to a railway from any other mode of transport,

(c) from a waterway to any other mode of transport,

(d) to a waterway from any other mode of transport.").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 381:
Page 238. line 25, after ("land") insert ("except operational land").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 388 to 390 and Amendment No. 524. This is a difficult series of amendments. They deal with the sale of operational land by Transport for London and with an issue that we raised at an earlier stage; namely, the need for people to know how much land, major interests and buildings will be left in the hands of TfL after the transitional period.
Amendment No. 381 would limit the ability of Transport for London to develop its land as it thinks fit. That is a very broadly based power. The amendment excludes from the power operational land. Amendments Nos. 388 to 390 all amend Clause 146 which deals with restrictions on the ability of Transport for London and the authority to dispose of land. In particular, neither organisation can dispose of operational land without the consent of the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 388 provides that land must have ceased to be operational for 10 rather than five years before the Secretary of State's consent is no longer required for a sale. Amendment No. 389 limits the power of the Secretary of State to vary that length of time, but not to increase it. In other words, the Secretary of State cannot permit the sale of land which has been out of operation for less than 10 years. Amendment No. 524 allows that after the transitional period during which Transport for London is established, a list of the interests in land and buildings owned by Transport for London shall be available for inspection at its office. That is quite a severe modification of the amendment which we put forward at Committee stage when in effect we said that everything that Tf1_, owned should be listed. Now we only require interests in land and buildings to be so listed.
Arguably the most important amendment is Amendment No. 390 which amends Clause 146. It sets out a series of conditions which Transport for London and the authority have to meet before they can dispose of operational land under the Secretary of State's dispensation. Neither organisation can dispose of its interests unless it has been given not less than four months' notice of its intention to make such a disposal. In addition, that information should be made available to the London borough councils, the Common Council and bodies providing public passenger transport services. Whoever disposes of

1009
such land should have full regard to all the responses made by any of these bodies, including any proposal for acquired land. Finally, Transport. for London shall prepare, and keep available for inspection, a list of its freehold and other interests in operational and nonoperational land and buildings.
We put forward similar amendments at the previous stage of the Bill. We were correctly reprimanded by the Minister, who pointed out that the amendments had been put into the wrong series of c].auses. I believe I have corrected that mistake.
Perhaps I may explain how the conditions in Amendment No. 390 have been selected. They reflect the conditions which the Secretary of State has now put on British Rail Holdings and Railtrack in the disposal of their land. We know that the disposal of former railway land has been a matter of great contention since privatisation. The reason is very obvious; namely, that there is not very much land available on which, without any real difficulty, the track and other requirements for increasing the infrastructure of the rail system can be developed.
Our contention is that the same worries will accumulate around the relatively small parcels of land which are currently in the ownership of London Transport and which will be conveyed to Transport for London. The purpose of these amendments is to make sure that Transport for London will be unable to emulate BRB by selling land without anyone knowing how much had been sold and what the pieces of land were. In this amendment we are applying the same conditions to Transport for London at the outset as the Secretary of State has now applied to BRB and Railtrack. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the issues raised by the noble Baroness are complex. I cannot accept Amendment No. 381. We certainly want TfL to maximise the transport use of its operational land but we do not want unnecessarily to restrict the way it does that. The amendment would prevent TfL from developing operational land for any purpose, including transport. TfL should be free to develop its land as it thinks fit, in the same way as London Regional Transport does now so that the revenue from development can be reinvested in transport. We have included in the Bill measures to protect operational land.
On Amendments Nos. 388 and 389, Clause 146 also provides that the Secretary of State's consent is not required if the land in question has stopped being operational land for at least five years. The Secretary of State can, by order, vary the five-year period up or down. Amendments Nos. 388 and 389 would lengthen the period from five years to 10 and restrict the Secretary of State's power to vary the period so that it could only be lengthened, not shortened.
As noble Lords will recall, the provisions which are the subject of the noble Baroness's amendments were inserted by the Government in Committee so that the Bill now provides that former operational land can be
1010
disposed of without the Secretary of State's consent after a period of five years. That five-year period can be varied up or down.
We think that five years is a reasonable period. It strikes the right balance between safeguarding transport assets and giving TfL a degree of flexibility. However, the noble Baroness may have a point with Amendment No. 389 which provides that the Secretary of State can only lengthen the five-year period. I am therefore prepared to consider this point and, it is to be hoped, return to it at Third Reading.
Amendment No. 390 would require TfL to give at least two months' notice of any proposal to sell operational land. The noble Baroness has drawn a parallel here with last month's announcement by my noble friend Lord Macdonald about British Rail property sales. But the situation with BR is different from TfL. BR is no longer directly involved in railway operations and its residual property holdings and is not constrained in its property dealings in the same way as TfL will by other provisions in the Bill. TfL, on the other hand, will operate a live railway. Under Clause 146, it will be restricted from offering operational land for permanent disposal. The situations are different.
Amendment No. 390 would require TfL to prepare and keep available for inspection a list of its interests in operational and non-operational land. Amendment No. 524 would require TfL to provide a list of property interests.
During our debates in Committee, the noble Baroness tabled an amendment which would have required the Secretary of State, prior to the establishment of TfL, to publish a list of all property. In the debate it became clear that the noble Baroness's interests were more narrowly focused. I indicated at the time that it might still be a substantial and complex task to identify all major sites but undertook to consider the point further. Although I cannot accept these two amendments as they stand, I hope that I can now respond to those issues.
We have carefully studied the arguments made in earlier debates. We agree on the importance of clarity on the land that will transfer at that point to TfL. I can therefore agree in principle that we shall arrange for the publication of such details at the point prior to land transferring to TfL.
But as I mentioned previously, it would be impractical and probably disproportionate to compile a list of all assets, including the most minor. We propose, therefore, to concentrate on major land assets. That will require definition, but that is the intention. I shall keep the House informed of our proposals.
However, we do not think it is necessary 1 o require TfL to maintain a list of property for public inspection, as envisaged in subsection (4D) of Amendment No. 390. To do so would place a more onerous requirement on TfL than on local authorities elsewhere. In any event, if TfL were to want to dispose of any land asset it would be in TfL's interests to circulate details widely so as to obtain the

1011
best price. And, as I mentioned earlier in this debate, any proposals to dispose of operational land will be made public by means of Parliament's consideration of any consent which the Secretary of State intends to give. Moreover, the assembly will be able to require TfL to provide details of TfL property holdings, if it so chooses. Such information would have to be made public unless it was commercially sensitive.
Similarly, we see no need for Amendment No. 524, but I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured by our commitment that, in addition to the publication of details of major land assets which TfL will have on its establishment, we shall arrange for the publication of details of major land assets which will be transferred to TfL when control of the Underground passes to the mayor.
In that context, London Transport will remain in existence for that interim period and run the Underground prior to the delivery of a PPP. It will have to retain the necessary property for its remaining functions. We will therefore arrange for publication of two sets of details. The first will include the London Transport property which will transfer to TfL on TfL's establishment. The second will include details of London Transport property which will transfer to TfL upon delivery of the PPP.
This approach also takes account of the fact that London Transport is currently considering with its advisers the best arrangements for the future of its non-operational property. We want London Transport to continue to raise money from its nonoperational property as a contribution to the increased investment in the Tube which my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced last July. We have not taken any final decisions on precisely how that contribution should be made and we are still considering advice from professional advisers. But we certainly want to see all property managed in a way that will provide value for money and allow TfL to concentrate on its key task of providing a quality transport service for London. Proceeds from sales of non-operational property will of course be used to fund investment in the Underground.
I am sorry that I have had to relate that at some length. The noble Baroness raises important issues. It is important that we know what property assets we shall list, and at what point, in accordance with her wishes. In the light of the commitments I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister has given a most generous reply. I am grateful to him for that.
Perhaps I may get a niggle out of the way. I refer to the rather casual attitude to land which was once operational but is now no longer operational in the sense that nothing is going on on that land. It is precisely on such land that, if one is lucky and the land
1012
is in the right place, one can build, for example, modal exchanges for freight which is part of the currently modified powers of Transport for London.
However, I shall not pursue that quibble. I shall read the remarks of the Minister with great care. I welcome his willingness to accept the drift of my argument in Amendment No. 389 so that the Secretary of State can vary the time for which land is considered to be operational only upwards rather than downwards. That is a useful concession. I hope that the Minister will table an amendment at Third Reading to provide that.
I am also grateful for the noble Lord's response to the question of major land holdings and perhaps buildings. For the purpose of openness, apart from anything else, it is necessary so that potential purchasers who have an interest in transport—there are a number under the current regulations—can see what is available. I look forward to being kept in touch by the Minister with the progress of the proposal. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 382 not moved.]
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Young Homeless People
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to increase the availability of counselling for young homeless people.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am pleased that we have three maiden speakers tonight and I look forward to hearing their contributions. Earlier this year, I was a volunteer in a winter hostel for young rough sleepers. Since then, I have volunteered at a hostel for newly homeless young people in Soho. Previously, I have worked on several London housing estates, again with young people.
The timing of the debate could not be better. Louise Casey, responsible for achieving the Government's target of reducing to one-third the number of rough sleepers by 2002, will publish her strategy for the next three years in November or December. Louise Casey is determined that the most vulnerable are helped off the streets and do not return to them.
Counselling can help to achieve that. Indeed, without the insights that counselling provides into the emotional world of the hard-core of young homeless people, no appropriate, realistic programme can be undertaken. Young people who have never been made to believe that their parents care for them feel empty within. They feel responsible for their parents' negligence. They believe that they are guilty of driving

1013
their parents from them. So they believe that they deserve poor treatment. Why should we care for rubbish?—which is what they feel they are.
They forget their emptiness with the aid of drugs and alcohol, in frenetic activity or by eternally moving on. Those who offer kindness, they reject, attack and disappoint, just as their parents once did them. So often a relationship that might have saved them is thrown away—witness the number of good foster parents some have run through.
Evidence that many young homeless people have had the experience of inadequate parenting is abundant. Among the present intake of one hostel is a young woman whose parents had pinned her down while her hair was cut. They did not approve of her lover and wished to make her unattractive to him. Another resident in the same hostel was recently intentionally scalded by her mother.
Centrepoint's research paper, Safe in the City, reveals that in the poorest wards of 14 London boroughs, young people were four times as likely to become homeless if they reported being hit frequently; six times more likely to become so if their mother was aged under 25 at the birth of her first child; and 13 times more likely to become homeless if they reported not getting on with their mother. Nearly one-quarter of homeless people have spent time in care.
So. to capture the hard-core of damaged young rough sleepers and keep them from the streets is as much about equipping the people who deal with them with the means to cope with challenging, distressing behaviour as about providing suitable accommodation, clean clothes, food, education, training and employment.
There are heroic people working in this field: for instance, the woman with a legal training who forgoes a lucrative career in order to create a superb training and employment centre for young homeless people; and the woman who once slept rough herself and now works with a passion in a shelter. There are too many more to acknowledge here.
However, commitment alone cannot ensure that the most damaged young people do not fall through the cracks. There is no recognised national preparatory training for those who staff hostels. No educational qualifications are required. We must support hostel staff if they are to hold on to the most vulnerable young people. They must be properly prepared; they must have frequent supervision from a more experienced colleague; and at least one member of staff should be able to ask to see a counsellor from outside the hostel organisation on a weekly basis. In this way, more staff will be strong enough to be efficient gatekeepers to prevent young people who do not need help from exploiting the system. More staff would be able to enjoy and learn from their work, rather than feeling exhausted by it and eventually burning out. More emotionally literate staff would be able to avoid being placed in situations where they have to evict those who most need help.
Supervision is already widespread. There is at least one good example of hostel staff making use of a counsellor and benefiting immensely and passing that benefit on to their residents. Training, too, is available piecemeal and examples of best practice need to be applied generally. Is the Minister satisfied that the need for increased supervision, preparatory training and, if wanted, counselling for hostel staff will be addressed in Louise Casey's policy document.' Have he and Louise Casey met the foremost child psychotherapists—for instance, Peter Wilson, the director of Young Minds—in order to consult about the implication of parental neglect on policy towards young rough sleepers?
I have strayed from the ambit of the debate; I have talked of counselling for those who work with young homeless people rather than for the young people themselves. But if these young people are not to be disappointed again, if they are not to have their distrust of others reinforced, we must better support the staff who work with them.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for promoting the debate and for the profound insights he has offered us tonight. Before contributing to the debate, I want to place on record my thanks to many Members of this House who have already offered me support and friendship as a new person coming to it. That has been greatly appreciated. My thanks extend also to Black Rod, to those who work here and, lest one forgets him, to Garter himself. Who could ever forget Garter?
The debate gives me an opportunity to revisit early experiences in my career in housing aid. It is salutary and sobering to sense how 25 years on, with a society that is 50 per cent more wealthy, many of the problems still exist and are in some cases compounded. The noble Earl clearly set out some of' those problems. Fundamentally, for many young homeless people it is more than just lack of accommodation.
When we began work 25 or 30 years ago, one tended to believe that by providing housing all would be well. Perhaps that was a counter-reaction to social workers at the time. The noble Earl made clear that many, if not all, young homeless people suffer a compound of problems: for instance, no educational attainment; low incomes; low life skills; and, in some cases, emotional damage to themselves caused by bad early rearing experiences. I endorse what he said in that respect.
That places a major problem on how government bodies engage in solutions to address the situation. It is not simply a technical problem of providing more housing. I do not want to speak about national strategies because I am sure that others will do so more thoughtfully. Perhaps I may reflect on how we can promote effective local strategies. The lead role outside government and outside London will fall on local authorities. The Government, through the youth homeless action partnership, is seeking with voluntary

1015
organisations and local authorities to explore how local authorities can be stimulated to develop effective strategies.
Therefore, there is a consensus that the development of effective local strategies is central to how this matter is approached. By that is meant housing authorities, social services, the youth service, the education service and the voluntary sector developing collectively their plans for what needs to be done and putting in place action to implement them. Time is too short to illustrate what that means, but it would effectively address three elements: prevention strategies, more sophisticated assessment processes, and action to address the problems identified.
Local authorities will require support at national level and locally to implement that change. They are being offered a significant challenge to demonstrate that they can address deep-seated intractable problems in society by adopting a much more participative style. It is of course fundamental that they do so, otherwise the lives of many of our young people will be potentially blighted.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate on behalf of the whole House the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on an extremely skilful maiden speech. It is relatively easy to give a 10-minute maiden speech; to say so many important things in three minutes requires consummate skill.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, comes to this House with a distinguished career in housing in local government. What he has said shows me that he knows and understands deeply the problems that damage young people and how they relate to housing. It is good news for us to welcome new Members to this House who have expertise in child and family related problems. I hope that the noble Lord will work proactively in those areas, not only to support the Government in the many excellent things they are doing but also to prompt them to do more.
I have only a short time, but I should like to make the following points. Like old age, homelessness does not come alone. I was going to quote to your Lordships one or two facts, but possibly I shall leave them out. Many of the young people of whom we are talking have been deeply damaged by their early experiences—a point made by my noble friend Lord Listowel. Abuse of children in all its forms can cause deep wounds which affect the child's ability to cope normally as he grows up with the problems of life.
The Government have identified the problem of excluded young people who are not participating in education and training. They have written an interesting and important Green Paper on the subject. However, they have not so far linked that problem with the problem of housing. That remains to be done. There is an old saying, "No job; no home; no hope", and indeed many young people identified as not being involved in education, training or work are the same young people who are either permanently or periodically involved in homelessness.
1016
In the time left to me I should like to make one point: such young people can be very difficult to contact. They have moved out into the world, they have left school; indeed they hate the schools because the schools forced them to go over hurdles which they could not take. How do we contact them? I urge upon the Government that the voluntary sector has an enormously important part to play in that context. In many cases the voluntary sector has, or can acquire, the confidence of those young people. It can make contact and build that confidence to give continuity. Young people appreciate that voluntary service is being given voluntarily, which makes it easier for them to relate to the people involved.
Finally, I agree enormously with the noble Lord that training people to operate in that sphere is of absolutely primary importance. No project will succeed unless enough money and effort are put into proper training of workers and volunteers to work in that area.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I am a very recent addition to your Lordships' House. I was gazetted on the last day before the Recess and introduced on the first day back. I therefore spent the summer in a strange limbo, with mixed emotions of anticipation and apprehension, rather like a character from "Black Adder" awaiting my big scene.
During that time, I received many warm messages of congratulations and support, not only from the Benches on which I now sit, and I appreciate those greatly. In addition, the kindness and efficiency with which officers and staff of the House assisted my family and me through my introduction were exemplary. It was a marvellous day for all of us, and there is now a school in Lancashire where small children are being regaled with tales of Black Rod, Garter King at Arms and a wonderful palace in London which has an endless supply of little cheese biscuits.
I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, whose detailed knowledge and active concern about the problems of homeless people is well known in this House and has enabled us to discuss this important matter this evening. All my working life has been spent within the voluntary sector, and whenever I have spoken to colleagues working in that field two issues emerge time and again. The first is the many different reasons why young people become homeless: poverty, violence, physical and sexual abuse. Each one is in itself traumatic. The effect of two or more of those factors is for most of us, thankfully, unimaginable.
Perhaps the most difficult problem is that of emotional neglect. Young people who have never been properly cared for and have no concept of what a safe home is do not know what a safe home would look like and have no idea how to go about creating one. The second issue is the amount of time needed by young people leaving care or trying to get off the streets to get to grips with the demands of daily living. At a comparatively early age, and without the basic

