Sitting of 25 October 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Stakeholder Pensions
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What criteria he plans to issue to investment managers on investment policy for stakeholder pensions. [93744]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): As with existing pension arrangements, the overall investment policy for stakeholder pensions will be a matter for those running the schemes. We propose that schemes should prepare a statement of investment principles, including social, environmental and ethical considerations, but policy action will be up to those running the schemes.
    Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he assure me that all pension trustees will have the absolute right to manage pension funds to achieve the best possible return for their pensioners, and that the pensions will not be affected by considerations other than the right of best return?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance.
    Mr. Michael Trend: I welcome the Minister to his first Question Time in his current capacity. On appointment, he was the fourth pensions Minister in 27 months, so I wish him luck.
    I understand that the Minister may be reluctant to adopt a position that is being urged on him by the Opposition, but has he decided whether pensioners, and stakeholder pensioners in particular, should be obliged to take their pension in the form of annuity at the age of 75, or whether he intends to sweep away that rule for stakeholder and other appropriate pensions?
    Mr. Rooker: Neither I nor any of my colleagues in government have taken the approach of simply sweeping away ideas and suggestions from the Opposition. There is plenty evidence of that in legislation that has gone through the House. The hon. Gentleman will understand that,
    686
    given the changes made in the other place to a Bill that has not yet completed its passage through the other place, I cannot answer his question in detail.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I take it from my hon. Friend's reply that he is quite happy for pension funds to invest in tobacco companies?
    Mr. Rooker: It is for those who manage the funds and the trustees in charge of the funds to make such decisions. They are the ones who are accountable, not Ministers.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What provision will the Government make to ensure that adequate advice is available to those who take out stakeholder pensions? According to the Financial Times, no less than half the population of the United Kingdom have total savings of less than £750. Is that not a disturbing comment on the lack of real disposable income, and does that not make it all the more important that the investment choices to be made through a stakeholder pension are properly made?
    Mr. Rooker: I saw the report in the Financial Times, although I have not seen the document to which it refers. I got the impression under the previous Government that everyone was awash with funds. The vast majority of those at whom stakeholder pensions are targeted—people on moderate earnings, say between £10,000 and £20,000 a year—have no second pension provision. We estimate that their total earnings amount to £60 billion a year, and we believe that allowances and second pension provision can be made from that.

    Appeals
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What steps his Department is taking to improve social security appeals procedures. [93745]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): As part of our plans for modernising the social security system, we are bringing in important changes to procedures for making decisions on social security claims and child support assessments and for handling appeals. The changes will be completed by November this year.
    Mr. Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for her response. I welcome the setting up of a new appeals procedure, which we hope will prevent unacceptably long delays in making decisions. One of my constituents, who suffered from myalgic encephalomyelitis, had to endure 18 months before his appeal was won. Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that all the old appeals will be tackled in the near future?
    Angela Eagle: I understand my hon. Friend's frustration with the system that we inherited, where the average wait for an appeal decision was seven months. Clearly, if the average waiting time is seven months, some cases will go on for much longer. The backlog of old appeals, which in February stood at 70,348 cases, which was 50 per cent. of all outstanding appeals, was down to 15,405 in September, as a result of the changes that we have made in decision making and appeals. That is a

    687
    substantial improvement, and I take this opportunity of complimenting the staff of the tribunal service, who have done so well to produce that result.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister accept that the appeals procedure was reviewed only because of pressure exerted by the Opposition? Will the hon. Lady, on behalf of the Government, undertake to go back on the means-testing provision that is written into the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, to avoid a burdensome appeals procedure when that comes into force?
    Angela Eagle: I have never heard such nonsense in my life; I am afraid that the hon. Lady is living in fantasy land. It is quite clear that streamlining, which maintains people's proper rights, had to be introduced for the cumbersome appeals procedure that we inherited, and that is what we have done.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Although everyone welcomes the clear acceleration in the hearing of such appeals, will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that there is some doubt about the quality of some of the evidence that is being given to tribunals? Many of the most vulnerable people in our society are losing their benefits and having to appeal. The length of time in which an appeal is heard is essential. I know that she understands that, but will she keep a close eye on the situation?
    Angela Eagle: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and also, I hope, can reassure her that one of the main principles behind the changes to appeals procedures is avoiding the need for appeals altogether. In other words, we want to collect the evidence properly and ensure that benefit is awarded correctly first time so that we can take a lot of appeals, which are caused by mistakes and confusion, out of the system completely.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: What steps he is taking to ensure that all pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. [93747]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Research on barriers that pensioners face in claiming income support was published as recently as 15 October. Later this year, we will publish the evaluation of our pilots, which are aimed at encouraging pensioners to claim. That work is the most comprehensive analysis of pensioner take-up—or non-take-up, as the case may be—so far.
    Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister for that deeply illuminating reply. What explanation can he give pensioners who are claiming benefits today of the fact that their basic state pension is worth only a fraction of what it would have been worth had it been placed in a fund when they were making their national insurance contributions?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman asked me about ensuring that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. It is a deep cause of concern that some pensioners are not receiving the benefits to which they are
    688
    entitled because of the barriers to claiming. Some of them believe that they still have to go to the social—to the office—to claim, for instance, income support or the minimum income guarantee. That is not the case. Claims can be made through a home visit or, in some parts of the country, over the telephone.
    The hon. Gentleman has asked about the important issue of take-up of benefits before. An estimated 800,000 pensioners are not receiving the benefit to which they are entitled and for which the House has legislated, and we want to do everything we can to encourage take-up. There will be a Government-sponsored take-up campaign next spring.
    Mr. Frank Field: I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post. Can he confirm that, generally speaking, the poorest pensioners are the oldest pensioners and that the national insurance fund is, to use a phrase he used a moment ago, awash with funds? Can he also confirm that the Government have records of pensioners aged over 80, because we pay them a few extra pennies a week, and that perhaps the most effective way of tackling pensioner poverty would be to give an increase of about £15 to those pensioners?
    Mr. Rooker: I thank my right hon. Friend—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend)—for their welcome. My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Indeed, of the estimated average number of pensioners not taking up their entitlement to income support—which varies between 530,000 to 870,000; one cannot be precise—230,000 are single females aged over 80, so there is a major problem. The figure for single males aged over 80 is 40,000.
    When I walked into the Department of Social Security, I thought that, by twiddling the keys on my keyboard, I would be able to bring up the information necessary for finding those people in a detailed and systematic way, but the way that the information technology arrangements in the Department have been made in recent years prevented that from happening, which is why we need a Government-led take-up campaign.
    On my right hon. Friend's further point, he will know better than I do that we cannot make a decision that could have consequences for 10, 20 or 30 years on one year's figures for the national insurance fund.

    Fraud
    Mr. Peter Lilley: What steps he has taken to involve the public in the campaign against social security fraud. [93748]
    Mr. James Gray: What recent representations he has received over his proposals for eradication of social security fraud. [93749]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are strengthening the social security system to cut down on fraud and error, and the reforms that we are making will strengthen public confidence and support.
    Mr. Lilley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but can he confirm that the truth is that the

    689
    Government have run down the beat-a-cheat line and closed down the spotlight on fraud campaign, which was succeeding in saving more than £100 million a year? They have so starved the Benefits Agency fraud investigation service that it has had to shut down its operations because of lack of money. Is not the truth that the Government have gone soft on fraud?
    Mr. Darling: No, it is not. I shall deal first with the national benefits hotline. We receive about 13,000 to 14,000 calls a month on the hotline, and from 1 November we shall spend nearly £500,000 on another advertising campaign because we believe that the public support and information that we get are invaluable in support of the fight against fraud. Since we came into office, we have increased by a third the number of serious cases that are prosecuted, which has resulted in a 50 per cent. increase in custodial offences. Many of the spotlight on fraud campaign features that worked have been incorporated into the Department's fight against fraud.
    I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, at the end of his term as Secretary of State, two out of every five income support cases were being paid without sufficient evidence to justify them. Because of the changes that we have made to ensure that we get benefit claims right in the first place, we shall save £1 billion on that benefit alone during this Parliament.
    Mr. Gray: Surely that smells of complacency. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the last year of the previous Government, we achieved our fraud savings target by more than £50 million, whereas he is below his target by some £200 million? He says that he is not soft on fraud. Why, then, has he cancelled LOFIT—the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team?