1017
stability and social skills which most of us enjoy, the task of establishing a secure home becomes inordinately difficult.
Many young people in such a position have access to professional help from a plethora of sources, but few have an advocate or simply one sympathetic person with whom they have had time to build a relationship of trust. The problems of housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance in those circumstances tend to exacerbate those problems.
To provide young people leaving care or leaving the streets with accommodation and no support is rather like presenting a 17 year-old with the keys to a vehicle but no driving lessons, and wishing them many happy years of accident-free motoring. Such a strategy is highly unlikely to work and is best not pursued. I support the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in his efforts to achieve what I believe is a socially and fiscally prudent policy of ensuring that young homeless people have adequate access to an appropriate counsellor.
Given time and understanding, young people can create safe and secure homes. They deserve the opportunity to do so and they deserve our active support.
7.57 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House it is my great pleasure to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on her excellent and very interesting maiden speech. She has had a most distinguished career as a member of the Liberal Party, holding various important appointments, and in her work for Age Concern since 1983. We wish her well and look forward to her future contributions in your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Listowel is to be congratulated on introducing a debate on such an important subject. Many young people arrive in London today and have no idea what to do or where to go. Some manage to find out by word of mouth from other young people, others through organisations which have outreach workers. Those outreach workers work in central London at night, meet homeless young people and direct them where to go, often to direct access hostels. There are other ways of finding out about hostels. Some young people spot others who are homeless and tell them what to do and where to go. So they often help each other.
Berwick Street is a direct access hostel for newly homeless. Once they are there, usually for a short time, they are helped to find a hostel where they can receive support, especially emotional support. Various methods of counselling are used by different charities. In some cases, counselling takes several years before a young person can look forward to a future with hope.
Homeless young people are counselled in various ways once it has been discovered why they left home in the first place. There are various causes, such as sexual, physical, verbal and mental abuse. In some cases there is abject neglect, such as being left alone in an empty house for hours at a time. That is obviously frightening for a very young child. They are usually in need of
1018
emotional support so that they can focus on the future. It is found that unless they can put the past behind them, focus on the future, have an idea of what a safe home is like and live an independent life, they will become homeless once again.
Local government supports crisis counselling provided by the Alone in London Service through the London Borough Grants Unit. Will the Minister say whether central government support counselling financially or in any other way and whether they recognise it as an important part of helping homeless young people?
There is a need for more workers in this area. There are already volunteers working with many charities. Some counselling can take a long time. It is necessary to gain the confidence of a young person. Once a young person trusts a counsellor, he will often tell of his harrowing experiences, very often from a very young age. Those working with these, young people often feel traumatised themselves and may need advice on how to manage.
In many cases there is need to discover the reason for the misuse of drugs and alcohol. It would appear that the treatment for misuse addresses only the addiction and rarely the reasons for how it arose. This needs to be examined.
Alone in London, based at King's Cross and Lewisham, focuses on solving the immediate problems of young homeless people, such as finding a place to sleep at night. It then recommends the most appropriate services to help to discover the underlying causes of the young person's homelessness. Many people are needed to help with those services and volunteers provide valuable experience and knowledge.
Are the Government considering by what means the number of counsellors can be increased? A year or two ago I went to Berwick Street where I had coffee with some of the young. It was very interesting. I spoke in the debate on charities and described the problems of one young person without giving the name. The person recognised herself when she saw Hansard. She was thrilled and said, "Oh! They really do think of us."
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, it is a great honour to be a Member of this House and, indeed, to be addressing it for the first time. I too have had a summer in limbo and can say quite confidently that I have had nothing but kindness from the Members of this House and from everybody associated with my peerage from the moment it was announced to me up till now. Long may it last!
As leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council and a former chairman of the social services committee, I am conscious of the problems of the young homeless. Kensington and Chelsea has been one of the boroughs most affected by the arrival of unaccompanied refugee children over the years from most parts of the world but recently from Kosovo. Currently we are caring for 139 young people under the age of 18 who are either in council accommodation or being looked after by

1019
foster parents. Homeless on arrival, they will receive support until the age of 18 if they need it. As the council has an excellent care leavers' scheme, those young people will continue to receive support after that age, being provided also with housing and practical guidance if they require it.
Whatever their misfortunes when they arrive, those young people will be kept warm, fed and educated by the council and will not, by and large, suffer the depredations of so many other young people under the age of 25, who, for whatever reason, find themselves homeless and on the streets.
London has too many such people. While only 5 per cent of those sleeping rough in Kensington and Chelsea are under 25, in Hammersmith and Fulham the figure is 46 per cent, and that will be reflected across London. That is an horrific waste of young lives. They are vulnerable and alone at a time when they should be cared for and welcomed in a loving home. Those on the streets need help if they are to be saved from a life of permanent degradation. They need practical help to find housing, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, access to education and entry to jobs, for without that they are not eligible for benefit and have no money. Kensington and Chelsea, with the City of Westminster and the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority, has a joint homeless outreach team to do just that.
I am certain that the Minister will wish to encourage that and other initiatives, such as Centrepoint and the foyer schemes. Local authorities are well placed to support and provide those and other initiatives, and can provide the basis for those and any other proposals which the Government may have if they are funded and if they are encouraged to do so.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I congratulate the noble Baroness. I was presented with a copy of her CD—CV, rather! That is the sort of faux pas which should not be made at this point in a speech. The only thing I can say about such a distinguished leader who is active in local politics is that I wish she was joining our Benches because that depth of knowledge would certainly be of benefit to our side. I hope that the whole House will benefit from it for however long this transitional House lasts.
At present, the word "counselling" tends to be misused. It seems to be said that there is counselling for everything. When it comes to the young homeless, we talk about counselling to accept help. Every single speaker so far has mentioned the problems that lead to people being homeless. Those problems tend to be abuse, breakdown and mistrust. The idea of never being at school—the initial form of authority—is one that many people come across. There is also the idea that anyone who tries to give instructions from a desk immediately becomes the enemy. That is a discovery made by anybody who has been involved with the young homeless or those people who are at risk of
1020
becoming young homeless. The idea that parents are things to be avoided, fought against and hidden from is something which leaves one with a major problem.
For a few years I have had contact with the young homeless through working with the Apex Trust. We have tried to get young offenders into jobs. If one made contact with the very young people, it was an incredibly difficult situation. There was a core of resentment and fear, wrapped around with machismo, and then one had acne draped across the top of it. Those were probably the most unattractive facets of people one could deal with. But those young people had real problems. As has already been mentioned, if those problems are not addressed, then you are storing up trouble for the future because these people may become long-term offenders.
If you are on the streets, you do not have access to housing, to support and thus to a way of earning a living. You cannot be offered a job if the prospective employer does not know where to send the application form. You have to try to drag those young people in. The only way in which that can be done is by starting to build up some communication. That communication will not be established unless counselling and training in their true sense are taken forward here, both for those people who are homeless and, probably more importantly, for those who have to deal with those very vulnerable groups of people. It does not matter what else is done because it will not be possible to access the help that is needed. Counselling and communication are vital. I believe the noble Earl has pointed out a very grave problem.
8.8 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Listowel on his sterling works since taking his seat in this House last year and on his enduring work in raising the awareness of your Lordships to the plight of young homeless people.
Many noble Lords, including myself, spoke in the debate introduced by my noble friend about the causes of homelessness and the threats of increased drug misuse and alcohol consumption, in many cases causing young people to have a major physical, but also mental, decline in their general state of health.
However, today's debate focuses more on the need for innovative solutions, more particularly counselling, for these young people. It is a well-known fact that most of the young homeless are aged between 18 and 25. Working next to Centrepoint in the West End, I have had regular contact with many young homeless people who cluster behind our building. Many are hardened drug addicts. It has become clear to me that escaping homelessness is not straightforward.
Time restricts me from giving individual case studies. Few of those to whom I regularly speak are aware of the availability of counselling. Several complain that they have difficulties in finding a general practitioner who will take them on and, in the case of drug addicts, prescribe methadone for them.

1021
Several of them feel that the police could be more constructive. They feel that often their problems are worsened by being prosecuted for possession of drugs and in many cases being sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
I have received the clear message that most young homeless people want help and ideally want to lead normal lives, away from the streets, with more opportunities to find gainful employment. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that young homeless people need emotional help and emotional support.
One of the most resourceful research reports that I have read on new approaches to meeting the long-term needs of single homeless people is the recent publication by CRISIS, headed A Future Foretold. Among its many findings, it highlights the fact that homelessness is a people problem and not just a housing problem.
One of its many recommendations was that all local authorities should undertake an annual survey of the needs of single homeless people in their area so as to attempt to deliver solutions for the homeless. It also recommended that a national network of family mediation services be established for single homeless people run by the voluntary sector.
In conclusion, even though the Government have shown their commitment to trying to reduce the numbers of homeless people through their Social Exclusion report on rough sleeping, as well as in the consultation report published last year, Supporting People, which addressed professional support for vulnerable people, there does not appear to be sufficient counselling facilities for young homeless people.
In winding up the debate I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on what plans the Government have to address and promote this need.
8.12 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving us an opportunity to debate this important subject. I am sorry that he decided to build the debate around the subject of counselling, which for most of his speech he wisely avoided.
My concern is that counselling can be very dangerous unless it is, as my noble friend Lord Addington said, a direct communication which validates the person being counselled so that they feel that they are a person.
Turning to the speech that I had prepared, the Medical Journal of Australia dated 24 March 1979 contained a report of a study entitled Hazards of Therapy. Although the subjects of the study were adults and we are talking about children, the clear connection between a therapy session which created a state of emotional arousal and inappropriate expression of the emotions so generated suggests that psychological counselling which attempts to do more than address the real needs of the people concerned could do more harm than good.
1022
As we have heard and as we know, many of the problems of the young homeless are exacerbated by addiction to alcohol or various kinds of drugs. In society we are doing things that make that kind of problem more likely and worse. I want the relevant departments to look very carefully at the prescribing policy and the way that children in school are labelled with things like attention deficit disorder and then prescribed drugs that are addictive and drugs that cause terrible problems when the children try to withdraw from them. As one noble Lord has said, I am sure that we are storing up more problems for ourselves which will make the situation more difficult to solve.
8.14 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, I want to thank and congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on an excellent topic for debate tonight. It is also an important debate. I want to congratulate the three maiden speakers who have so ably contributed to tonight's proceedings.
Youth homelessness is an enormous problem. CRISIS estimates that in Britain 32,000 16 to 21 year-olds do not have a home. I shall bring to your Lordships' attention some concerns expressed to me by those working in this area.
The short-term nature of funding for organisations dealing with youth homelessness is one such concern. Of course, many such organisations have uncertain funding in that they have a one-year budget and they badly need to give those without homes a consistency of service. It is important that the homeless get the support that they so badly need.
I draw your Lordships' attention to one or two matters of particular merit. Increasingly, youth homelessness is considered to be worthy of formalised training. Indeed, the University of East Anglia has created the first postgraduate accredited course on youth counselling.
I also draw attention to the position of Youth Awareness, the national body supporting and promoting information, advice, counselling and support for young people. The Government have increased the funding of the organisation to £80,000 per year. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his view that the voluntary sector needs to play a full part in helping with the problem.
However, we should contrast that small contribution with the £13 million support that is given to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I do not deny the extremely important and good work done by CABs up and down the country, but I believe that there has been some oversight as to the importance of specialist provision for the young.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. I join others in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for initiating this relevant issue today.

1023
I also want to compliment the three new Members of this House who have made their maiden speeches this evening. Each has been distinctive, each has shown a wealth of expertise, and we welcome them and their expertise to the House.
Six months ago, on one of the chilliest spring nights this year, a young woman, alone, hungry and ill because of repeated use of drugs, lay down and died beside the telephone exchange in my home town of Guildford. Many people passed by the bundle of blankets, rags and plastic bags. Eventually, the police, in trying to move her on, discovered that she was dead. British Telecom have now blocked off the warm air ducts around their building with wire grilles to stop a similar occurrence.
The young woman in question was in her early 20s. She had had a good education, but she had failed to get a job, had become depressed, taken drugs and slipped into the "revolving door" cycle of homelessness. Life on the streets was punctuated by periods in a hostel when things seemed to be getting better, and then failing again and in one way or another falling back and sleeping rough again.
As anyone who walks down any London street knows—and as this debate made very clear—that young woman was no exception. Sadly, all too many young people are homeless—32,000 according to the briefing we received from Shelter. One in two of the homeless aged 16 and 17 come from an institution of some kind; they have lived in care. Two out of five of 24 year-olds come from an institutional background. It is a scandal that as a society we know how vulnerable young people are and yet again and again we fail to do anything about it. Not only have we done nothing about it, but we have passed legislation which has made the situation much worse.
We have removed their right to social security benefit. We have restricted housing benefit. We then imposed the final ignominy of the single room rent restriction. What have the new Labour Government done, dedicated as they are to helping the chances of young people? They have been in power for over two years. They established a homelessness Czar—actually it is a Czarina—Louise Casey, and others made mention of her. She is about to publish a report which we hope will stir the matter up. They also put a duty on local authorities to help vulnerable young people. But they have done nothing to make sure that those fine words are translated into practical help. Too much is in terms of strategies—"Let us do this; let us do that"—and not enough practical help. My noble friend Lady Hanham gave us an example of some of the good things coming out of Kensington.
The reason is that we are constantly looking at multi-agency care. Like the problem with old people of bed blocking, it is a question of pulling together the social services, the youth services, the National Health Service and the voluntary sectors. Many agencies are not only strapped for cash, but are also strapped for people. It is time to give consideration to this. It is too easy to pass the buck on to somebody else because we
1024
feel they are dealing with it. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that there is more joined-up thinking on this issue and the resources to back it up. It is the lack of resources as much as anything else that creates the problem. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I add my welcome to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Barker, and to an old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. He was secretary of the Association of District Councils when I was chairman of the Association of County Councils. I enjoyed our acquaintance and look forward to it continuing.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, as he always does on this subject, introduced an interesting debate for which the House is extremely grateful. Among so many people who have direct experience in this field—I freely admit I have none—it would be superfluous and invidious of me to try and make too much of the detail of the debate. But in my reading prior to the debate I came across the paper mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso—A Future Foretold, by CRISIS—which had a slightly provocative thought at the end and it is worth touching on. It said that if the opposite of hopeless is hopeful, surely the opposite of homeless is more than a roof over the head. But absolutely certain and true though that statement is, the opposite of homeless can still only be homeless if there is no roof to put over someone's head.
The problem of availability of suitable and affordable housing is, and has been, with us for a long time. I suspect that it will be with us for a long time to come. It is not just a question of the physical supply of houses, although it is noticeable that in the allocation of government moneys to help in this field, the vast bulk of the money has to be allocated (rightly) in the southern rather than in the northern part of the country, where there is a physical surplus of housing, much of it cheap and easily available. That is a harsh reality and one that cannot be overcome.
The other point that is perhaps worth making in my last 60 seconds is that the tragedy of so many young in a homeless situation arises either from a breakdown of the family in some shape or form or, worse still, in those cases where we have some opportunity to help, from a breakdown in the wonderful multi-agency assistance that we provide through the local authorities. In both situations we need people who understand and who can project that understanding sufficiently so that the homeless do not leave to go into these situations. Without that we have no hope of curing the problem; it will remain with us. If we can do more in the field of prevention, we may need to do less by way of cure.
8.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, first, I express the thanks of all noble Lords to the noble Earl for instigating further debate on the

1025
issue of young homelessness. It is a matter of tremendous importance which the Government are wholeheartedly committed to tackling.
The number of speakers in this short debate perhaps leaves us a little short of time and I apologise if I do not cover every point raised. I begin by paying tribute to our three maiden speakers. I suspect that not every noble Lord is able to congratulate a Conner landlord on making his maiden speech. But my noble friend Lord Filkin was director of the Association of District Councils when I was director of the National Association of Health Authorities. We rented accommodation from him. I like to think that that was a symbol of co-operation and partnership between the NHS and local government, which is but one essential strand in ensuring that we get practical services in the right places to help homeless people.
I was struck also by the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and particularly her point in relation to the role of the voluntary sector. Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, with her vast local government experience, showed how much local government has to offer in this area and how much responsibility we place on them to lead the strategy at local level.
All noble Lords made the same point; that is, that this is a matter which needs co-ordinated action across different government departments, in partnership with non-government agencies. There is no doubt that within government the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has a leading role to play. However, it is not just a question of homelessness on its own, as so many speakers said. Young homeless people are vulnerable to many other problems relating to mental and physical health, drug and alcohol misuse. The Department of Health clearly has major responsibilities in those areas. I hope to come back to a number of points raised in relation to the support that the National Health Service needs to give in this area.
I want to say, first, that I agree that homelessness is so often a symptom of wider social exclusion; the unacceptable effects of a whole complex web of causes. My noble friend Lord Filkin said it is not just a housing problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, described it as a "cycle of homelessness". That is the reason the Government's Social Exclusion Unit is looking at a range of issues dealing with excluded young people. Noble Lords have already mentioned its report on Rough Sleeping and its Bridging the Gap report on 16 to 18 year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. Both of these, together with the unit's work on the exclusion of young people in deprived neighbourhoods, are, if I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, an indication of the priority that we are giving to tackling the social exclusion of young people. Within this agenda, youth homelessness must receive close attention.
Noble Lords have also pointed out that there are many reasons why young people end up homeless. Those reasons can include relationship breakdown, or having a very structured background which, perhaps,
1026
makes it hard for them to cope on their own—for example, having been in local authority care as a child or a teenager or having been in a young offenders' institution, having poor mental or physical health, suffering from drug and alcohol abuse and perhaps persistent truanting or exclusion from school. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, had some very important points to make in this area.
Of course, the problems experienced by young homeless people vary and, consequently, their needs also vary. But the one thing which all young homeless people need in one degree or another is support, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, so eloquently pointed out to us. Indeed, in many ways becoming homeless is a symptom of a breakdown in the support mechanisms that would normally be available to young people from their parents, extended family, friends, and other normal contacts such as educational professionals and advisors. That a young person has reached the point of homelessness is symptomatic of the fact that he or she often feels that there is nowhere to go and no one to listen. This is precisely why it is so important that support services, including counselling opportunities, are available to young people.
I very much agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said about the core of resentment among so many of the young people about whom we are talking. We need to build communication and ensure that that becomes a key part of what we are trying to do within the counselling arrangements. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that counselling comes in many shapes and forms. At the end of the day, it has to be effective and must be what is suited to the young people concerned.
Much work has been done by different government departments to make existing local authority support mechanisms more effective. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, some of those most dependent on local authority support—those in care—are at their most vulnerable and at risk of homelessness when leaving care. This highlights the importance of the Government's Quality Protect programme for the reform of children's services, which has made care leavers a priority group—£19 million has been allocated this first year for leaving care services.
However, there is no doubt that there remain barriers which prevent existing services from working most effectively. In the Bridging the Gap report, the Social Exclusion Unit identified three main barriers. The first—and I return to this point—is that departments often work in a fragmented, non coordinated way. Secondly, insufficient preparation is taking place in schools for choices available to young people after the compulsory school leaving age of 16. The third barrier is the lack of comprehensive support services for 16 to 18 year-olds who are not in school.
The report demanded a new approach to the way in which government, and their partners in the voluntary sector, in business, and in the community, deliver services to vulnerable young people. It recommended that more needs to be done to ensure that support is

1027
both accessible and co-ordinated. This included building on good practice where it exists, particularly across current service boundaries, and, more fundamentally, to implement the proposal of the Department for Education and Employment to create a new support service for young people, announced in its White Paper in June and entitled, Learning to Succeed.
The new service is to build and ensure coherence in the support to be given to young people aged 13 to 19 in aiming to ensure that no young person should get "lost in the system". Often, falling out from education is the first step to becoming excluded from society, and sometimes a significant step on the road to homelessness; the proposed treatment schemes, with those who are hard to reach and most vulnerable, being a priority.
As far as concerns alcohol misuse, we are currently developing a new strategy to tackle this in England. One of the aims of the strategy is likely to be improving the quality, accessibility and effectiveness of alcohol advice and treatment services for alcohol misusers, potential misusers and their carers or families and to ensure equitable access to the full spectrum of required services for all. Of course, this will include how service provision can best be extended locally better to serve young homeless people.
The mention of drug and alcohol services, brings me to issues in relation to the National Health Service. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, raised the issue of access to primary care services, and especially to general practitioners. I know that this is a matter which often causes concern. I want to make it clear that all persons are entitled to register with a GP. Of course, this can sometimes be difficult, but it is the responsibility of the local health authority to assist young people where this is proving to be difficult.
I should also like to say a little more about some of the developments that we intend to take forward to ensure that there is more access to primary care services. By April next year there will be 300 pilot schemes across the country which will provide GPs with a flexible alternative to the current national contract. We see this as an opportunity to concentrate on traditionally disadvantaged groups in their area. For example, there is a salaried option, which means that GPs can now be employed by other doctors or trusts in areas where recruitment has been difficult in the past, like inner-cities or sparsely populated countryside. We believe that this has enormous potential.
If one looks at the current pilots, up to 87 of them have actually involved working with young people as one of their key priorities. Of these, 48 specified teenagers and 39 specified children. Moreover, 29 pilots have indicated that working with homeless people is a key area of their work. To take up the point on refugees, I should tell noble Lords that 29 of these schemes are focusing on refugees. Clearly the importance of pilot schemes is to enable the whole of the health service to learn from that experience. We
1028
will be very interested to ensure that the points which are learnt along the way will be spread more generally among the National Health Service.
Many noble Lords talked about prevention. We all recognise that, as well as ensuring that advice and support is available when young people are on the verge of homelessness or already homeless, more needs to be done to prevent homelessness arising in the first place. We must find ways appropriately to balance crisis intervention and advice with appropriate support and help, together with preventive approaches. Mediation services can often help in looking at difficult family dynamics and towards understanding and resolving family tensions before a young person decides to leave home. Many young homeless people are still in touch with someone in their families and it is in everyone's interests to strengthen those bonds where possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and many other speakers referred to the role of the voluntary sector. Clearly, it has a very key role to play in providing support to vulnerable young people. We can see the extraordinarily varied and innovative projects around the country which testify to the value of the voluntary sector and the lifeline for young people it can provide by offering advice, support, counselling and direct practical support.
I have been asked about funding. Many of these projects do of course receive support from government funds but I have noted the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, on the importance of secure funding. It is something that both national and local government must take to heart.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred specifically to the role of local authorities, which is an important one. They already have a statutory duty to ensure that comprehensive advice and information about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness is provided free of charge to any person in their district. Again I noted the comments and helpful remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on that matter. We are currently revising the statutory guidance we issue to local authorities to impress upon them the need to take a more strategic approach to discharging this duty. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that of course taking a strategic approach means nothing if it does not then lead to practical action. I am sure that there is little point in our pressing the point to local authorities on strategy unless positive, practical action results from that.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the London Rough Sleepers Unit headed by Louise Casey, former deputy director of Shelter. This has an integrated budget over the next three years of £145 million to combat the complex and concentrated problems of rough sleeping in London. Both the noble Earl and the noble Lord in referring to that then referred to the important issues in relation to training, support and supervision. I could not agree more with those comments. It is a matter that I shall certainly want to take from this debate in terms of ensuring that it is part

1029
of the various programmes that we shall fund in the future. That is absolutely crucial and goes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the quality of counselling in terms of being able to communicate with young people who often find it hard to relate to current statutory services.
As regards financial support outside London, I refer to the Homeless Action Programme launched by the DETR which will provide £34 million over the next three years to help voluntary organisations outside London tackle and prevent single homelessness and rough sleeping. Inevitably within that programme support for counselling will be available.
Time moves on and I have exceeded my speaking time by a few minutes. I do not apologise for that. This has been an extremely important debate where I think we have all shared a common concern. We can see our way through to the practical solutions that are undoubtedly necessary.
There is no doubt that at the end of the day a partnership approach both at national and local level is the key to success. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that this is a priority for the Government. There is no place in Britain at the dawn of the 21st century for social exclusion and homelessness. We shall continue to work hard towards the eradication of both.
I conclude by thanking again the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his initiative in securing this debate. I end as he did in paying tribute to the heroic people who counsel, support and help homeless people.

Greater London Authority Bill
8.43 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 9.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 383:
Page 240, line 27, at end insert—
("Byelaws for railways
24A.—(1) Transport for London may make byelaws regulating—

(a) the use and working of its railways;

(b) travel on its railways;

(c) the maintenance of order on its railways and railway premises, including stations and the approaches to stations;

(d) the conduct of all persons while on those premises, including officers and employees of Transport for London.

(2) Byelaws made by Transport for London by virtue of subparagraph (1) above may include in particular byelaws—

(a) with respect to tickets issued for entry on its railway premises or travel on its railways and the evasion of payment of fares and other charges;

(b) with respect to interference with or obstruction of the working of the railways;

(C) with respect to the smoking of tobacco in railway carriages and elsewhere;

(d) with respect to the prevention of nuisances;

1030

(e) with respect to the receipt and delivery of goods;

(f) for regulating the passage of bicycles and other vehicles on footways and other premises controlled by Transport for London and intended for the use of pedestrians.

(3) Any byelaws made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above may provide that any person contravening them shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine for each offence not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or not exceeding a lesser amount.
(4) Where the contravention of a byelaw made by virtue of subparagraph (1) above causes—

(a) danger or annoyance to the public, or

(b) hindrance to Transport for London in the lawful use of its railway,

Transport for London may summarily interfere to obviate or remove the danger, annoyance or hindrance.
(5) Anything done by Transport for London under subparagraph (4) above is without prejudice to the taking of summary proceedings under sub-paragraph (3) above.
(6) Subsections (5) to (12) of section 67 of the Transport Act 1962 (byelaws for railways etc.) shall apply in relation to byelaws made by Transport for London by virtue of sub-pan graph (1) above as they apply to byelaws made under that section hut taking references in those subsections to the Board as references to Transport for London.
(7) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) railways, railway premises, officers or employees of a subsidiary of Transport for London shall be deemed to be railways, railway premises, officers or employees of Transport for London, and

(b) footways and other premises controlled by a subsidiary of Transport for London shall be deemed to be footways and other premises controlled by Transport for London.").

Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 383A:
Page 240, line 27, at end insert—
("Byelaws: landing places
24B.—(1) Transport for London may make and enforce byelaws for regulating or controlling the use of any landing place which is vested in or operated by it or any of its subsidiaries.
(2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) above includes the power to make and enforce byelaws specifying—

(a) persons or descriptions of persons who" or

(b) vessels or descriptions of vessels which,

may or may not use a landing place.
(3) A person who contravenes a byelaw made under this paragraph shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, "landing place- means any waterside landing place, wharf, pier, jetty, pontoon, causeway, hard, footway or other installation, and includes any associated buildings and approaches to it over and from land.
(5) This paragraph is without prejudice to the provisions of any other enactment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 383A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 475A and 475B which stand in my name. These government amendments relate to the river and waterways. I recall that before I had responsibility for these areas my noble friend Lady Hayman used to get a little laugh in the House of Lords when she talked about powers to create piers, which in this case relates to river piers which TfL has the power to own and operate. Amendment No. 383A provides that power. Previously most of the piers had been

1031
owned by the Port of London Authority which had its own powers. This amendment provides a freestanding power for Transport for London to have its own pier bylaws to regulate its activities on those piers.
Amendment No. 475A seeks to put beyond doubt that TfL can provide or secure the provision of amenities and facilities which might benefit people using London's waterways. Amendment No. 475B clarifies the position of property, rights and liabilities associated with river piers transferred to London Regional Transport on or after 31st March 1999 but before this clause comes into effect. This provision applies both where the pier is transferred during this period and to transfers made subsequently under an agreement which may have been made during this period. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 383A, Amendment No. 383B:
Line 19, at the end of paragraph 24B(5), insert (", and, in particular, byelaws made under this paragraph shall be subject to any byelaws or directions made from time to time by any navigation authority which has jurisdiction within the area of the landing place in question").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments to the government amendments reflect concerns which have been brought to our attention on behalf of British Waterways with regard to the established rights of the waterways. I understand that the Port of London Authority supports these amendments to the government amendments.
Amendment No. 475AA states,
"this section shall not authorise Transport for London to construct any works or do anything in, under, over or on the waterway without the consent of any navigation authority which has jurisdiction over the waterway".
That measure sums up the thrust of these amendments. I believe that these two authorities seek reassurance from the Minister that the traditional powers that they have to be consulted when bodies wish to build near or on, or use the waterway, have not been eradicated by the government amendments.
Amendment No. 383B states that:
"byelaws made under this paragraph shall be subject to any byelaws or directions made from time to time by any navigation authority which has jurisdiction within the area of the landing place in question".
I believe that these concerns are clear. I suspect that the noble Lord may even have received the same briefing material as we have received. I hope that he will be able to reassure the House that the traditional powers of the navigation authorities have not been reduced or limited by his amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I wish to add my support to these amendments. I was approached as the vice-chair of the parliamentary waterways group and I drew these measures to the attention of my noble friends. This clearly seems to be a kind of tidying up exercise. You cannot have two bodies making bylaws about the same thing as that will lead to a clash. Each
1032
needs to know what the other is doing. I hope that the Minister will feel kindly disposed towards the amendments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. When I was in Birmingham this morning I thought I had got well away from the Greater London Authority Bill, but it was represented to me that this will cause some difficulties for the Port of London Authority. I appreciate that there may be potential conflict between the TfL by-laws and those of the navigation authority. I would hope that in most instances these will be resolved at the time of leading up to the confirmation of the by-laws although, hypothetically, that may not be possible in all instances. I am prepared to consider whether we can clarify the position with regard to by-laws.
However, I have some difficulties with the implications of the noble Baroness's amendment. It could imply that a direction could take precedence over a by-law. It is a difficult concept that an administrative direction could take precedence over a by-law. With that caveat, I am prepared to look at the matter again, to discuss it with the authorities concerned and the noble Baroness, and, if necessary, come back to it at Third Reading.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. It was as gracious as most of his replies have been during the debate. I look forward to seeing his new amendments. I will be very happy to discuss the matter with him, if necessary. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 383B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 383A, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 384:
Page 240, line 27, at end insert—
("Museums
.—(1) Transport for London may provide and maintain a museum of transport artefacts, records and other exhibits and may do anything necessary or expedient for or in connection with the provision or maintenance of the museum.
(2) Transport for London may make a charge for admission to a museum maintained by it.").
Clause 145 [Annual report]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 385:
Page 80, line 34, leave out subsections (3) to (6) and insert—
("(2A) The report made under this section in respect of any financial year shall include the following information—

(a) financial statements prepared on the basis of generally accepted principles of accounting;

(b) the report of external auditors on those financial statements;

(c) detailed statistics relating to the efficiency and reliability of the discharge of its functions by Transport for London including (but not limited to)—

(i) the number of days during the financial year in which any public passenger transport service was disrupted by any industrial dispute (whether official or otherwise);

1033

(ii) the number of cancellations of proposed journeys during the financial year by any public passenger transport service;

(iii) the number of routes formerly operated by public passenger transport services closed during the financial year; and

(iv) a table disclosing the remuneration of all senior staff employed by or officers of Transport for London compiled to the same standards as would apply to a company whose shares were listed on the London Stock Exchange.

(2B) The report required by this section shall be available to the public at no charge and also published electronically in a form capable of access by members of the general public.
(2C) A summary of the matters referred to in subsection (2A) above shall also be published in at least two newspapers circulating in the entire area of Greater London.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 385 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. In speaking to the amendment it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 387.
Amendment No. 385 is a key amendment to protect Londoners' financial stake in TfL. It will also improve transport standards and efficiency by forcing an outside audit of TfL's competence. The current provisions in Clause 145 relating to the reporting of the performance of TfL are weak. The requirement to pay a fee to obtain a copy of the report contrasts unfavourably with the practice of most modern listed companies.
As the clause is drafted, TfL could produce a super but very expensive glossy report; the fee for the report then might be reasonable bearing in mind the cost of producing the report, but not affordable by most people. This amendment will deter that possibility.
Finally, the amendment provides that the report should be published on the Internet. I am sure that TfL will do that anyway but it should be obliged to do so under Clause 145. The use of the Internet will dramatically reduce the cost of promulgating the report and increase its availability.
Amendment No. 387 is good for democracy because it ensures that the auditors are accountable to someone other than those they are auditing. After all, company shareholders—not the directors—approve auditors, although on the recommendation of the board of directors. Can the Minister say why this should not apply to TfL? I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Audit Commission Act 1998 and the 1996 accounts and audit regulations lay down requirements as to what TfL must include in its published accounts. There is a provision laying down the rights of local government electors in the area of the body subject to audit to inspect its accounts and supporting documents. Like the GLA and other functional bodies, TfL will be covered by the same audit system as applies to other organisations within the local government finance system.
In. Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether TfL would be obliged to publish its accounts on the Internet. I indicated that my
1034
understanding was that that would be a matter for TfL. I wish to take this opportunity to confirm that my reply was correct.
As long as TfL meets the statutory requirements to make its accounts available for inspection to the public, it can decide what further measures t o take to publicise the report and accounts. It would be overly prescriptive to require TfL to make its accounts available electronically. To do so would be to place TfL on a different footing from local authorities elsewhere.
The noble Earl returns to the issue of giving the assembly the duty of appointing and fixing the fee of TfL's external auditors. This matter was raised in Committee. Clause 118 of the Bill adds the functional bodies, including TfL, to the list of public bodies which under the Audit Commission Act 1998 are required to make up accounts annually. It also adds TfL to the list of bodies which must be audited by an auditor or auditors appointed by the Audit Commission. This means that TfL, like the GLA and other functional bodies, will be covered by the same audit system as applies to other organisations within the local government finance system. Not only is this tried and tested but it would also avoid the danger of the assembly getting bogged down in routine appointment procedures. The assembly's role, should it so choose, is to scrutinise and challenge the contents of the audit.
With these assurances, I hope that 'the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response to the amendments. I am concerned by her lack of interest in the Internet amendment. In two years' time anyone who is not using the Internet will be, relatively speaking, in the age of the quill pen. The Minister seems to be allowing for the possibility that TfL will not publish its accounts on the Internet. That would be most unfortunate. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 386:
After Clause 145, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF INFORMATION
(" .—(1) Transport for London shall make available such information as it thinks fit which

(a) relates to public passenger transport services provided to, from and within Greater London, and

(b) is required by members of the general public to assist, in deciding what use to make of such services.

(2) The information shall be made available, in such manner as Transport for London thinks fit, to—

(a) the general public, and

(b) such other persons as Transport for London thinks fit.

(3) Transport for London may make such charges as it thinks fit for information which it makes available; but no such charge may be made if the information relates to public passenger transport services provided exclusively—

(a) by Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries, or

(b) by other persons under agreements entered into under section 141(2) or (3) above.").

[Amendment No. 387 not moved.]
Clause 146 [Restrictions on disposal of land]:
[Amendments Nos. 388 to 390 not moved.]
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 391:
Leave out Clause 146.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 391 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara.
We return momentarily to the disposal of operational land, but from a slightly different viewpoint. Clause 146 represents an illogical shackling of TfL's ability to generate funds through the disposal of surplus land. The clause is likely to lead to Londoners paying higher local taxes to fund TfL.
On the grounds of subsidiarity, the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent should be deleted. I accept that there may be a need to consult with other interested parties; we discussed that. The need to avoid prejudicing future railway developments is well recognised and very important. However, this clause as drafted would catch the disposal of a redundant electrical substation, for example, even though it was not adjacent to what we would understand to be railway lands.
I do not intend to test the opinion of the House on this amendment. I suggest that the Minister has another look at subsection (8) of the clause, which defines operational land. The clause will catch land it does not need to catch. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Clause 146 places restrictions on TfL's ability to dispose of operational railway and tramway land. The clause is designed, as the noble Earl indicated, to prevent the permanent sale of key operational assets, primarily the Underground and Docklands Light Railway lines and stations. TfL is required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to such disposals.
We made clear in our manifesto that privatisation of the Underground was not the answer to the problems faced by the Tube. We must ensure that the network is run first and foremost as a public transport asset. Therefore we must not allow ourselves to get into a situation where the land or other assets can be disposed of without an assessment of the public interest. Clause 146 provides the necessary safeguards. Were it to be deleted, those safeguards would be removed.
1036
We have taken a pragmatic approach in that we recognise that TfL needs flexibility over its property portfolio. That is why in Committee we tabled amendments to the clause to give TfL the ability to manage its property holdings sensibly. However, we do need these safeguards and we believe that the arrangements we have put in place strike the right balance, on the one hand in protecting public assets, and on the other in allowing TfL to manage those assets effectively to the benefit of their overall operations.
The deletion of the clause would remove many safeguards. I am happy to look at the particular point raised by the noble Earl, but it is clear that the amendment as a whole is not acceptable and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he answer one question for me? Is TfL able to sell any land without permission from the Secretary of State?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is clear from subsection (1) of Clause 146 that the land we are referring to here is land which is or has been operational land. For that reason, in most cases non-operational land—so long as it does not fall into one of the other categories—could be disposed of as a management matter. If the noble Earl requires further clarification, I shall write to him.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I did not phrase my question as well as I should have done. Can TfL sell any operational land without the consent of the Secretary of State?
However, I hope that the Minister will look again at the definition of operational land for the reasons I have outlined. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 148 [Distribution of property]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 392 to 394:
Leave out Clause 148.
After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES
(" .—(1) Transport for London may make schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—

(a) between Transport for London and any subsidiary of Transport for London; or

(b) between any subsidiary of Transport for London and any other such subsidiary.

(2) A scheme under this section shall not take effect unless and until it has been approved by the Mayor.
(3) Where a scheme under this section is submitted to the Mayor for his approval, he may, after consultation with Transport for London, modify the scheme before approving it.
(4) Schedule (Transport for London transfer schemes) to this Act (which makes further provision in relation to schemes under this section) shall have effect.").

1037
After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
PROCEDURE FOR MAKING BYELAWS
(".—(1) Section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972 (procedure for byelaws) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after the words "the Greater London Authority" (which are inserted by section 65(2) above) there shall be inserted ", Transport for London".
(3) After subsection (10B) (which is inserted by section 65(3) above) there shall be inserted—
"(10C) Transport for London shall send a copy of every byelaw made by it, and confirmed, to—

(a) the Mayor of London;

(b) each London Borough Council; and

(c) the Common Council."").

Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 395:
After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
POWER OF TRANSPORT FOR LONDON TO PROMOTE OR OPPOSE BILLS IN PARLIAMENT
(" .—(1) Transport for London —

(a) may promote a local Bill in Parliament; and

(b) may oppose any local Bill in Parliament.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) above applies only if the Authority—

(a) gives its written consent to the Bill; and

(b) confirms that consent in writing as soon as practicable after the expiration of 14 days after the Bill has been deposited in Parliament.

(3) If the Authority does not confirm the consent as required by subsection (2)(b) above, the Authority shall give notice of that fact to Transport for London, which shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the Bill.
(4) If the Authority, in giving notice under subsection (3) above, states that it confirms its consent to the Bill if provisions specified in the notice are omitted or are amended as so specified, Transport for London may, instead of withdrawing the Bill pursuant to subsection (3) above, take all necessary steps for the omission or, as the case may be, the amendment of the provisions in question in accordance with the notice.
(5) Without prejudice to subsections (2) to (4) above, the functions conferred on Transport for London by subsection (1)(a) above are exercisable subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Schedule (Promotion of Bits in Parliament by Transport for London) to this Act.
(6) Subsection (1)(b) above applies only if the Authority gives its written consent to Transport for London to oppose the Bill.
(7) If—

(a) Transport for London deposits a petition against a Bill in Parliament, but

(b) the consent required by subsection (6) above has not been given before the end of the period of 30 days following the day on which the petition is deposited,

Transport for London shall take all necessary steps for the withdrawal of the petition.
(8) The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
(9) Before exercising the functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (2)(a) or (b). (4) or (6) above, the Mayor shall consult the Assembly.").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 396:
After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
ORDERS UNDER THE TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992
(" .—(1) Section 20 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (power to apply for, or object to, orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (powers to be subject to the like conditions as powers to promote or oppose Bills) after "except as provided by subsection (3)" there shall be inserted "or (4)".
(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(4) In the case of Transport for London—

(a) the powers conferred by subsection (1) above shall be exercisable with the written consent of the Mayor of London; and

(b) subsection (2) above shall not have effect."").