    Mr. Darling: That project was wound up—it was run not by my Department but by London boroughs—because of internal difficulties that made it impossible for it to carry on. That decision was taken by the London boroughs responsible for it. I remind the hon. Gentleman, that in addition to ensuring that we get income support cases right, since October we have insisted that every claimant establishes his identity before his claim can be accepted, which never happened under the Conservatives. We have stopped the Post Office redirecting housing benefit cheques to bogus addresses, something that the previous Government did not pursue. We have ensured that the benefit fraud inspectorate examines the 30 councils that spend the most on housing benefit to ensure that their procedures are tightened up, and we are now cross-checking information held by the Inland Revenue, the Benefits Agency and local authorities. There are more inspections because we are concerned not just about detecting fraud, but about preventing it from entering the system in the first place. Above all, the approach that we are now adopting is not only more robust, but supported by the National Audit Office, which, as the hon. Gentleman should know, expressed concern about the DSS accounts in just about every year that the Conservatives were in office.
    Ms Ruth Kelly: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Westminster council on its anti-fraud strategy, which has resulted in one of its Tory councillors spending some time at Her Majesty's pleasure? Will he
    690
    assure me that his new anti-fraud strategy will be implemented by councils throughout the country, because fraud is completely unacceptable, wherever it is found?
    Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that not only the Benefits Agency but the local authorities that administer the housing benefits scheme understand that fraud is a serious problem. It undermines the general public's confidence in the system and is bad for the perception of those who legitimately claim housing benefit. We have offered much help to councils to ensure that they have access to Benefits Agency systems, that we all hold the same information and that we get claims right. We started a joint initiative with councils to ensure that housing benefit cheques are not redirected to bogus addresses.
    All the steps that we are taking are causing a significant change of culture in the system, because we must make inroads into the sums lost in the past through fraud and error.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend referred to claimants having to establish their identity at the point at which they receive benefit. Is the national identity card back on the agenda?
    Mr. Darling: No, what we are asking is that everyone who claims benefit must establish his or her identity, which means producing either a national insurance number or sufficient information to ensure that we can identify the national insurance number. The problem in the past was that many officers paid out benefit without checking that people were who they said that they were. It is all very well for Opposition Members to sneer, but for 18 years they did absolutely nothing about those problems.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Surely what the Government have been doing has undermined the efforts of local authorities to tackle this serious problem. Will the Secretary of State give us details about the amount of successful fraud detection by local authorities between, let us say, May 1997 and now?
    Mr. Darling: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If he had thought for just one moment before he asked his question, he would have realised that the Government have taken many initiatives with local authorities. I mentioned the service that will prevent redirection of housing benefit cheques, and the fact that we are giving local authorities, for the first time, access to the Benefits Agency system to ensure that the information that we all hold is exactly the same. We are sharing information in a way that never happened in the past. In addition, we have set up two pilot projects to find better ways of ensuring that the Benefits Agency and councils work together, so that there is one interview with an individual, the same information is held by both organisations and we get claims right.
    The difference between this and the previous Government is that we are determined to tackle the causes of fraud and error rather than spending all our time trying to chase the symptoms. I think that the majority of the public would support us in doing that.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Tony McWalter: What proposals he has for defining the qualifications needed by the personal advisers who will be implementing the successor regime to the all-work test for incapacity benefit. [93750]
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What progress he has made in devising a replacement for the all-work test. [93760]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Our proposed replacement for the all-work test will collect information about what people can do, as well as what they cannot do. We are considering the results of a first pilot study of a proposed personal capability assessment, and we are also training personal advisers in disability awareness.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The qualities required by personal advisers may be significant, given that they will have to analyse the capacities of people with Asperger's syndrome and other difficult conditions, and the state of the workplaces where those people may have the capacity to work. Given those complexities, will my he assure us that personal advisers will be fully trained and highly qualified?
    Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend makes some important points, and I can give him the assurance that he seeks. The training that personal advisers receive will be tailored to their individual needs. For instance, someone who has previously worked as a disability employment adviser will have different training needs from someone who has worked on housing benefit. To date, personal advisers have gone through an average of 200 hours training; some have received 300 or 400 hours. Particular emphasis is placed on all special client groups, although more time is spent on disability awareness than on understanding the needs of other groups. We have had input from a wide range of voluntary organisations, such as Scope, Mencap, MIND and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, on the content of the training programmes.