Clause 149 [Powers of disposal]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 396A:
Page 83, line 3, leave out ("In").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 396B and 396C:
Page 83, line 4, after ("disposal)") insert ("shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) (power to dispose of securities of one of their subsidiaries) for "one of their subsidiaries" there shall be substituted "any subsidiary of theirs".
(3) ").
Page 83, line 4, after ("end") insert ("of the section").
Clause 150 [Power to give guarantees]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment. No. 396D:
Page 83, line 18, at end insert—
("(A) In subsection (2) after "section 3(2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)".").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 396E:
After Clause 150, insert the following new clause—
SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFER SCHEMES
(" .—(1) Section 27 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (supplementary provisions with respect to transfer schemes) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (9) (modifications of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1968 in its application by subsection (8)) the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) shall be omitted and after that paragraph there shall be inserted—

"(aa) the reference in paragraph 1(1) to all property, rights and liabilities comprised in a specified part of the transferor's undertaking shall be read as including a reference to all such property, rights and liabilities subject to such exceptions as ma) be specified or described, or otherwise provided for, by the transfer scheme in question;

1039

(ab) the reference in paragraph 13(1) to requiring the consent or concurrence of any person shall be read as including—

(i) a reference to being (and, where applicable, continuing after the transaction) in breach of any condition, requirement or restriction, and

(ii) a reference to any relevant right or option operating or becoming exercisable,

(and any such relevant right or option shall accordingly have effect as if the transferee were the same person in law as the transferor and no transaction had taken place); and".

(3) After subsection (9) there shall be inserted—
"(10) In subsection (9)(ab) above "relevant right or option" means any right of reverter, right of pre-emption, right of forfeiture, right of re-entry, right to compensation, option or similar right affecting any land or other property, or any right to terminate or vary a contract.".").
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 397:
After Clause 151, insert the following new clause—
ONE TICKET SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT
(" .—(1) With effect from the appointed day, Transport for London shall introduce, or procure or facilitate the introduction of, a means by which passengers shall be able to make journeys in Greater London using more than one public passenger transport service having purchased only a single ticket, such ticket be a voucher or an electronic card or such other system as appears to Transport for London to be the most reliable, economic and efficient means to effect such journeys.
(2) The Mayor may issue regulations under this subsection as to the day on which subsection (1) above shall come into effect, provided that the appointed day within that subsection shall be no later than the fifth anniversary of this Act coming into force.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 397 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. In doing so it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 398.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, conceded that if TfL were to scrap the Travelcard it would probably break the mayor's general duty under Clause 126. The amendment before us is a major boost to the interests of the travelling public. It will compel TfL to maintain some form of universal through ticketing. Subsection (1) sets out the requirement: a single cross-London ticket or other facilities to achieve that. Subsection (2) sets a deadline for implementation of five years.
I accept that in practice this adds nothing to the existing non-statutory travel scheme arrangements, and the comments of the Minister in Committee were encouraging. Let us therefore entrench the principle on the face of the Bill as a non-contentious amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 397 would require the mayor to introduce, within five years of the GLA Act coming into force, ticketing arrangements allowing passengers to travel on more than one mode of public transport on the purchase of a single ticket.
1040
We believe the amendment is unnecessary because such ticketing arrangements already exist, most prominently in the form of the Travelcard. Noble Lords opposite and their colleagues in another place have suggested that we should somehow legislate to preserve the Travelcard. But that ignores the fact that the Travelcard scheme is not a statutory scheme. It is underpinned by a voluntary agreement between London Regional Transport and the train operating companies. TfL will take on London Transport's obligations under that agreement and will thus continue to offer the benefits of Travelcard.
It is highly improbable that any mayor would want to risk losing the benefits of Travelcard. Travelcard and products like it will be a vital component in helping the mayor to discharge his or her general transport duty in Clause 127. Indeed, it is hard to see how reducing the benefits Travelcard offers could be consistent with that duty.
However, there might actually be risks in attempting to legislate for Travelcard. If we were to do so, as noble Lords opposite suggest, there is a danger that the current Travelcard arrangements would be preserved in aspic. The mayor's scope to build on Travelcard and introduce innovative and new multi-modal tickets might be inadvertently restricted if she or he were compelled to stick too rigidly to a particular format. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I found it very interesting. I accept her argument and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 152 [Structure of fares and services]:
[Amendment No. 398 not moved.]
Clause 161 [Addition or variation of a network service]:
[Amendment No. 399 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 162 [Discontinuance of a network service]:
[Amendment No. 400 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 163 [London service permits]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 401:
Page 89, line 3, at end insert—
("(2A) When preparing the guidance document, the Mayor shall include consideration of matters affecting—

(a) routes,

(b) terminal points,

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

(d) traffic flow, safety and congestion,

(e) environmental amenity,

(f) the safety and convenience of the public, including persons who have mobility problems, and

(g) any other matters which appear to the mayor to be relevant.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 163 covers London service permits for buses that are not part of the London bus network. Those of us who have seen total deregulation of buses both in London and other parts of the country are aware of how important it is to have some degree of control. The amendment sets out possible items for the mayor to incorporate in guidance. I am slightly opposed to the shopping lists which we see so often with regard to the National Health Service because whatever shopping list you have you leave something out of it. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that the guidance document referred to in subsection (2) of the clause will automatically take this type of item into consideration. If she is not able to give me such an assurance, I believe that the amendment would cover the point. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is to be congratulated on giving thought to what the mayor's guidance document should contain or encompass. I suspect that much of what she proposes may ultimately be included in the document in one form or another. Indeed, when we consulted on our proposals for this part of the Bill late last year we received other suggestions about the content of the guidance document, each reflecting the different interests of the group, organisation or individual who proposed them.
We do not see it as our policy to second guess what the mayor should include in his guidance document any more than we would wish the Bill to dictate to the mayor what should be included in other strategies the mayor will be required to produce. Our intention is that the mayor should start with a clean sheet of paper in deciding what the policy should be in respect of London service permit services. The mayor will be required to produce the document in draft and publish it for public consultation. The Bill contains extensive public consultation provisions for the guidance document. We believe that these provisions will make it possible for everyone with an interest in such services to make their views known. In particular, we have made specific provision for information about the document to be published in a newspaper circulating throughout greater London.
In practice, we believe that the production of the guidance will be a partnership between the mayor initially setting out the policies that the mayor believes would be beneficial, and the many interested parties such as local authorities, bus companies, residents' groups, the police and disabled groups responding to the draft and making their input through the consultation process. We believe—I think that the noble Baroness would agree with me—that such a consultation should spark some quite lively debate. That will be good. We believe that that is a better approach. But we are grateful to the noble Baroness for giving such thought to this important subject. We do riot want to see the document set in stone, and the Bill provides for revisions to be produced to which all the consultation provisions will apply again. That will allow experience of operating the new permit system.
1042
The document must evolve and that is why we do not believe that it would be wise to constrain the development of the mayor's policies. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her interest. I hope that she now feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. I am quite reassured by the process of consultation, which think will be productive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 164 [Grant of London service permit]:
[Amendment No. 402 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 403:
Page 89, line 27, at end insert—
("(4A) If—

(a) any of the persons and bodies specified in subsection (4) above ("the consultee") objects to the grant of a London service permit or considers that a permit should only be issued subject to conditions, and

(b) Transport for London is minded to grant a London service permit despite such objection without any or all of the conditions referred to at subsection 4A (a) above,

Transport for London shall refer the matter to he determined by an appeal panel as provided for under section 167 below.
(4B) Any appeal considered under the provisions of subsection 4A above shall be by way of a hearing unless the applicant and the consultee concerned decide not to appear.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is slightly different amendment. The Bill gives the mayor control over the regulation of commercial bus services. Amendment No. 403 would provide for an automatic referral to the appeal process, which comes under Clause 167. Noble Lords will note that subsection (4A)(a) of my amendment is linked to paragraph (b) with the word "and". The two conditions in the amendment would have to be met.
Perhaps I may save the House time by also speaking briefly to Amendments Nos. 406 and 407 which are grouped with this one. Amendment No. 407 requires consultation with local authorities and others. Again, if the Minister is able to assure me that the consultation process will be thorough, I think I shall be satisfied on that point. However, I should be grateful for a reply regarding Amendment No. 403 and the automatic provision for appeal. I beg to move.
9.15p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the face of it, the noble Baroness's amendment sounds reasonable. However, I am concerned that it could generate a large number of appeals. At the beginning, TfL will consult widely. There will therefore be a wide number of consultees, some of whom would be able to exercise their right of appeal. That could present a substantial workload. A permit system could become clogged with appeals and each application could be held up for some time. That would not be in anyone's interest. Bus companies that wished to apply for a permit might well lose confidence

1043
in such a system. I am sure that they would expect their applications to be dealt with efficiently and with reasonable speed.
We have covered the matter in a different way. We intend the appeal panel to provide an appropriate safeguard for the interests of bus companies against decisions taken by TfL. It was never our intention that they should act at the request of consultees.
I believe that we have ensured that consultees will be able to play their part at a much earlier stage and make their views known to TfL on permit applications. I am firmly convinced that TfL should take the final decisions regarding applications, subject to the applicant's right of appeal. But the views of other consultees will have been taken into account by the time the decision has been reached.
Turning to the other two amendments, a requirement for TfL to consult local authorities before making any variation, however small, could be time consuming. There is a better way of going about this. It would be preferable for the issues of variations to be addressed in the mayor's guidance document. We shall expect the mayor to set out his policy in respect of the circumstances under which conditions may be attached to a permit, after having taken account of the views of all the interested parties, including local authorities and the operators. It is in those conditions that TfL has the power to vary under the provisions of Clause 165. Any variations made would have to be consistent with what is stated in the guidance document.
The other advantage of dealing with the matter through a guidance document rather than on the face of the Bill is that it would not be set in stone. As experience grew, revisions could be considered at the request of the operators, the local authorities or other interested parties. Such revisions would be subject to wide consultation.
I believe that I heard the noble Baroness aright: she said that if she could receive reassurances in relation to the consultation process, the appeals process might not be the appropriate way of dealing with the matter. I hope that she accepts that that is the way in which we are dealing with it, subject to a guidance document being drawn up which makes that clear to all parties concerned.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. I should like to consider it carefully. I have personal experience of conflicts that arose between the local authority that I represented, Enfield Borough Council, and the GLC, when, as often happened, the GLC made a decision contrary to what my area wanted. It often seemed to me that those viewing matters from the centre did not know how difficult they were. That was not in the field of transport, it was in licensing, but the same argument applies. That is why consultation, particularly with a local authority, is so important.
I shall read the Minister's reply carefully, and perhaps we can discuss the matter. I may not have understood the exact significance of the proposed
1044
consultation process and how it will work—whether, for example, there will be any kind of permanent or semi-permanent liaison between local authorities and the centre. That might be another way of dealing with the issue. I have explained the reason for my personal concern in regard to this matter. I believe it to be relevant. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 404:
Page 89, line 30, after second ("to") insert ("the London Transport Users' Committee,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment will add the London Transport Users Committee to the list of organisations that will be notified by TfL when an application for a London service permit is granted.
The Bill currently requires the local authorities affected, the police and the London Transport Users Committee to be consulted on an application for a London service permit. It also requires TfL to notify the local authorities affected and the police, but not the London Transport Users Committee if an application is granted. Our view was that TfL would notify the LTUC as a matter of course and so an explicit requirement to do so was not necessary.
However, we listened carefully as noble Lords argued that for the sake of completeness we should make provision for TfL to notify the LTUC on the grant of permit. I am grateful to noble Lords for their consideration of this matter and am happy to bring forward this amendment which accedes to their wishes. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment. It responds to concerns which were expressed by myself and others at Committee stage.
Clause 165 [Conditions]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 405:
Page 89, line 44, at end insert ("provided that no condition shall be operated if it contains or requires features which are neither essential nor reasonably incidental to the purpose of providing a safe, economic and efficient bus service for passengers").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 405 it may be convenient for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 408 and 409 at the same time. These are important safeguards against political correctness being imposed on bus operators or TfL deliberately or even perhaps inadvertently imposing terrible conditions on a private operator. For example, TfL could insist that all buses on a certain route have mobile payphones installed. That is plainly ridiculous. However, without the amendment there is no need to apply any test of the appropriateness of conditions. Furthermore, contravention of a condition attracts a fine at level three on the standard scale. Bearing in

1045
mind those legal sanctions, it is doubly important that the scope of the conditions is suitably limited. The amendment does that by restricting them.
Can the Minister say what conditions could possibly and reasonably be required that would be caught by the amendment? Has the Minister any illustrative examples? What are the conditions meant to cover and/or are they limited to subsection (2) of the clause? I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, politically correct or not, 1 have to say that I think payphones on buses would be an extremely good idea. I hope we hear from the Minister that the use of developing technology could be something which service providers were asked to consider seriously in the development of their services.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, when the Minister replies, perhaps she can answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Attlee and confirm that any conditions imposed outside the scope of Clause 165(2) would be ultra vires. If we can have that assurance, no doubt we shall be more content.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we cannot accept the amendments. Clause 165 carries forward into current legislation certain provisions which are made for attaching conditions for London local service licences. It applies equivalent conditions to London service permits. TfL will only be able to attach such conditions for reasonable purposes. The normal duty to act reasonably applies.
Amendment No. 405, in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 408 and 409, seeks to limit the imposition of such conditions with the effect that Tfl, would no longer be able to take account of matters such as traffic and parking conditions or environmental or accessibility issues in determining whether to grant a permit. That answers the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. It could seriously undermine the mayor's transport strategy. It could, for example, potentially conflict with his responsibilities to take account of the needs of people with mobility problems. I am sure that that is not what the noble Earl intended in bringing forward the amendments.
However, the Government have accepted that, in bringing forward these amendments, first at Committee stage and again on Report, noble Lords are motivated by a legitimate concern to safeguard the interests of permit holders. That is why we brought forward amendments to Clause 165 in this House. They give permit holders a right of appeal against the imposition of conditions by TfL and a right of appeal against the revocation or suspension of their permit for contravention of those conditions. I hope that noble Lords will welcome the further amendment to Clause 167 that we have tabled (Amendment No. 410) which will remove the mayor's discretion to determine such appeals without reference to the appeals panel. Our amendment will make it obligatory for the mayor to refer all appeals made under Clause 165 to the appeals panel.
1046
I believe that the amendments which are now part of the Bill to expand the circumstances in which appeals can be made, together with the new amendment that we have tabled, will provide appropriate safeguards against the imposition of unreasonable conditions. We should not limit TfL's discretion, taking account of those safeguards, to attach conditions that could bring wider benefits.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, perhaps I may relate my experience of travelling on the West Coast main line. I am sure that those who provide card phones will be only too happy to do so free. Often the units on the card disappear at an alarming rate and no conversation is possible in either direction. I am sure that the mayor will be capable of conducting a deal. I hope noble Lords are satisfied that we have listened carefully to their concerns and acted upon them. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, pay phones would be ridiculous on a bus because, as far as I can see, nearly everyone has a private mobile telephone. I cannot afford one. I do not agree with some of the arguments of the Minister. We may return to this matter, but we must look carefully at the amendments to which the Minister referred. Perhaps those amendments meet our concerns. In the meantime, with that proviso, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 406 to 408 not moved.]
Clause 166 [Revocation]:
[Amendment No. 409 not moved.]
Clause 167 [Appeals]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 410:
Page 91, line 21, leave out from ("he") to ("refer") in line 25 and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 410, which will require the mayor to refer all appeals made to him under Clause 167 to the bus appeal panel. The current draft of the Bill gives the mayor the option of either referring an appeal to the appeal panel or determining it himself by means of directions to TfL. At earlier stages in the Bill a number of noble Lords were concerned that to give the mayor the option to determine an appeal without reference to the panel could result in the mayor acting as judge and jury in such cases. I am grateful to your Lordships for raising these concerns, which I accept are valid.
Noble Lords will recall that at Committee stage we introduced amendments to widen the circumstances in which appeals could be made. This amendment goes further and provides a safeguard for the legitimate interests of all applicants for a London service permit

1047
and permit holders by ensuring that the mayor refers all appeals to the panel. I commend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, once again the House should thank the Minister for listening to the concerns voiced in Committee and responding to them.
Clause 169 [Consultation]:
[Amendment No. 411 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 170 [Publication]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 412 to 420:
Page 93, line 26, leave out ("guidance document as revised") and insert ("current version of the guidance document").
Page 93, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) The Mayor shall send to the Common Council and to each London borough council a copy of the current version of the guidance document.").
Page 93, line 31, after ("of") insert ("the current version of").
Page 93, line 31, leave out ("for the appropriate period").
Page 93, line 33, after ("Authority") insert (", and
(b) at such other places as the Mayor considers appropriate,").
Page 93, line 34, after first ("of") insert ("the current version or).
Page 93, line 35, leave out ("during the appropriate period"). Page 93, line 37, leave out subsection (7).
Page 93, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Any reference in this section to "the current version" of the guidance document is a reference to the guidance document as last published, whether originally or as revised.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 412 to 420 en bloc.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 420A:
After Clause 172, insert the following new clause—
POWERS OF LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS AND COMMON COUNCIL IN RESPECT OF BUS SHELTERS, ETC
(" .—(1) Subject to the following provisions, each of the London borough councils and the Common Council may provide and maintain in any highway within their district which is comprised in the route of London local bus services, or on any land abutting on such a highway, shelters or other accommodation at stopping places on the route for the use of persons intending to travel on such a service.
(2) Each of the London borough councils and the Common Council may enter into and carry out an agreement with any person for the carrying on by that person ("the contractor") of any activities associated with subsection (1) above.
(3) In exercising their powers under subsection (1) above, each of the London borough councils and the Common Council is to have regard to the Mayor's transport strategy.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 420A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 420B. Amendment No. 420A proposes a new clause that enables the London borough councils and the Common Council to provide bus shelters and similar accommodation. We have
1048
tabled these two amendments in order to seek clarification from the Government as to how they anticipate resolving a rather complex situation. In London at present the boroughs or London Transport can contract for the supply of bus shelters. I suppose by definition London Transport would not do so outside London. The situation is different inside London.
On the one hand boroughs may prefer to control their own contracts for a number of reasons ranging from income from advertising to contracting for particular shelters. On the other hand, London Transport—soon it will be TfL—has a duty to promote public transport and to see that the supply of bus shelters suits customer needs and is one of their objectives. The revenue from the bus shelters that it provides will be returned for transport uses. There are also issues about the specification of the shelters such as uniformity, design and maintenance.
The situation is complex. As I understand it, a recent Court of Appeal decision, London Transport v. The London Borough of Hillingdon, has confirmed that the situation is complex. There are financial, commercial and passenger interests involved.
We appreciate that we have tabled these amendments at a relatively late stage. They ask the Government whether they accept that something should be on the face of the Bill either in the manner in which we are approaching the matter or by some other method. We ask how they see the current situation being resolved. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have substantial sympathy for the motivation behind this amendment. I and my noble friend Lord Harris saw the Minister to express anxieties about the potential arising from a lack of competition in this field which could eventually cause great disservice to the London travelling public.
As the noble Baroness said, the issue is very complicated. I wish to recapitulate briefly some of the history behind it. No doubt some noble Lords will have received representations from Adshel, which is special pleading, to say the least. I do not blame the company for engaging in that because that is what corporate interests do. But we have to take it, not as a dispassionate view of the situation but one designed to serve the interests of that particular company.
The noble Baroness is also right in saying that the case affecting Hillingdon was also complicated. I do not believe that it provides a very clear-cut answer to the problems that arise. In 1990, which was 10 years after London Transport formed its partnership for the provision of bus shelters, it has to be said that, from a dispassionate view of the situation at that time, the bus shelters provided on the streets of London were in very poor condition. That is why many London boroughs, if not all, welcomed the competition introduced by J.C. Decaux, a well known company with a French background which has been very successful in providing bus shelters in France. When the competition arose, bus shelter design began to

1049
improve. That situation often emerges as a corollary of competition. In Kingston-on-Thames, Lewisham, Croydon, Merton, Camden, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Barnet, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest, that measure of competition was introduced to the general benefit of a substantial proportion of London's travelling public.
The situation in Waltham Forest is a little more difficult. It now feels obliged to deal with Adshel which had lost the tender. It had to go to tender with J C Decaux; and it had lost. But last March, I think it was, it was given the contract. Decaux had found itself in difficulty because it was said some time ago, when it sought to buy Adshel, that a strong, compelling reason prevented it from doing so. It would lead to one company emerging in this field and competition would be denied. Now there is a real risk, in particular because of recent events, that the situation is being reversed in favour of Adshel.
For reasons adduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—it is a highly complicated matter—I do not say that we should decide definitively one way or the other. My noble friend was present at the meeting. He heard the representations made. I should like the Government preferably to keep an open mind and to ensure that the principles of competition are preserved. I withdraw in no way from the situation I adopted in relation to the meeting and for some time previously.
However, if my noble friend is not disposed to act, I ask him at least to ensure that careful consideration is maintained by government pressure on those providing contracts in the future to see how the situation is working out. The main criterion is the provision for the benefit of Londoners. It is not an ideological but a practical issue. If the best provision that can be made is through competition—it undoubtedly had a marked success in this case—it would be better to ensure that that opportunity remains open in the future.
I know that the Government have gone some way down their planning route. However, I urge my noble friend at the very least to give the assurance I seek so that the situation remains under careful review and Adshel is kept up to the mark. If it knows that competition is falling by the wayside, it has nothing to fear subject to maintaining the terms of its contract with London Transport and I believe that standards will drop to the disadvantage of many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in London.
I know that the point does not go to the heart of the Bill, but it is an important issue of principle. I urge my noble friend to respond to the suggestion I have made in a positive way.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I support the amendment. On previous occasions, I have asked the Minister whether this is a local government Bill or whether we were dealing with something unique. Now we are discussing bus shelters, I know that it is a local government Bill!
1050
I, too, have received representations from different interests and local authorities which are concerned about the issue. I support the amendment because I believe that it is in the interests of the travelling public and the London boroughs and that it makes sense within the context of the Bill. I submit that the provision of bus shelters is a London-wide matter only in so far as bus shelters are wanted in all parts of London.
Putting up bus shelters is not a truly strategic matter. Indeed, I recollect that in the shire counties it is a specific provision for parish councils. I have no doubt that putative officer moguls of the Greater London Authority will think it a matter eminently suitable for London boroughs. I suggest that the continuation of dual powers, in this as in anything else, is a great mistake. It may not be as fundamental as dual highway and planning powers, but it is an example of dual powers, which we need to avoid.
I submit that it is for the boroughs to decide what the provisions should be and, after competitive tender, to have the ability to make a borough-wide provision to decide what publicity should be permitted and what to do with the revenue that flows from it.
I draw on my experience as a former Leader of Croydon Borough Council when we decided that we wanted to undertake a comprehensive re-signing scheme over the whole of the borough and to provide bus shelters to a standard and quality which is common-place in many municipalities in continental Europe, but remarkably and sadly unusual within the United Kingdom. Certainly that which had been provided previously in no way reached the standard we sought.
I have to tell your Lordships that the viability of the contract we were able to offer was significantly challenged because we were unable to include the whole of the borough and because of the ability of London Transport and its partners to deal with particular instances within the borough. We were seeking a design to a high standard which could be carried out throughout the area. It is difficult.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to accept that there is an important strategy here in terms of whether the Greater London Authority and the mayor should be dealing with things which are not strategic. There is an issue about the ability of the boroughs to go out to competitive tender to achieve what they want. I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will be able to give us some assurance that the matter can be looked at seriously.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I admit that when I first looked at the amendment it appeared to be quite interesting. However, further investigation revealed that the matter has been the subject of various legal challenges, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. This is largely a commercial dispute and we do not believe that we should become involved. On the other hand, I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to this important and complicated matter.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis have said, this seemingly innocent area is extremely complicated. As the noble Earl has just indicated, it has already been the subject of serious legal disputes.
All that we were actually trying to do here was to preserve the status quo and to ensure that TfL took over the responsibilities which currently lie with London transport, but it has raised a hornet's nest of borough and commercial activity and lobbying, probably as much as any other part of the Bill. That extraordinary state of affairs needs to be addressed, but I do not believe that it can be addressed in the terms of the noble Baroness's amendments.
London Transport, and indeed every other local authority up and down the land, has the ability to raise bus shelters. In London, 93 per cent of the bus shelters are London Transport bus shelters. The second of these amendments would remove all the existing powers under the 1934 Act which London has to erect and maintain shelters. TfL would no longer have powers to build shelters and would also have to stop maintaining all London Transport's existing ones.
That is not what the Government envisage as a sensible arrangement. Clearly, like the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, the Government want to see adequate provision of shelters and improvement in the quality of shelters. The current arrangements have actually resulted in a fairly substantial provision of bus shelters in London. There are over 10,000 bus stops in London with shelters, which is 62 per cent of bus stops. That is a dramatically higher figure than applies for example, to Greater Manchester, where only about 29 per cent of bus stops have shelters—I am not saying that that is necessarily an example to us all. It rains more in Manchester, so I would have thought that there would be more in Manchester.
As I have said, over 90 per cent of London bus shelters are owned by London Transport. Of those, about 90 per cent are relatively new; less than 10 years old. I do not disagree with the noble Lord that there has been an element of improvement over recent months—my noble friend has just passed me a note saying, "Don't be southist"! I intend no disparagement to Manchester, apart from its relative meteorological position.
I do not believe that the boroughs will necessarily be in a better position than TfL to make a decision on the nature of bus shelters and on the requirements throughout the bus route, which, after all, will cross several boroughs and take little account of borough boundaries. It is somewhat bizarre to say to the people of London that their new transport authority can do almost anything in London except provide and maintain bus shelters for the most popular form of transport within London and one which we wish to improve and encourage people to use.
Therefore I believe that it is not a reasonable way out of what would appear to be something of a dilemma and conflict to delete all powers for London Transport in that area. Furthermore, through its
1052
arrangement with Adshel, London Transport receives £5 million per year in advertising revenue from those shelters. It may be that, rather than being any great ideological issue, this is a matter in which the boroughs are undoubtedly interested. I understand that. Nevertheless, that agreement with Adshel has brought benefit to London Transport which has been completely reinvested in the transport system.
It is also the case, if we are getting into legal difficulties, that the Adshel/London Transport agreement is contractually binding and if we were effectively to end that agreement through legislation we should be in even more legal difficulties.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend for allowing my interruption. I do not wish to prolong the argument unduly, but is it not a little bizarre that when J. C. Decaux wanted to purchase Adshel, the application was denied on competition grounds because there would be only one company involved with LT? Is it not now bizarre that that might in fact be the logic of the situation being driven by the Government at the moment?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. I was just about to come to the issue of competition. Clearly, when the contracts—both London borough contracts and LT contracts—come up for renegotiation, there will be an issue of competition. The Adshel agreement comes to an end in 2005. TfL will have a best value duty, as will other local authorities, and at that point it is the Government's duty to ensure that competition operates. The issue is not one of competition; it is one of powers.
I am sure that competition law, and probably European procurement rules, would require both the boroughs and London Transport to engage in effective competition at the point at which the contract is awarded. In the case of London Transport, that will be in 2005. Clearly, we are all in favour of competition operating at that point. However, we are not in favour of changing the situation whereby London Transport, after 70 years, is wiped out of the picture and everything is left to the London boroughs. I do not honestly believe that that would be understood by the electorate of London. London boroughs will have some powers in this area, as they do now, and they will contract their work to whomever is the best provider, of which there are two that we have named. Both are active lobbyists and, apparently, active litigants as well.
We have a difficult situation here. Broadly speaking, we have stayed with the status quo, transferring from London Transport to TfL its current powers. I believe that that is the most sensible way forward. Certainly, we do not wish to imply that there is an anticompetitive motive in so doing. Competition will prevail when those contracts come up. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, first, I wish to make a very serious point. I hope that the Minister will

1053
understand that Manchester's rainfall is precisely the national average. That is something that as a Mancunian I learned very early at school. The towns around it, such as Oldham, have a higher rainfall, but not Manchester—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, for the record, I apologise to Manchester.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I was going to add: despite the fact that it always rains when there is a test match at Old Trafford.
I was careful not to mention the names of the two suppliers. Inevitably those names emerged. I had not wanted to be thought to be taking either side. I believe that some very important issues arise from this. As the Minister says, they are both energetic companies. When I was still a local councillor and had some responsibility in the area, one of the companies was very keen to take me on a tour of its public "loos" in central London. I was told that the one in Russell Square was a particularly fine example. But it was a visit that I resisted.
There are serious points arising from this. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. However, to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I believe that the major issue in all this is what is in the interests of the travelling public. If one can find that through the morass of complexity then that would be helpful. I am still a little unsure of quite what is in the interests of members of the travelling public among these issues.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 420B not moved.]
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston) moved Amendment No. 421:
After Clause 176, insert the following new clause—
LICENCE EXEMPTIONS AND FACILITY EXEMPTIONS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Rail Regulator and the Franchising Director, by order grant at any time—

(a) a licence exemption under subsection (1) of section 7 of the Railways Act 1993, notwithstanding anything in subsection (10) of that section, or

(b) a facility exemption under section 20 of that Act, notwithstanding anything in subsection (9) of that section,

subject to and in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) An exemption by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above may only be granted in respect of railway assets or railway facilities comprised in, or used on or in connection with. a network on which some or all of the regular scheduled passenger services are operated by London Regional Transport or Transport for London or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport or Transport for London.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) above is exercisable only if the Secretary of State has received an application for the grant of the exemption from the appropriate London transport authority.
(4) In this section—
"the appropriate London transport authority" means—

(a) as respects any time before the transfer date, London Regional Transport; and

(b) as respects any time on or after that date, Transport for London;

"the transfer date" means the date on which London Underground Limited becomes a subsidiary of Transport for London;
and, subject to that, expressions used in this section and in Part I of the Railways Act 1993 have the same meaning in this section as in that Part.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 421, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 422 to 424. This group of amendments consists of technical measures which provide that LT and TfL will not be constrained from entering into an agreement to integrate the Tube and national rail networks.
The group also includes a small technical amendment which will add TfL to the list of local authorities and rail franchise agreements. I should mention here that, while we do not foresee a need to make any more significant amendments in respect of the national rail network, we shall need to bring forward a few amendments at Third Reading in respect of the Docklands Light Railway and the Croydon Tramlink. I beg to move.
Clause 178 [Transport for London: contracts requiring passenger licences]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 422 and 423:
Page 98, line 2, at end insert—

("( ) an agreement with respect to the provision or retention, or financing, of regular scheduled railway passenger services operated by a London transport body;

( ) an agreement with respect to the provision or retention, or financing, of regular scheduled railway passenger services operated by a person other than a London transport body on track used for the provision of regular scheduled railway passenger services operated by a London transport body (whether or not the track is also used for other purposes);").

Page 98, line 10, at beginning insert—
("In this section "London transport body" means—

(a) London Regional Transport;

(b) Transport for London; or

(c) a subsidiary of London Regional Transport or Transport for London;

and, subject to that,").
Clause 182 [Amendment of franchise agreements to take account of the Authority]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 424:
Page 99, line 43, at end insert ("Transport for London,".").
Clause 185 [PPP agreements]
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 425:
Page 102, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) At least one of the parties to the contract must be a relevant body for the purposes of this Chapter, that is to say—

(a) London Regional Transport;

(b) Transport for London; or

(c) a subsidiary of London Regional Transport or Transport for London.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 425 and I shall also speak to Amendments No. 425B in substitution for Amendment No. 425A, and to Amendments Nos. 428 to 433, 440 to 446, 449 to 451 and 467. This group of amendments is largely technical in nature and relates to the PPP agreements, key system assets and leases.
The first section of this group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 425, 428, 429 and 467—extends LRT and TfL's powers under Clauses 185 and 189 to enter into PPP agreements and designate key system assets to London Transport and TfL subsidiaries.
Amendment No. 425B, on public sector operators, replaces Amendment No. 425A which was put down on Wednesday last week and unfortunately omitted the key words "a PPP company". I apologise for having to make this correction at this late stage, but those words are essential in order that other sections of the Bill which refer to subsection (5) of Clause 185 are correct.
Amendment No. 425B is necessary to allow the PPP agreements to be entered into while infrastructure companies are still subsidiaries of LUL and, as such, are classed as public sector operators. As currently drafted, Clause 185(5) excludes public sector operators from entering into PPP agreements.
In regard to Amendments Nos. 430 to 433 on key system assets, we have been considering the burdens which Clause 189 of the Bill places on Transport for London and consider that the proposed arrangement may be unnecessarily bureaucratic. These amendments give TfL the choice of providing a register of assets or copies of the designation documents.
Amendments Nos. 440 to 446 are mainly technical amendments, designed to avoid uncertainty in the treatment of PPP leases.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 449 to 451 are technical amendments deleting provisions which were included in the Railways Act provisions on which Schedule 11 is based, but are not necessary for the PPP administration orders.
I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister has described this group of amendments as technical and, by implication, innocuous. Does he realise that if the House agrees Amendment No. 425, my Amendment No. 426 would be rendered defective? That annoys me
1056
a little, but there we are. However, we shall look at these amendments very carefully to make sure that they are indeed technical.
[Amendment No. 425A not moved.]
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 425B:
Page 102, line 24, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
("(5) If a party who undertakes to carry out or secure the carrying out of any or all of the work mentioned in subsection (3) above (a "PPP company") is a public sector operator at the time when the contract is made, that party must no longer be a public sector operator on the day following the expiration of the period of six weeks beginning with the day on which the condition in subsection (7) below is satisfied.").
10 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 426:
Page 102, line 32, at end insert
("(8) Transport for London may only enter into a PPP agreement with any party after a process of competitive tendering has taken place, such tenders in an abbreviated form to be available for inspection by members of the public following the conclusion of the tendering process.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 426 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. The amendment is designed to ensure transparency and prevent a cosy deal being struck on a politically-influenced basis by forcing the tendering system into the open but with proper safeguards to protect commercial confidentiality. It will ensure transparency and the best value for money for the public.
As I intimated earlier, the last group of government amendments indicate that agreements may be signed by subsidiaries and not just TfL only. In view of that, I shall accept the Minister's criticism that my amendment may now be defective. I beg to move.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, this amendment has two separate strands. The first part relates to competitive processes and would not allow TfL to enter into a PPP agreement with a company unless it had run a tender competition.
As a general point the Government agree that best value is normally achieved through having a competitive process. However, there are certain circumstances where there is particular merit in pursuing negotiations bilaterally. The discussions that London Underground is having with Railtrack, where the aim is to explore the scope for integration of the Underground's sub-surface lines with the national railway network, is such a case. We feel therefore that it would not be in the best interest of Londoners to impose an obligation of the type suggested.
The second element of the amendment requires TfL to publish summaries of the tenders once the competition has been completed. It is not normal practice to publish details of tenders as much of the information they contain is commercially sensitive. We understand the desire for the award of contracts to

1057
be undertaken in a way that demonstrably delivers best value to the public purse. But an obligation to publish a summary of tenders is not desirable. Rather, I can offer the reassurance that the competitive process will be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office in the normal way. I therefore ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he able to tell the House whether other public bodies which have to deal with tendering publish the tenders? I am thinking particularly of local authorities which do not in fact publish summaries of tenders because, although the commercial aspects will not be discussed publicly, other aspects may be discussed in committee and therefore in public.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I shall read carefully what he said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 427:
After Clause 185, insert the following new clause—
CONDITIONS FOR ENTRY INTO PPP AGREEMENT
(" —(1) Before any PPP agreement is entered into the Secretary of State shall have carried out an economic assessment in respect of the life of the agreement which demonstrates that such PPP agreement represents value for money at least comparable to that which would have been available through a publicly financed arrangement."
(2) Such assessment shall be published by the Secretary of State immediately after the relevant PPP agreement has been entered into.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 427 is a refinement of an amendment put forward from these Benches at Committee stage in July. It is designed to ensure that a public sector comparator is carried out for a PPP agreement before it is actually entered into, and then as soon as it has been entered into, it is published. An understanding of the risk being transferred by a PPP agreement is clearly crucial to an assessment of the benefits of PPP or PFI agreements. Many of the doubts about PFI agreements concern the question of whether the risk transferred to the private sector is adequate to justify the additional costs to the public purse of the PFI or PPP agreements. It is that which makes having a comparator compulsory in these circumstances of such crucial importance.
At Committee stage the Minister said that there was no difference between us in principle as regards the carrying out of a comparator. He said:
"We have no intention of proceeding with any aspect of the PPP unless we are convinced that the contracts offer best value for passengers and taxpayers".
He went on to say,
"We are committed to conducting a public sector comparator exercise".—[Official Report, 1/7/99; col. 561.]
On that score there can clearly be no doubt. However, he took exception to the timing. He did not believe that there should be publication before the PPP agreement was entered into, and he objected to the exercise being carried out by the GLA. Hence the amendment allows
1058
the Secretary of State to carry out the comparator and for that comparator to be published not before the agreement is entered into—there seemed to be a view that it was commercially sensitive to do it at that time—but afterwards.
Therefore, having amended the amendment, so to speak, to ensure that it complies exactly with his requirements, I ask the Minister what objection there can be in principle to this being included on the face of the Bill? It is clearly of great importance that we have this clarity and transparency about any PPP agreement which is entered into. Equally, it is of vital importance that it should be established to be of at least as good value as any public financing. I look forward to hearing the Minister's acceptance that this is a sensible amendment and one which should be included on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, moving his amendment. For myself, I would certainly not like to see a PPP offering poor value. However, I suspect that the Minister will offer the noble Lord a similar response to the one that I received on my previous amendment.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to carry out a public sector comparator exercise before any PPP contracts are signed to show that the contracts are at least comparable on value for money grounds with the Underground remaining within the public sector.
As my noble friend Lord Whitty explained in Committee, the Government are already committed to testing the PPP for value for money against a public sector comparator. We have made it clear time and again that we have no intention of proceeding with any aspect of the PPP unless we are convinced that the contracts offer best value for passengers and taxpayers.
I turn now to the question of publishing the findings. Although some factors may need to remain commercially confidential between the parties, it is our intention to put as much information as practical into the public domain, including the construction of the public sector comparator. The details will be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office, which will be looking for reassurance that the competition has been handled properly and that best value was obtained for the taxpayer.
However, we do not think that an obligation to carry out and then publish the details of the public sector comparator is necessary. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I must admit that I was somewhat baffled by the logic of his final paragraph. The noble Lord made the very welcome commitment to carry out the public sector comparator; indeed, he said that the Government had no intention of proceeding with a PPP agreement unless that was carried out. He also added that as much information