    Mr. Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing discredits the system that we inherited from the previous Government more than the all-work test? In devising a new test, will he ensure that more decisions are reached correctly at the first time of asking, so as to avoid lengthy appeals? Will he ensure that the questions asked elicit the real nature of the disability, because disabled people often say that they can perform a particular function but do not mention the extreme difficulty that they have in performing it? Sometimes that renders them ineligible for the benefit. Will he deal in particular with the problems of people who suffer from ME?
    Mr. Bayley: The trend in appeals shows that, as a result of the changes that our Department has made, more people are getting the right decision first time, but there is some way to go, and we shall press ahead with that. The all-work test remains the same for the gateway to incapacity benefit: we have not tightened up the system.
    692
    However, we are taking a wide range of measures to improve the quality of the advice that Benefits Agency medical services practitioners give on claims, including those involving ME. My hon. Friend has taken a special interest in chronic fatigue syndrome, so he will know that the advice to personal advisers and to doctors making assessments that is published by the Department in the "Disability Handbook" provides much detail about ME and states that it must be taken seriously.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Is there not something rather cruel about the idea of slackening the medical criteria, while at the same time introducing means-testing for incapacity benefits? Is it really fair to fund this easing of medical criteria on the back of the savings of seriously disabled people?
    Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what we are doing. We are not slackening the medical criteria; we are not changing them in any way. What we are doing is expanding the all-work test into a personal capability assessment. As well as taking into account what a person cannot do, and thereby assessing that person's entitlement to benefit, we take into account what that person can do. The information will then be fed in to assist disabled people who want to return to work to achieve their aim.
    According to the Government's labour force survey, 1 million people who have been consigned to life on benefits in the long term by the policies of the last Government say that they want to work, and we are providing the help and advice that will enable more of them to do so.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the change in Government policy that occurred between the passage of the Bill that became the Social Security Act 1998, when the Government rejected Conservative proposals that there should be legally qualified chairmen and that doctors should be present when appeals were being heard requiring complex medical evidence, and the passage on 18 May this year of a statutory instrument making precisely that provision?
    Mr. Bayley: We have made provision for a medically qualified person, as well as a legally qualified person, to be on the board when appeals relating to incapacity benefit are being heard. We have done that because we believe it is right. As for the arcane debate in relation to the 1998 Act, the Opposition can take responsibility for it. Nothing in the legislation prevented the Government from doing what we believed needed to be done, and that is what we have done.
    Sir Robert Smith: Will assessments of people who can perform a task take into account whether it is medically advisable for them to undertake that task? I have a constituent whose joints were damaged by a wasting disease, and who has to have replacement joints. The surgeon has said that, if the task is carried out, another operation will be needed far sooner than it would be if my constituent rested the

    693
    joints and engaged in limited activity with them. Although that person is able to perform the task in question, that task in itself will worsen the condition.
    Mr. Bayley: I would be extremely concerned if any doctor recommended that a person should return to work if work would worsen the person's condition. That is certainly not the Government's intention.
    I hope that this will reassure the hon. Gentleman. It will be made clear to anyone discussing with a personal adviser the scope that exists for that person to return to work that any job seeking, or job taking, is entirely voluntary. Once the service is up and running, people on incapacity benefit will be required to discuss what scope there is for a return to work, but they and they alone, as individuals, will decide whether to convert that scope into job seeking.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: What proposals he has to amend the rules relating to incapacity benefit. [93751]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are determined to bring the benefits system up to date, and to do more for those who need help most. During the Report stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, I made it clear that the principles that underpin these reforms were right, but that I was prepared to consider the details in the light of future representations. That remains the case.
    Mr. Waterson: Does the Secretary of State accept that applying means-testing to incapacity benefit not only undermines the contributory principle, but constitutes a massive disincentive for constituents—including mine—who have disabilities, and who want to save and make provision for themselves?
    Mr. Darling: No, I do not accept that. I think it right that, when people draw down a pension early after retiring through incapacity, and when they have a significant income, that income ought to be taken into account. I bear in mind the fact that about 300,000 people who receive incapacity benefit along with an occupational pension have an income of some £400 a week, and the fact that nearly 50 per cent. of incapacity benefit recipients with occupational pensions are in the top income brackets.
    I believe that the social security system needs to do far more for those who need help most. That is why we are increasing the amount of help that we give to severely disabled children by nearly £27 a week, and in some cases—involving those with particular difficulties—by more than £35 a week. If we are to do that, however, there will come a stage at which we must consider where else the system is paying benefits to people on whom, owing to changes in circumstances over the past 50 years, we might not wish to focus our activities. I believe that the principles that underpin the Government's approach are absolutely right. I have said that I am prepared to look at the detail. I am doing that and will have further proposals, but the principle that the Government's efforts are best directed towards those who need help most is right.
    Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend listen very carefully to those on our side who have criticised his proposals, particularly those who have
    694
    campaigned for disability benefits for years on end? I have in mind Lord Ashley and Lord Morris. Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that, although many of us recognise the improvements that have undoubtedly taken place in the past two years for many people who are affected by his Department—some of us have taken the opportunity to point that out on many occasions—there is deep concern over what is being proposed? To avoid what occurred on 20 May in the House of Commons happening again, I hope that he will bear in mind our concern.
    Mr. Darling: I made it clear that I am and have been listening to representations over the past few months. I will have further proposals, but I repeat that I believe that the principles that underpin the approach that we are taking in this and other parts of the Bill are absolutely right.
    The Government have given other help to disabled people. We have introduced the disabled person's tax credit, the disability income guarantee and the new deal for the disabled—all those are new and were introduced by the present Government. None of them came from the Tory Government.
    The Tory opposition to this part of the Bill is wholly opportunistic. I respect the views of some of my colleagues and, indeed, some Cross Benchers in the other place. I will listen to them, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept, when he looks at what the Government are doing in the round, that we are greatly helping people who are disabled and doing far more than any Government have for those who need help most. I hope that, when it comes to the final vote, he will look at those matters in the round, support the Government and not go into the Lobby with Conservative Members.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The arguments that the Secretary of State has used for means-testing incapacity benefit—the fact that some recipients have big company pensions—would apply equally to retirement pensions, yet the Government think that it is wrong on principle to means-test the national insurance retirement pension. Why is it wrong to means-test the retirement pension, but right to means-test incapacity benefit?
    Mr. Darling: Pensions that are drawn early after someone has retired because of incapacity are meant to replace income; incapacity benefit was originally designed in the same way. When the hon. Gentleman reflects that 50 years ago, less than 30 per cent. of people had occupational pensions and that now nearly 86 per cent. of men have such provision, he will realise that we cannot go on ignoring that fact. I understand that the Liberal Democrats' view is sometimes different and that they have all sorts of spending proposals without any means of financing them. However, there comes a stage when, if we want to do more for those who are most severely disabled, particularly children who have been disabled from birth or at an early stage, we will have to look at what is happening throughout the labour market and ensure that the social security system reflects those changes. At the moment, such people are paid so little that they are living on income support for the whole of their lives. Our changes will lift them above income support.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: I welcome the Government's statement in another place that those on the

    695
    higher care component of disability living allowance will be exempted from the clawback in incapacity benefit. However, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government, in modernising welfare, will continue to protect those in greatest need, particularly people who, through the severity of their disability, have never been able to work?
    Mr. Darling: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I confirm that Baroness Hollis, the Under-Secretary of State, made it clear in the other place that the Government, having listened to representations, would exempt from the proposals those who are most severely disabled. That change will be widely welcomed. I accept the arguments in respect of it. The Government will ensure that the appropriate amendments are made to the Bill.
    As I was saying to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), when I took over this job I was struck by how little we were doing for those who are most severely disabled. I do not think that any Labour Government could complete a term of office and simply allow that to continue. I am therefore determined to do more and more to help those who are severely disabled—those who will never, ever work—and I feel very strongly that, as a matter of decency, we owe that to them.
    I feel equally strongly that the current benefits system is increasingly out of date, and that it will have to keep abreast of changes in society and in the labour market. I therefore believe that the principles underlying our approach are right, but am listening to representations on the detail.