1059
as possible would be put into the public domain. However, he then said that it was not appropriate to put that on the face of the Bill. It seems to us that that would be a very important reassurance to the public that these PPP agreements, which are normal but about which many people have misgivings, should clearly be seen to be as good value as public financing.
Nevertheless, I shall carefully consider the Minister's reply in Hansard, but we may well wish to return to this matter at a future stage. Having accepted the obligation so clearly and also the obligation to publish, I, for one, do not really understand why this provision should not appear on the face of the Bill. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 188 [Key system assets]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 428 and 429:
Page 103, line 37, leave out ("the relevant authority") and insert ("a relevant body").
Page 103, line 40, leave out ("the relevant authority") and insert ("a relevant body").
Clause 189 [Register of key system assets]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 430 to 433:
Page 104, line 4, at end insert (", except as provided by subsection (2A) below").
Page 104, line 10, at end insert—
("(2A) The register need not contain an entry in respect of any particular key system asset or description of key system assets if the relevant authority, with the consent of the PPP company concerned, keeps the requisite copy documents available for inspection by the public at all reasonable hours free of charge.
(2B) For the purposes of this section the "requisite copy documents", in the case of any particular key system asset or description of key system assets, are copies of—

(a) the document which contains the designation under paragraph (a) or (b) of section 188(1) above, and

(b) such other documents (if any) as may be necessary to disclose the information which would (apart from subsection (2A) above) be required to be stated in the register,

or of such extracts from those documents as disclose the designation or, as the case may be, the information concerned.").
Page 104, line 13, after ("register") insert (", or any requisite copy documents available for inspection under subsection (2A) above,").
Page 104, line 14, at end insert ("or requisite copy documents").
Clause 190 [Related third party agreements]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 434 to 437:
Page 104, line 23, leave out ("a third party") and insert ("another person (a "PPP related third party")").
Page 104, line 31, after second ("the") insert ("PPP related").
Page 104, line 34, at end insert ("PPP related").
Page 104, line 36, after first ("the") insert ("PPP related").
Clause 191 [Protection of key system assets]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 438 and 439:
Page 105, line 10, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Where a PPP agreement makes provision for or in connection with the transfer to a successor body at any time—

(a) of any shares in a PPP company, or

(b) of any key system assets,

the relevant authority shall ensure that the PPP agreement includes provision specifying, or providing for the determination of, the amounts which are to be paid in respect of those shares or key system assets.
(5A) In subsection (5) above, "successor body" means—

(a) a relevant body;

(b) a PPP company; or

(c) a PPP related third party.

(5B) Any reference in this section to a PPP company or PPP related third party includes a reference to a body or person which has been or is to be such a company or party.").
After Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
SCHEMES FOR THE TRANSFER OF KEY SYSTEM ASSETS
(" .—(1) Transport for London may make schemes for the transfer of key system assets from any body falling within subsection (2) below to any other such body.
(2) Those bodies are—

(a) Transport for London;

(b) any subsidiary of Transport for London;

(c) any PPP company;

(d) any PPP related third party.

(3) A scheme under this section shall not take effect unless and until it has been approved by the Mayor.
(4) The transfers which may be made by virtue of a scheme under this section include transfers taking effect before, on or after the expiration of the term of the PPP agreement or PPP related third party agreement by reference to which the transferor or transferee under the scheme falls within subsection (2) above.
(5) No scheme under this section for the transfer of key system assets from or to—

(a) a PPP company, or

(b) a PPP related third party,

may be made otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the PPP agreement or PPP related third party agreement by reference to which the PPP company or PPP related third party falls within subsection (2) above.
(6) In this section—

(a) any reference to key system assets includes a reference to property, rights or liabilities which have been or are to be such assets; and

(b) any reference to a PPP company or PPP related third party includes a reference to a body or person which has been or is to be such a company or party.

(7) Schedule (Transport for London transfer schemes) to this Act (which makes further provision in relation to schemes under this section) shall have effect.").
Clause 192 [PPP leases]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 440 to 446:
Page 105, line 29, leave out from ("lease") to end of line 31.
Page 105, line 38, leave out ("for the PPP company's use").
Page 105, line 42, after second ("the") insert ("PPP").
Page 106, line 1, after second ("the") insert ("PPP").

1061
Page 106, line 2, after second ("the") insert ("PPP").
Page 106, line 4, after ("the") insert ("PPP").
Page 106, line 5, after ("the") insert ("PPP").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 447 and 448:
Before Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE TRANSPORT FOR LONDON TRANSFER SCHEMES
Interpretation
1. In this Schedule—
"transfer scheme" means—

(a) a scheme under section (Distribution of property, rights or liabilities) of this Act; or

(b) a scheme under section (Schemes for the transfer of key system assets) of this Act;

"transferor" means the person from whom property, rights or liabilities are transferred by a transfer scheme;
"transferee" means a person to whom any such property, rights or liabilities are so transferred.
Contents of transfer schemes
2.—(1) The property, rights and liabilities which may be transferred by a transfer scheme include property, rights and liabilities which would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or assigned.
(2) No right of reverter, right of pre-emption, right of forfeiture, right of re-entry, right to compensation, option or similar right affecting any land or other property, and no right to terminate or vary a contract, shall operate or become exercisable as a result of any transfer of land or other property by virtue of a transfer scheme, or any instrument or agreement made in connection with a transfer scheme, whether or not any consent required to the transfer has been obtained.
(3) Any such right or option shall accordingly have effect in the case of any such transfer as if—

(a) the transferee in relation to that transfer were the same person in law as the transferor; and

(b) no transfer of the land or other property had taken place.

(4) Sub-paragraph (3) above is without prejudice to section 356 of this Act or any other provision made by or under this Act which makes transitional provision in relation to a transfer.
(5) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) above shall have effect in relation to—

(a) the grant or creation of an estate or interest in, or right over, any land or other property, or

(b) the doing of any other thing in relation to land or other property,

as they have effect in relation to a transfer of land or other property.
(6) No right to terminate or vary a contract, and no other rights under a contract, shall operate or become exercisable by reason of any transfer of shares by virtue of a transfer scheme.
Apportionment and division
3.—( ) A transfer scheme may make provision for the apportionment or division of any property, rights or liabilities.
(2) Where a transfer scheme makes provision for the apportionment or division between two or more persons of any rights or liabilities under a contract, the contract shall have effect, as from the coming into force of the provision, as if it constituted two or more separate contracts separately enforceable by and against each of those persons respectively as respects the part of the rights or liabilities which falls to him as a result of the apportionment or division.
Definition of the property, rights and liabilities transferred
4. A transfer scheme may define the property, rights and liabilities to be transferred—

(a) by specifying or describing them;

(b) by referring to all (or all except anything specified or described) of the property, rights and liabilities comprised in a specified part of the undertaking of the transferor; or

(c) partly in the one way and partly in the other

Other provision that may be made by a transfer scheme
5. The provision that may be made by a transfer scheme includes provision—

(a) for the creation, in relation to any land or other property which the scheme transfers, of an estate or interest in or right over the property in favour of the transferor;

(b) for the creation, in favour of a transferee, of an estate or interest in or right over any land or other property retained by the transferor or transferred by the scheme to another transferee;

(c) for the creation of rights or liabilities as between two or more transferees or as between one or more transferees and the transferor;

(d) for any rights or liabilities specified or described in the scheme to be, or to be to any extent, enforceable by or against two or more transferees, or by or against one or more transferees and the transferor;

(e) for imposing on the transferor or a transferee an obligation to enter into written agreements with, or execute other instruments in favour of, the transferor, or that or any other transferee, or such other person as may be specified in the scheme.

Power to make supplementary etc provision
6. A transfer scheme may make such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision, or savings, a; Transport for London considers appropriate.
Functions under local Acts or Transport and Works Act orders
7.—(1) A transfer scheme may provide that any functions of the transferor under a relevant statutory provision—

(a) shall be transferred to the transferee;

(b) shall be concurrently exercisable by two or more transferees; or

(c) shall be concurrently exercisable by the transferor and one or more transferees.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies in relation to any function under a relevant statutory provision if and to the extent that the relevant statutory provision—

(a) relates to any property which is to be transferred by the scheme; or

(b) authorises the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with any such property or the acquisition of land for the purpose of carrying out any such works.

(3) A transfer scheme which makes provision by virtue of this paragraph shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(4) In this paragraph "relevant statutory provision" means any provision, whether of a general or of a special nature, contained in, or in any document made or issued under—

(a) any local Act; or

(b) any order under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

Effect of transfer scheme
8. On the date appointed by a transfer scheme, the property, rights and liabilities which are the subject of the scheme shall, by virtue of this paragraph, be transferred in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
Continuity
9.—(1) Nothing in this Act affects the validity of anything done by or in relation to the transferor in connection with anything transferred by a transfer scheme.
(2) There may be continued by or in relation to the transferee anything (including legal proceedings) which—

(a) relates to anything transferred by a transfer scheme, and

(b) is in the process of being done by or in relation to the transferor immediately before the transfer takes effect.

(3) Anything which—

(a) was done by the transferor for the purposes of or otherwise in connection with anything transferred by a transfer scheme, and

(b) is in effect immediately before the transfer takes effect, shall have effect as if done by the transferee.

(4) The transferee shall be substituted for the transferor in any instruments, contracts or legal proceedings which—

(a) relate to anything transferred by a transfer scheme, and

(b) are made or commenced before the transfer takes effect.

(5) Any reference in this paragraph to anything done by or in relation to the transferor includes a reference to anything which by virtue of any enactment is treated as having been done by or in relation to the transferor.
Transfer of employees
10.—(1) This paragraph applies where a person employed by the transferor becomes an employee of the transferee by virtue of a transfer scheme.
(2) Anything done by or in relation to the transferor in respect of the employee before the day on which the transfer takes effect shall be treated on and after that day as done by or in relation to the transferee.
(3) For the purposes of Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (redundancy payments etc) the employee shall not be regarded as having been dismissed by virtue of the transfer.
(4) For the purposes of that Act—

(a) the employee's period of employment with the transferor shall count as a period of employment with the transferee; and

(b) the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.

Provision of information to Transport for London
11.—(1) Where Transport for London proposes to make a transfer scheme under section (Schemes for the transfer of key system assets) of this Act, it may direct any person to whom, or from whom, property is to be transferred under the scheme—

(a) to provide the Transport for London with such information as Transport for London considers necessary to enable it to make the scheme; and

(b) to do so within such time (being not less than 28 days from the giving of the direction) as may be specified in the direction.

(2) If a person fails to comply with a direction under subparagraph (1) above, Transport for London may serve a notice on him requiring him—

(a) to produce to Transport for London, at a time and place specified in the notice, any documents which are specified or described in the notice and are in his custody or under his control; or

(b) to provide to Transport for London, at a time and place and in the form and manner specified in the notice, such information as may be specified or described in the notice.

(3) No person shall be required under this paragraph—

(a) to produce any documents which he could not be compelled to produce in civil proceedings in the court; or

1064

(b) in complying with any requirement for the provision of information, to provide any information which he could not be compelled to give in evidence in any such proceedings.

(4) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to do anything required of him by a notice under sub-paragraph (2) above is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(5) A person who intentionally alters, suppresses or destroys any document which he has been required to produce by a notice under sub-paragraph (2) above is guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(6) If a person makes default in complying with a notice under sub-paragraph (2) above, the court may, on the application of Transport for London, make such order as the court thinks fit for requiring the default to be made good.
(7) Any such order may provide that all the costs or expenses of and incidental to the application shall be borne by the person in default or by any officers of a company or other association who are responsible for its default.
(8) In this paragraph—

(a) any reference to the production of a document includes a reference to the production of a legible and intelligible copy of information recorded otherwise than in legible form; and

(b) the reference to suppressing a document includes a reference to destroying the means of reproducing information recorded otherwise than in legible form.

(9) In this paragraph "the court" means the High Court.
Modification of transfer scheme
12. —(1) If at any time after a transfer scheme has come into force—

(a) the transferor,

(b) any transferee affected, and

(c) Transport for London, if not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above,

so agree in writing, the scheme shall for all purposes be deemed to have come into force with such modifications as may be specified in the agreement.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to modifications relating to the transfer of rights and liabilities under a contract of employment, unless the employee concerned is a party to the agreement.
(3) An agreement under sub-paragraph (1) above—

(a) may make, with effect from the coming into force of the scheme, such provision as could have been made by the scheme: and

(b) in connection with giving effect to that provision from that time, may contain incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision.

(4) Transport for London may only enter into an agreement under sub-paragraph (1) above with the consent of the Mayor.
(5) The Mayor, in giving his consent under sub-paragraph (4) above to an agreement in respect of a scheme under section (Distribution of property, rights and liabilities) of this Act, may make it a condition of the consent that such further modifications to the scheme as he may specify in giving the consent are to be included in the agreement.
(6) No modification may be specified by the Mayor under subparagraph (5) above which could not have been included in the agreement apart from that sub-paragraph.").
Before Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE PROMOTION OF BILLS IN PARLIAMENT BY TRANSPORT FOR LONDON
Preliminary requirements
1. No Bill may be deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Transport for London to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act until the requirements of paragraph 2 below have been complied with.
Consultation on draft Bill
2.—(1) Transport for London shall—

(a) prepare a draft of the proposed Bill ("the draft Bill");

(b) send copies of the draft Bill to the bodies and persons specified in sub-paragraph (2) below; and

(c) consult those bodies and persons about the draft Bill.

(2) Those bodies and persons are—

(a) the Mayor;

(b) the Assembly;

(c) every London borough council; and

(d) the Common Council.

(3) Where Transport for London sends copies of the draft Bill to those bodies and persons pursuant to sub-paragraph (1)(6) above. it shall also give those bodies and persons notice of the time within which, and the place at which, they may make representations about the draft Bill.
Publicity for, and exposure of, the draft Bill
3.—(1) Throughout the consultation period, Transport for London shall take such steps as in its opinion will give adequate publicity to the draft Bill.
(2) A copy of the draft Bill shall be kept available by Transport for London for inspection by any person on request free of charge—

(a) at the principal offices of Transport for London, and

(b) at such other places as Transport for London considers appropriate,

at reasonable hours throughout the consultation period.
(3) A copy of the draft Bill, or of any part of the draft Bill, shall be supplied to any person on request during the consultation period for such reasonable fee as Transport for London may determine.
(4) In this paragraph "the consultation period" means the period which—

(a) begins with the first day after the requirements of paragraph 2(1)(b) above have been complied with; and

(b) ends with the time notified pursuant to paragraph 2(3) above.

Deposition of the Bill in Parliament
4.—(1) If, after the requirements of paragraph 2 above have been complied with, a Bill is deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Transport for London to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act, that Bill must be in the form of the draft Bill, either as originally prepared or as modified to take account of—

(a) representations made pursuant to paragraph 2 above;

(b) other representations made within the consultation period; or

(c) other material considerations.

(2) In this paragraph "the consultation period" has the same meaning as in paragraph 3 above.
Bills affecting powers of London local authorities
5. If a Bill proposed to be deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Transport for London to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act contains provisions affecting the exercise of statutory functions by a London local authority, the Bill shall not be deposited in Parliament unless—

(a) in a case where the statutory functions of one London local authority are affected, that authority has given its written consent to the Bill in the form in which it is to be so deposited; or

(b) in a case where the statutory functions of two or more London local authorities are affected, at least 90 per cent. of all London local authorities have given their written consent to the Bill in that form.

(2) In this paragraph "London local authority" means—

(a) a London borough council; or

(b) the Common Council.

Publicity for the deposited Bill
6.—(1) This paragraph applies where a Bill ("the deposited Bill") is deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Transport for London to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act.
(2) During the period of 14 days following the day on which the deposited Bill is deposited in Parliament, Transport for London shall take such steps as in its opinion will give adequate publicity to the Bill.
(3) A copy of the deposited Bill shall be kept available by Transport for London for inspection by any person on request free of charge—

(a) at the principal offices of Transport for London, and

(b) at such other places as Transport for London considers appropriate,

at reasonable hours throughout the period while the Bill is in Parliament.
(4) A copy of the deposited Bill, or of any part of the deposited Bill, shall be supplied to any person on request during that period for such reasonable fee as Transport for London may determine.").
Schedule 11 [Transfer of relevant activities in connection with PPP administration orders]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 449 to 451:
Page 249, line 24, leave out ("his duties under Part I of this Act") and insert ("the duties imposed upon him by or under this Act or any other enactment (whenever passed or made)").
Page 252, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 252, line 38, leave out from ("provisions") to ("which") in line 39.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 449 to 460 have all been spoken to. Amendment No. 452. Unless any noble Lord objects, I shall move all these amendments en bloc: as many of that opinion say "Content'', to the contrary "Not-Content"; the "Contents" have it.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 461
Page 114, line 2, after ("to") insert ("give priority to the objective in subsection (3) above (efficiency and economy) and in making his decision the PPP arbiter shall").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am a little concerned that the Minister does not appear to have moved his Amendments Nos. 452 to 460, 462,464 and 465. However, I now move Amendment No. 461.
It is quite correct that the Bill as drafted requires a PPP arbiter to act as a third party referee in any disputes. Most significant construction contracts in the commercial world would have some form of expert umpire to resolve disputes. It is furthermore extremely helpful that the Bill sets out the principles on which the PPP arbiter is to act so that everyone has some idea of where they stand.
However, as drafted, the Bill is unclear as to what should happen in the event that these principles clash. This places the PPP arbiter in an invidious position. This amendment cures a defect in the Bill by stating which principle takes priority. The Minister may feel that something else should take priority. Perhaps planning the future performance of the agreement may be the Minister's priority for the arbiter. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is my understanding—I think that it is important that we clarify this for the record—that Amendments Nos. 452 to 460 and 462, 464 and 465 were moved together. I think it would be helpful to clarify the position particularly with regard to Amendments Nos. 452 and 460.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 were all spoken to with Amendment No. 452.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I shall not lose any sleep over this.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, for the assistance of the House I suggest that it is recorded that these amendments were moved en bloc.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, is Amendment No. 461 not moved or withdrawn?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendment No. 461.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, this amendment seeks to require the arbiter to make efficiency and economy his key priority when making a direction or issuing guidance. I understand that the same amendment was brought forward at the Committee stage of the Bill.
As my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton made clear on that occasion, we are firmly of the view that there are no substantial benefits to be had from the objectives being ranked in a pre-defined order of importance. Subsections (2) to (5) of this clause clearly define the objectives set for the arbiter, of which subsection (3) deals specifically with efficiency and economy. We agree that efficiency and economy are
1068
important, but we do not wish to make these considerations pre-eminent. I therefore ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I shall read carefully what the Minister says in Hansard tomorrow. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 462:
Page 114, line 11, leave out from ("the") to ("and") in line 13 and insert ("PPP agreement—

(a) contains provision specifying, or for determining, the rate of return which the PPP company in question might reasonably expect to earn;").

Clause 206 [Provision of information to the PPP arbiter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 463 to 465:
Page 115, line 1, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

("(c) any PPP related third party.").

After Clause 206, insert the following new clause—
FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO PPP ARBITER
(" . —(1) If a person fails to comply with a request under section 206(1) above, the PPP arbiter may serve a notice on that person requiring him—

(a) to produce to the PPP arbiter, at a time and place specified in the notice, any documents which are specified or described in the notice and are in his custody or under his control; or

(b) to provide to the PPP arbiter, at a time and place and in the form and manner specified in the notice, such information as may be specified or described in the notice.

(2) No person shall be required under this section—

(a) to produce any documents which he could not be compelled to produce in civil proceedings in the court; or

(b) in complying with any requirement for the provision of information, to provide any information which he could not be compelled to give in evidence in any such proceedings.

(3) A person who intentionally alters, suppresses or destroys any document which he has been required to produce by a notice under subsection (1) above is guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(4) If a person makes default in complying with a notice under subsection (1) above, the court may, on the application of the PPP arbiter, make such order as the court thinks fit for requiring the default to be made good.
(5) Any such order may provide that all the costs or expenses of and incidental to the application shall be borne by the person in default or by any officers of a company or other association who are responsible for its default.
(6) In this section—

(a) any reference to the production of a document includes a reference to the production of a legible and intelligible copy of information recorded otherwise than in legible form; and

(b) the reference to suppressing a document includes a reference to destroying the means of reproducing information recorded otherwise than in legible form.

(7) In this section "the court" means the High Court.").
After Clause 206, 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 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;

1070

(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.").
Clause 210 [Interpretation of this Chapter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 466 and 467:
Page 116, line 21, at end insert—

(""PPP related third party" shall be construed in accordance with section 190(2)(b) above;

"PPP related third party agreement" means any arrangements falling within section 190(2)(b) above;").

Page 116, line 34, leave out ("means") and insert ("has the meaning given by section 185(2) above (that is to say,").
10.15 p.m.
Clause 211 [Travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 468:
Page 117, line 6, leave out ("any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, may") and insert ("each London authority (other than the Common Council) shall, either on its own account or jointly with any other local authority, and any local authority may, within six months of the establishment of Transport for London").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, travel concessions for the less fortunate members of society are essential for living in London, not a luxury. The protections for such individuals—the old, the blind, the disabled—as presently set out in the Bill are inadequate. The amendment makes it obligatory for London authorities to make arrangements for travel concessions and creates a deadline for their enforcement in order to reassure the disadvantaged. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, before the Minister replies, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak now to Amendment No. 468A, which stands in my name and the name of my noble friend.
It is an amendment to Clause 211 which seeks to end the discrimination in eligibility ages for older people's local travel concessions. The rights of men and women to receive equal treatment from their governments was declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Now the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 regulates these matters in this country. There is a lack of certainty among lawyers as to whether the local travel concession is subject to Section 29 because local authorities are permitted, not required, only to grant these concessions from ages not below the prescribed qualifying age.
The concession has been linked to the ages at which the two sexes receive their pensions, and an argument has been put forward on behalf of the Government that, since everyone will retire at the age of 65 by the year 2020, the differential in the concession will gradually be eliminated. However, for older men who are not yet able to claim the concession although their slightly younger wives are, 2020 may be rather late for them to arrive at equal status with their wives.
It has occurred to us and to many other people that the Bill offers an interesting opportunity to put right the matter of equality between the sexes, at least as far as concerns London. The Government have said not once but many times that they are creating with the Bill a unique and modern authority. It should suit such an authority to take on this more modern approach to concessionary passes.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some aspects of this matter were discussed earlier. I have some sympathy with the points made by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. Although it is important to take their points into account, I think they are unnecessary and difficult in the context of the Bill.
1072
Our intention has been to carry forward as far as possible the existing arrangements for concessionary fares—partly because they have been largely successful and partly because the benefits need to be carried forward in as seamless a transition as possible. They are much valued by the people who receive them.
In response to concerns raised at an earlier stage both inside and outside the House, we amended the Bill in Committee and improved the arrangements for the benefit of users. I recall that there was a welcome for that, both in the House and beyond. These amendments would go further than the Government have gone and would significantly alter the present arrangements.
The first amendment would set a time frame to agree concessions. This is already provided for in the Bill. The local authorities will therefore need to agree arrangements with London Transport by 31st December this year to come into effect on 1st April 2000. Next year, the local authorities will need to agree a scheme with TfL by 31st December 2000 to come into effect on 1st April 2001. As TfL will come into being in July 2000, there is already a timetable and arrangements for concessionary fares in place within six months of the establishment of Tfl.
In addition, Amendment No. 468 would add an element of compulsion on the boroughs to agree a scheme which would be extremely difficult to enforce. The existence of a statutory reserve scheme would render the obligation redundant because it will already provide the necessary assurance to pass holders that concessions would continue to be provided. I referred earlier also to the various provisions on joint arrangements between the boroughs and TfL which I believe will ensure the adequate carrying forward of this scheme.
Amendment No. 468A, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, relates to the link between the pensioner's pass and the retirement age. I accept that this is a difficult issue, but the link between eligibility and travel concessions and the state pension age is long-standing and clearly understood. As the noble Baroness said, the 1995 Pensions Act indicates that changes will take place in the retirement age. However, it is our intention that any changes implied in the concessionary fare scheme would follow the rest of that Act. There are of course serious financial considerations to take into account if any boroughs were to move ahead of, or in the opposite direction to, that Act. We estimate that it would cost around £20 million to extend the rights to men of 60 to 64 years of age. Further, it would put the scheme out of kilter with future retirement ages. For that reason, I believe that on balance it would be better to keep the present linkage.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is not present to move Amendment No. 469. We touched on some aspects of that amendment earlier. I hope that

1073
the noble Earl will be able to withdraw that amendment, and similarly that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment at the appropriate point.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister has made a very interesting speech. It is an important issue. I shall study Hansard carefully tomorrow to see whether we can produce another amendment to deal with the issues. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it appears that in error Amendment No. 452 and the amendments with it in the grouping were not moved by the Minister. With the leave of the House, I feel it would be helpful to deal with those now.
Clause 199 [The PPP arbiter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 452:
Page 111, line 41, at end insert—

("( ) a member of staff of Transport for London or of a subsidiary of Transport for London; or

( ) a director or employee of a PPP company or of a subsidiary of a PPP company or of a company of which a PPP company is a subsidiary").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the group of amendments to which I am speaking has been taken slightly out of order. Amendments Nos. 452 to 460, and Amendments Nos. 462, 464 and 465 make a number of minor and mostly technical changes to the provisions relating to the PPP arbiter. They allow the same person to hold the offices of rail regulator and of arbiter. They clarify the circumstances in which the arbiter can issue directions and guidance, refine the drafting of some of his statutory duties and provide legal protections and sanctions relating to his information gathering powers. The amendments are straightforward, but if there are any queries, I shall be happy to respond to noble Lords either now or in writing. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, should make it quite plain from the Chair that the Chair accepts full responsibility for trying to move things on a little too quickly.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I wish to make only one comment on this matter. I appreciate that a mistake was made. However, I noticed immediately, as did other Lords on these Benches, that somehow or other we moved to a group of amendments that had not even been spoken to. There are three amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 455, 464 and 465—which by no stretch of the imagination could be called technical amendments. Those are new clauses which were somehow moved en masse. That is totally improper.
I am sorry that the noble Lord who moved the amendments is not now in his place. I understand the difficulty because he thought that they had gone
1074
through. But the fact is that they are new clauses. Parliament must have an opportunity to discuss them and to have them explained to us.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have a sense of déjé vu. I well recall that during the proceedings on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill the party opposite organised an ambush. However, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, wanted to move an amendment to insist on seatbelts for minibuses. He overshot the groupings and found it extremely difficult to move his amendment. Fortunately, the House found a mechanism for considering that amendment later on.
My main concern relates to the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 465. It starts off quite well in the manner which the Minister described. However, it is spoilt by the two pages of exceptions. It also allows the Secretary of State to extend the list of exceptions. A parallel can be drawn with the freedom of information Bill which appears to be designed to prevent freedom of information. A case can be made for each of the exceptions. In outline, the person giving the information has been up to no good. But why should the PPP arbiter be used as an enforcement device for the Estate Agents Act 1979 or European directives on advertising? The list of exceptions leaves the suggestion that the PPP arbiter is meant to be checking up on the enactments. Will he not have enough to do anyway?
The exceptions should be confined to areas relating to transport. We will be tabling an amendment at a later stage to meet our concerns after we have examined the whole of the Bill and read the Minister's comments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the main concern as expressed by the noble Earl is m relation to Amendment No. 465. The terms of the amendment are relatively clear. It provides statutory protection for 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. The intention of the new clause is to protect the interests of third parties, who may be, for example, sub-contractors or other suppliers in contractual relationships with the authority, without hampering the statutory duties of the arbiter and the other bodies set out in the clause. It is necessary to provide that protection and it is therefore necessary also to provide the exceptions in order that the arbiter can effectively carry out his duties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that the amendments are not technical amendments because they are new clauses. One needs to look at the nature of the new clauses. The clause to which I have just referred is indeed a new clause but it follows through the logic of what the arbiter needs to provide and the protection for third parties. If we look at the new clause in Amendment No. 455, we likewise see that, although it is indeed a new clause—and I regret that we failed to move these amendments in the proper way at the proper time—it can reasonably be said to be an

1075
elaboration of what is required for the arbiter to carry out his or her functions and therefore appropriate to this group of amendments. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am slightly confused. I confess that I rise somewhat late in the debate. My understanding is that we are now debating an earlier amendment that we had not previously discussed and that we are including the three large new clauses in government Amendments Nos. 455, 464 and 465.
As I understand it, the amendment was not moved earlier—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify my understanding of what happened. There were a number of amendments relating to the previous clause which were being formally moved and agreed. We moved on to these clauses, which again were formally moved but as if they were part of the previous group, whereas we had intended to move them at the Dispatch Box. In fact, we moved too rapidly to take them through. So, although there was a formal movement, that was not what was expected either by ourselves or by the noble Earl. We therefore agreed to return to those clauses and deal with them properly, which is what we are now doing.
Lord Henley: But, my Lords, again with the leave of the House, they are government amendments containing new clauses. There may be some confusion if the Government attempt to press them now, without our knowing exactly what they are about. Might it not be better if the Government were to withdraw them at this stage and promise to return with them after further discussions with my noble friends at Third Reading?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we on these Benches are not confused. As interested, but slightly detached observers of this process, we see that there is clearly some difficulty. I believe that the Minister has given the House the explanation that he would have given had the clauses been spoken to at the point at which they were moved.
We feel—and I hope that it does not sound too selfish—that, since we have another opportunity to return to the Bill at a later stage, and we are making quite fast progress, we should like to continue with that rate of progress.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, one of my main concerns related to Amendment No. 465. But that was only after cursory examination of the Minister's amendments. There may be difficulties with other amendments and we may detect those when we examine the whole Bill. As my noble friend Lord Henley pointed out, the Minister has not fully explained each individual amendment, even though they contain large new clauses.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not understand this. This group of amendments was tabled a week ago.
1076
There are some amendments which we and others have tabled late, and we have been rightly criticised for doing so, but we tabled these at least a week ago. Had we proceeded with them in the normal way, and had there not been a hiccup in the procedure, I am sure that noble Lords would have dealt with them in the same way as we have dealt with similar groups. Indeed, the noble Earl was anxious to make his points on Amendment No. 465 very clear.
I hope that we can deal with these amendments now. I am in the hands of the House. Should the noble Lord wish to press this matter to a Division, I have no doubt that we could consider withdrawing them. However, it seems to me that, in the circumstances, we should proceed with the amendments and clear the business relating to this section of the Bill. I appeal to noble Lords to do the sensible thing and what we all intended to do in the first place.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister claimed that he had left the amendments with us for a week. I point out that it is two months since the end of the Committee stage. However, I can assure him that we will not press the amendments to a Division.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, will the Minister move Amendments Nos. 453 to 460? The Chair apologises profusely for the disorder.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 453:
Page 111, line 42, leave out subsection (8).
Clause 201 [Staff]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 454:
Page 112, line 26, leave out ("relevant authority") and insert ("Secretary of State").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 455:
After Clause 201, insert the following new clause—
SAME PERSON AS PPP ARBITER AND RAIL REGULATOR: DUTIES OF STAFF
(" . —(1) If at any time the offices of Rail Regulator and PPP arbiter are held by the same person, subsections (2) and (3) below shall apply until such time as those offices are next held by different persons.
(2) Where this subsection applies, any member of the Rail Regulator's staff may (in addition to discharging duties of that employment) be required also to discharge duties as if he were a member of the PPP arbiter's staff of similar status.
(3) Where this subsection applies, any member of the PPP arbiter's staff may (in addition to discharging duties of that employment) be required also to discharge duties as if he were a member of the Rail Regulator's staff of similar status.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) above apply notwithstanding anything in the terms or conditions of employment of the member of staff concerned.").
Clause 202 [Directions of the PPP arbiter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 456:
Page 112, line 36, leave out ("he considers relevant") and insert ("is ancillary or incidental").
Clause 203 [Guidance by the PPP arbiter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 457 and 458:
Page 113, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Any matter relating to a PPP agreement may be referred to the PPP arbiter for consideration by him—

(a) by all the parties to the PPP agreement acting jointly, if they so agree; or

(b) by any party to the PPP agreement.").

Page 113, line 10, leave out from ("and") to end of line 11 and insert—

("(a) if the matter was referred under paragraph (a) of that subsection, shall give to the parties who referred the matter such guidance as he considers appropriate; or

(b) if the matter was referred under paragraph (b) of that subsection, may give to the parties to the PPP agreement such guidance as he considers appropriate.").

Clause 204 [Duty of the PPP arbiter]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 459 and 460:
Page 113, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The objective specified in this subsection is to ensure that an opportunity to review and amend the requirements imposed, or proposed to be imposed, on a PPP company by or under the PPP agreement in question is afforded to the appropriate relevant body if, in the opinion of the PPP arbiter, the proper price for the performance of those requirements exceeds the resources which that relevant body has notified to the PPP arbiter that it has, or expects to have, available for the purpose.
In this subsection "appropriate relevant body" means a relevant body which is a party to the PPP agreement and is to pay the price under the agreement.").
Page 113, line 38, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The objective specified in this subsection is to ensure that any rate of return incorporated in the PPP agreement in question would, in the opinion of the PPP arbiter,—

(a) taking into account such matters as may be specified in the PPP agreement, and

(b) leaving out of account such other matters as may be so specified,

be earned by a company which is efficient and economic in its performance of the requirements imposed on the PPP company by or under the PPP agreement.").
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, we have dealt with Amendments Nos. 461 to 468.
Clause 211 [Travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London]:
[Amendments Nos.468A and 469 not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Penalty fares]:
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty moved Amendment No. 469A:
Page 258, line 18, after ("ticket") insert ("for all or part of the journey undertaken").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak to the group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 469A to 469E. The
1078
intention is to reinstate the possibility for a passenger to pay an excess fare in circumstances when he or she started their journey with a valid ticket.
Amendment No. 469F deals with the particular issue of setting up the penalty fares tribunal. I am glad that the Minister has come part way to meeting us on the matter. On the basis that it would be better to amend the Government's amendment, I shall comment on this in more detail when we discuss Amendment No. 470A and my amendments to it.
In terms of the criteria by which penalty fares are issued in the first place, I believe that the great majority, probably more than 90 per cent, of the current problems on both the Underground and buses with respect to penalty fares could be solved if the ability to pay an excess fare were reinstated.
I have introduced the amendments to raise the matter. Excess fares are a key to the whole issue of penalty fares. I have already given what I believe are good reasons at an earlier stage why they should be reinstated. It also has to be said that if excess fares still existed, we would not have had some of the higher profile incidents which occurred during the summer and sparked off the considerable media coverage, including leaders in both the Daily Telegraph and the Evening Standard. For example, Kenneth Clarke would not have been given the penalty fare and Sister Virtus Okwaraoha—London buses never doubted that she was a bona fide passenger—would not have been prosecuted as she was. Nor, importantly, would she have been given a penalty fare, but allowed simply to pay the excess.
The Daily Telegraph put it very well in its editorial on 27th July this year:
"Unable to sort out hardened bilkers from [the] rest, the Underground finds it simplest to punish everyone found with a ticket that does not match the journey, irrespective of intent".
It is clear that a significant number of those passengers given over 300,000 penalty fares on the Underground in the last year alone are bona fide travellers who are paying a tax for more flexible travel. They do so in circumstances where they are made to feel like criminals. It is a dangerous road that we take when we effectively start to criminalise bona fide passengers.
In more general terms, we should be encouraging public transport as a friendly, pleasant experience, not a hostile environment where every traveller is potentially under suspicion. As I said at an earlier stage, I understand the desire to catch the real fare dodgers, but I think things have swung too far in one direction. There now needs to be a more moderate and sophisticated approach. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Amendment No. 471, is grouped with those brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. Amendment No. 471 responded to what we perceived to be a government reluctance to see the matter of penalty fares appeals services put on the face of the Bill. Therefore, the amendment suggests that the

1079
Secretary of State should, by order, be able to bring such an appeals service into effect. However, in the next group of amendments the Government make possible the creation of such a penalty appeals service. In those circumstances, our amendment is probably de trop.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Earl raises an extremely important issue. Clearly, it is necessary to have some form of appeal system. I have come unstuck with a penalty fare through no fault of my own. I look forward to Amendments Nos. 470A and 570A tabled by the Minister.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Earl said, we had discussions with several Members of the House to discuss their concerns about the existing penalty fares legislation. I have tabled the amendments in the next group to meet some of the concerns relating to the appeals procedure. I accept that there are problems about the operation of the appeals procedure and that there is a grievance among some of the travelling public that must be accepted and dealt with. But I do not accept that we should change the system of excess fares. The proposals contained in Amendments Nos. 469A to 469E would undermine the cornerstone of the existing legislation; namely, the requirement that to travel one must have a valid ticket for the whole of the journey that is undertaken. We should not forget that that principle is designed to ensure that the revenue, which will be ploughed back into public transport, is not lost to the transport operator.
The penalty fares system is intended to protect the revenue and ensure that there is a deterrent to people who travel with no or inadequate tickets but without the consequences of criminality and the long administrative and legal proceedings which predated the penalty fares system in London Transport and elsewhere on the public transport network. London Transport has acknowledged that the operation of the penalty fares system can be improved. Noble Lords may well be aware of the review of tube penalty fares conducted by LT and the LRPC, during which London Transport took very seriously the need to ensure that the scheme was operated with a better customer focus. London Transport has already started to implement some of the review's main findings.
It will be open to the mayor, once in place, to issue guidance to TfL on how the scheme should be operated. It will also be open to the mayor to reintroduce excess fares facilities, as would be required by one of the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, should he or she so wish. However, I believe that we have taken steps to improve the situation in relation to appeals, to which we shall turn in a moment, but the operation of the system itself should be left to the mayor and the mayor's dealing with TfL rather than
1080
prescribed on the face of the Bill in a way that severely undermines the existing system. I hope that the noble Earl does not press his amendments.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. Excess fares were abolished when penalty fares were introduced, yet this interpretation of the law was never considered in debate in either the Commons or Lords when the London legislation was originally introduced. Excess fares were never mentioned, let alone their abolition discussed. It is also clear from both debates that there was no intention in the legislation to penalise bona fide travellers. If the problem started with this legislation, it should be solved by amending it in some way, or London Transport's interpretation of the legislation is seriously wrong and perhaps should even be challenged. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 469B to 469F not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 470:
Page 261, line 2, after ("1962") insert ("or paragraph 24A of Schedule 9 to this Act").
10.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 470A:
Page 261, line 11, at end insert—
("Appeals
8A. —(1) If requested to do so by the Mayor, the Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision enabling a person required to pay a penalty fare to appeal against that requirement.
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may include provision—

(a) for appeals to be heard and determined by independent adjudicators,

(b) for the appointment of such adjudicators,

(c) for requiring Transport for London to reconsider, before an appeal is determined, whether the appellant should be required to pay the penalty fare. And

(d) for the adjudicator's directions in relation to an appeal to be binding upon Transport for London and the appellant.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the appeals system. The Government have listened very carefully to the concerns of noble Lords in that regard. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish an independent penalty fares appeals body if so requested by the mayor. We are aware of considerable public interest in this area. We believe it is very likely, without pre-judging the outcome of the election, that any mayor would also recognise the considerable public concern over this matter and would make such a request once he or she has taken stock of the penalty fares procedures.
However, I do not believe it appropriate for us to pre-judge the mayor's consideration of this issue. Therefore, I put the amendment in its present form so that the mayor can make the request. The Secretary of State then has to enact that request. It is better to leave

1081
it for the mayor in that sense rather than move in the way the noble Earl prefers, in moving an amendment to this amendment, requiring the Secretary of State to lay down the procedure immediately The mayor will proceed in the context of having made an assessment of the penalty fares system in total. That is where the matter should be left. This amendment makes it absolutely clear that should the mayor wish to go down that road, the Secretary of State is then obliged to enact proceedings which will meet the noble Earl's point. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 470A, Amendment No. 470AA:
Line 3, leave out ("if requested to do so by the Mayor,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 470B. I am glad that the Minister has moved part of the way towards us in having accepted the principle of an independent penalty fares appeals body. But his amendment is still deficient in two respects. First, and most fundamentally, as covered by Amendment No. 470AA, the Government's amendment does not as it stands guarantee that an appeals body will be set up. It may be something that happens at some point in the future, or at worst it is forgotten about entirely. The considerable amount of press coverage which has been devoted to penalty fares in recent months and the large number of complaints which LRPC is still receiving reflect growing public concern about this matter and confirm that an independent body ought to be set up right away. London Transport should not be allowed to continue to act any longer than necessary as both judge and jury.
Secondly, as covered by my Amendment No. 470B, it is important that there should be proper consultation with other bodies, including LTUC, the Rail Regulator and other operators. As I said earlier, the Rail Regulator is keen to encourage best practice sharing of penalty fares schemes. At present London Transport is far too stubbornly isolationist in its approach, with the current disastrous results.
Perhaps the Minister can give an explicit assurance in this debate that there will be such consultation on an independent tribunal if one were set up—better still that he can accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for his amendment and his explanation. But what happens if the mayor does not request the Secretary of State to make the regulations? The Minister recognised that as a possibility. It may not be in the mayor's interest to do so, especially if he is closely involved in TfL, which possibly will still have a similar ethos to that of the old London Transport. The noble Earl has just called London Transport stubborn and isolationist. I am not sure whether that will amuse it. Some members of the public would accept that view. There is a case for more encouragement of the mayor and TfL to request the Secretary of State to make these regulations.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I resist these amendments, mainly for the reasons that I have set out. In the
1082
interim position it is already the case that London Transport has accepted that there is serious public concern about this matter and is taking steps for its internal appeals procedure to operate with greater customer focus. But it is important that we leave to the mayor the overall assessment of how the penalty fares system operates so that the precise form of the independent appeals system can fit in with the way in which he sees the process operating.
I believe that it is important that we leave some of the decisions to the mayor to take in the context of his wider decisions. I am sure that the objectives of the noble Earl's second amendment will be carried out by the mayor. He has a general consultation requirement. Any change in the excess fares regime would fall under that consultation without having to be separately prescribed.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he recognise that our concern s not so much how the mayor sets up the penalty scheme but if he sets it up?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are talking legislation when we should be talking politics. The political reality is that any mayor will promise at some point during his mayoral campaign that he will set up an independent appeals panel. How that fits in with his other proposals on excess fares may differ between different candidates. However, there is no doubt in my mind that any mayor will do it, but it must he his choice; and the context in which it is proposed should be down to the mayor and not the Secretary of State—an argument which has been put forward by the Benches opposite in other contexts quite frequently during the course of the Bill.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. I shall read Hansard closely tomorrow. I can see no real reason why the Government should drag their feet on this issue and not set up a tribunal immediately. I ask the Minister to consider the issue again and take that extra critical step forward to make the appeals body mandatory. However, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 470B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 470A, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 471 not moved.]
Clause 218 [The London Transport Users' Committee]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 471A:
Page 121, line 36, after ("body") insert ("corporate").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords., in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 472A to 472D, 473A, 474A to 474G, 475WA to 475ZA and 576YA. We believe that with its wider remit the London Transport Users' Committee will successfully

1083
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.
These amendments fill out the LTUC remit, and more clearly define its relationship with the assembly. We have also given careful consideration to some of the points raised by noble Lords at Committee. For example, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and Lady Hamwee, will note that Amendment No. 472A addresses their concern about ensuring the committee is properly representative of the wider community of rail users in the area for which the LTUC is a rail users' consultative committee. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, will see that we have provided for LTUC's accounting and audit procedures.
As I indicated to the House during our debates in Committee we have brought forward our proposals for the assembly to issue guidance and directions to the LTUC, to establish firmly the new relationship between the assembly and committee.
Amendment No. 475ZA relates to directions by the assembly. It concerns itself with the relationship between the assembly and the Transport Users' Consultative Committee.
Amendment No. 472C deals with accounts and audits. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, tabled an amendment in Committee to establish requirements for audit. The Government have reflected further on the matter, and this amendment ensures that the committee has a requirement placed upon it to produce proper accounts for audit, and to ensure that the assembly appoints an auditor who is fit for the purpose. Amendment No. 471A establishes LTUC as a body corporate, thus giving it formal legal status.
Amendment No. 472A deals with representation of passengers from the RUCC area. Concern was expressed in Committee that the assembly might not appoint committee members who would be representative of the area covered. We considered this matter carefully and sought to clarify it.
Amendment No. 474B deals with the exclusion of freight. Amendments Nos. 474A, C, D, E, F and G, 475WA and 475XA deal with the inclusion of taxis and minicabs. As noble Lords will be aware, after considering representations from the users of transport in London, the London Transport Users' Committee is intended to shadow the full range of services and facilities provided to transport users by Transport for London. It is to be a committee for users of services relating to personal transport whether by private or public means. We have therefore introduced these amendments to make clear that the remit does not cover freight and to clarify the LTUC role in respect of taxis and minicabs.
Amendment No. 475YA deals with voluntary arrangements, providing in a practical way for the remit of LTUC to adapt to any future changes in transport provision in Greater London; for example, new service providers outside the TfL umbrella.
Amendment No. 472B places responsibility on the assembly to provide funds for the salary and pension of the chair of the committee in the same way as it provides for the costs of the LTUC secretariat. Amendment No. 473A brings the LTUC within the jurisdiction of the Commission for Local Administration, the body noble Lords will recognise as the local government ombudsman. Amendment No. 576YA is a consequential change to the Local Government Act 1974 arising from Amendment No. 473A. I beg to move.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, the Minister mentioned minicabs. She has proposed a number of complicated and technical amendments, but can she tell the House that the mayor will ensure that the drivers of minicabs are licensed by the police, as are black cab drivers?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Earl may wish to note that the consideration of representations on taxis and minicabs is not intended to interfere with the process of law or the investigation of breaches of conditions of licence. Rather it is intended to cover complaints about quality of service, such as the failure of a taxi or minicab to turn up for a pre-booked journey.
The amendments make clear that complaints relating to matters of law, such as drivers' conduct or roadworthiness, should be referred to the relevant authorities within TfL.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, the Minister has given an interesting reply, but is she aware that there is a great deal of ill feeling among registered London cab drivers who, without doubt, provide the best taxi service in the world? They believe that if minicab drivers who do not possess the same skills are allowed to operate there will be a serious reduction in the London taxi service.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should like to write in detail to the noble Earl. I commend to him the expertise of his noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who dealt with a Bill tackling this very problem.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Of course, I did not expect an answer straight away. However, I assure her that if that provision is within the amendment, it is a serious problem.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 472:
Page 122, line 3, after ("use") insert ("public").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I expect that the amendments in this group are probably quite familiar to Members of the House, as we have viewed

1085
them before. They have as their objective the transformation, in a way, of LTUC into a body which represents the interests of those using public transport rather than the interests of those using all forms of transport.
As I said in Committee, there are already several powerful bodies which represent the interests of cyclists, those who travel in cars (the AA, the RAC and so on) and pedestrians. In fact, almost anyone who moves by whatever means of locomotion has an extremely powerful voice and is quite rightly served by people who can make excellent representations on their behalf.
Therefore, it is our contention, and has been throughout, that the LTUC, which is the successor body to the LRPC should, like the LRPC, only represent the interests of those using public passenger transport. It would then be up to the assembly, or Transport for London, or whoever it is to which those various bodies make their representations, to weigh up the balance as between the interests of one set of transport users and another.
In. Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, responded that it was necessary for the Government
"to bring forward amendments to clarify the structure. The LTUC will be appointed by the assembly"—
I am aware of that provision and I support it—
"and we will bring forward amendments to al low the assembly to issue guidance and directions to LTUC". —[Official Report. 5/7/99; col. 604–5.]
That is what one of the amendments which we have just passed does. My contention is that that does not impinge upon the main point we have been making, namely that there will be under the new dispensation, if it goes ahead, no one whose sole job it is to represent the interests of those—who are indeed the majority of those using transport in London—who travel by public transport. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that I may persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that her concerns have been addressed by the amendments we have just debated. We naturally want LTUC to speak up for passengers, in the same way as the London Regional Passengers' Committee does now. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness's amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the body which we wish to establish and would run the risk of marginalising the interests of some travellers who cannot use public transport. The London Transport Users' Committee is intended to provide a service for all users of transport services and facilities provided by TfL and to assist the assembly in its consideration of the way in which the mayor and Transport for London are performing in delivering integrated transport services for the capital.
Noble Lords will note from the amendments just agreed that we intend to clarify the way in which the assembly makes appointments so that it has to have specific regard to ensure that members of the committee between them represent the interests of
1086
passengers on the national railway network in the LTUC area, as well as those using TfL services and facilities. Large numbers of people who travel to London by surface rail switch to bus and Underground services for their onward journeys. Therefore, public transport users should be well represented on the LTUC.
The amendments would deprive a significant number of transport users of a representative voice. It would not be right to single out a particular group of transport users in that way; for example, the amendments would mean that complaints from disabled motorists could not be considered by LTUC.
However, we are conscious that the committee may benefit from some guidance by the assembly on the way it should discharge its functions. That is why we brought forward amendments to enable the assembly to issue guidance and directions to the committee. In that way, the assembly will be able to indicate how LTUC should carry out its duties. Such an issue is best left to the assembly. I hope that my remarks have convinced the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that we have taken her concerns very seriously and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I concede that the amendments with regard to membership of LTUC are an improvement on the position as it existed in the Bill as first drafted in that there will be representatives of those who travel by public transport on the LTUC whereas previously that was not the case.
However, the Minister will not be surprised that I am not entirely convinced by her arguments because I accept that our approach to this matter is quite different from hers. However, I am convinced that I shall make no progress in relation to the amendment this evening and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 472A:
Page 122, line 4, at end insert (", and

(b) those who use rail passenger transport facilities and services in the area for which the Committee is treated as the Rail Users' Consultative Committee by virtue of section 2(4) of the Railways Act 1993").

Schedule 14 [London Transport Users' Committee]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 472B to 472D:
Page 261, line 28, at end insert
("3A. The Assembly shall provide the Committee with funds with which to make payments in accordance with any determination made by the Assembly under paragraphs 1 to 3 above.").

1087
Page 262, line 15, at end insert—
("Accounts
6A. —(1) The Committee shall keep accounting records which—

(a) set out and explain the Committee's financial transactions,

(b) disclose with reasonable accuracy the financial status of the Committee at any time, and

(c) enable the Committee to comply with the requirements of this Act in preparing any statement of accounts.

(2) The Committee shall prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts giving a true and fair view of—

(a) the Committee's financial status at the end of that year, and

(b) the Committee's income and expenditure for that year.

(3) If the Assembly issues guidance to the Committee as to the preparation of a statement of accounts, the Committee shall prepare the statement of accounts in compliance with the direction.
(4) A statement of accounts shall be audited by a person appointed by the Assembly as auditor to do so.
(5) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed as auditor unless—

(a) he is eligible for appointment as a company auditor under Part II of the Companies Act 1989 (eligibility for appointment as company auditor), and

(b) if the Committee were a company to which section 384 of the Companies Act 1985 applies (duty to appoint auditors), he would not be ineligible for appointment as company auditor of the Committee by virtue of section 27 of the Companies Act 1989 (ineligibility on ground of lack of independence).

(6) As soon as reasonably practicable after a statement of accounts has been audited, the auditor shall send a copy to the Assembly.
(7) The Committee's financial year shall be such period as may be determined by the Assembly and notified to the Committee.").
Page 262, line 34, leave out from first ("the") to first ("the") in line 35 and insert ("provisions of this Schedule").
[Amendment No. 473 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 473A:
Page 263, line 25, at end insert—
("Investigation of complaints
13A. —(1) Section 25 of the Local Government Act 1974 (authorities subject to investigation by the Commission for Local Administration) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) the word "and" preceding paragraph (d) shall cease to have effect; and

(b) at the end of paragraph (d) there shall be inserted "; and

(e) the London Transport Users' Committee."

(3) After subsection (4A) (which is inserted by section 63(3) above) there shall be inserted—

"(4B) Any reference to an authority to which this Part of this Act applies also includes, in the case of the London Transport Users' Committee, a reference to a sub-committee of that Committee.").

Clause 219 [Representations to the Committee]:
[Amendment No. 474 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 474A to 474G:
Page 122, line 23, at end insert (", other than a matter relating to the transportation of freight.").
Page 122, leave out line 25 and insert ("any matter relating to").
Page 122, line 26, at beginning insert ("services or facilities").
Page 122, line 27, at beginning insert ("services or facilities").
Page 122, line 29, at beginning insert ("services or facilities").
Page 122, line 29, at end insert—

("(d) a hackney carriage or a person licensed to be the driver of a hackney carriage, or

(e) a private hire vehicle or a person who holds a private hire vehicle driver's licence or a private hire vehicle operator's licence.").

Page 122, line 34, at end insert ("or

(ii) hackney carriages or private hire vehicles,").

[Amendment No. 475 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 475WA and 475XA:
Page 123, line 7, at end insert—
("(5A) Where a representation is made to the Committee about a matter falling within subsection (2)(d) or (e) above and the matter relates to—

(a) any contravention of, or failure to comply with, any rule of law, or

(b) any breach of condition of a licence which has been granted by Transport for London,

the Committee shall refer the matter to Transport for London and shall notify the person who made the representation of the referral.").
Page 123. line 10, at end insert—
("( ) In this section—

"hackney carriage" means a vehicle licensed under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869;

"person licensed to be the driver of a hackney carriage" means a person licensed under section 8 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 or section 8 of the London Hackney Carriages Act 1843;

"private hire vehicle" means a vehicle for which a private hire vehicle licence for London is in force under section 7 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998;

"private hire vehicle driver's licence" means a licence granted under section 13 of that Act;

"private hire vehicle operator's licence" means a licence granted under section 3 of that Act.").

Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 475YA:
After Clause 219, insert the following new clause—
VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENTS WITH TRANSPORT PROVIDERS
(" . —(1) The Committee may enter into arrangements with any person providing public passenger transport services or facilities in Greater London under which the Committee may consider any matter—

(a) which relates to such transport services or facilities provided by that person, but

(b) which is not a matter falling within section 219(1) above.

(2) Arrangements under subsection (1) above shall be on such terms as may be agreed by the parties but may in particular include provision for the person with whom the Committee enters into the arrangements to make such payments by way of reimbursement of costs incurred by the Committee under the arrangements as the arrangements may specify.
(3) Arrangements under this section may be entered into by the Commit tee only with the consent of the Assembly.").
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 475ZA:
After Clause 220, insert the following new clause—
DIRECTIONS BY THE ASSEMBLY
(" . —(1) The Assembly may issue to the Committee—

(a) guidance as to the manner in which they are to exercise their functions, or

1090

(b) general directions as to the manner in which they are to exercise their functions.

(2) The Committee shall exercise their functions in accordance with such guidance or directions as may be issued by the Assembly under subsection (1) above.
(3) Any guidance or directions issued under subsection (1) above must be issued in writing and notified to such officer of the Committee as the Committee may from time to time nominate to the Assembly for the purpose.").
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past eleven o'clock.

  China and Tibet
  China and Tibet
  Arms Exports
  Arms Exports
  Indonesia: UK Arms Exports
  Indonesia: UK Arms Exports
  East Timor
  East Timor
  EU: Common Foreign and Defence Policy
  EU: Common Foreign and Defence Policy
  UK-US Bilateral Treaties
  UK-US Bilateral Treaties
  Electoral Procedures: Working Party Report
  Electoral Procedures: Working Party Report
  Foreign Nationals in Prison
  Foreign Nationals in Prison
  Asylum Application
  Asylum Application
  Eastern Caribbean: British Military Assistance Training Team
  Eastern Caribbean: British Military Assistance Training Team
  Copyright: Proposed EU Information Society Directive
  Copyright: Proposed EU Information Society Directive
  Coastguard Station Closures at Oban and Pentland Firth
  Coastguard Station Closures at Oban and Pentland Firth
  Train Protection Warning System
  Train Protection Warning System
  Train Emergency Exits
  Train Emergency Exits
  Train Signals Passed at Danger
  Train Signals Passed at Danger
  Train Driver Training
  Train Driver Training
  EU Transport Council, 6 October
  EU Transport Council, 6 October
  Schools: Collective Worship
  Schools: Collective Worship