    Mr. David Willetts: Does the Secretary of State understand that there is so much cross-party opposition to his proposals not because of points of detail, but because of points of principle, such as the principle of a contributory incapacity benefit? I remind him that it is also a matter of holding him to account for his own statements about encouraging people to save for their own retirement.
    How can the Government say that they want to encourage people to take out pensions—we heard it again today from the Minister of State, Department of Social Security—but at the same time penalise them if they have an occupational or personal pension—but only if they a pension; the Government are interested in no other type of savings—by depriving them of their incapacity benefit? That is manifestly an attack on saving and is inconsistent with the Government's own statements.
    Mr. Darling: We are talking about sums that are drawn down early by someone who has come out of the labour force because of an incapacity. The hon. Gentleman said that it was a matter of principle. I was interested in a letter—a copy of which someone was kind enough to send me—sent to all Tory Members by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), saying that today's Question Time would be a useful opportunity to see how determined the Government were to reverse the amendments in the other place. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar said, however, that
    "a degree of subtlety is required in that the Government is keen to brand the defeats as Tory plotting."
    696
    The letter goes on to invite Tory Members to a plotting meeting, at 1.15 pm, in the Tea Room.
    The Tory opposition to the changes that we are proposing in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is wholly opportunistic. When people see what the Government have done for disabled people and judge that against what the previous Government did—blocking the changes that we tried to make in establishing the Disability Rights Commission, and at every turn disadvantaging disabled people—most of them will realise that our position is one of principle, in stark contrast to the position taken by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is renowned for his subtlety, and it is a great asset to have him on the team.
    The Secretary of State still does not seem to realise the significance of the defeats that the Government suffered in the other place the other week. In the media, he claimed that the defeats were inflicted by some sort of backward-looking alliance of hereditary peers. Does he not realise that, even if not a single hereditary peer had voted, the Government would still have gone down to a humiliating defeat? Does that not tell him something about how wrong the proposals are?
    Mr. Darling: No, it does not. On the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill and other measures currently being considered by the other place, it is quite clear that the Conservative party and hereditary peers are determined to squeeze every last opportunity out of the time they have remaining in the other place.
    I take with great seriousness much of what many Members said in the other place, but find it difficult to take seriously what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Two weeks ago, at the Tory party conference, he gave a pledge to cut social security spending as a proportion of national income. However, his colleagues—Conservative Members—in the other place have now backed amendments totalling £3.5 billion of expenditure commitments. The hon. Gentleman invites us to believe that he is a man of principle and that he will cut social security spending, but Conservative Members never did that in all their time in government. In real terms, the previous Government increased social security spending by 90 per cent., although the gap between rich and poor and the number of people born in poverty increased year after year. That is a damning indictment of the failure of the previous, Tory Government.

    Earnings Disregards
    Mr. Jim Cousins: What is his policy on the uprating of earnings disregards. [93753]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The earnings disregards are reviewed annually as part of the uprating process.
    Mr. Cousins: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. As he well knows, for many years the previous Government restricted the weekly earning power of those on means-tested benefits to £5 for a single person and £15 for those with families. Through that policy they

    697
    ring-fenced the shame and misery of those without work, bringing the fear of fraud to millions of decent families and taxing the energy and enterprise of the poorest in a way that no one has ever suggested should be done to the richest. They made women fearful of looking after their grandchildren and men fearful of mending their mate's car or painting their auntie's house. They restricted self-employment and limited community business. Following the introduction of the minimum wage, the disregard is worth 90 minutes of earning power or four hours for someone with a family. Is it not time that that, too, was modernised?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. He asks what our policy is. It is to review the disregards annually as part of the uprating process. They have not been uprated for several years—not since 1988 for income support or since 1996 for the jobseeker's allowance. However, there have been other changes in the welfare benefits system, not least the working families tax credit, which means that it is no longer possible for any family person to claim that they are better off on benefit than in work.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: May I associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) in welcoming the Minister to his post? It is a difficult one and I wish him well.
    What incentive does the Minister's response give to people on low incomes? The Government have been in power for two and a half years, but their latest "Households Below Average Income" document clearly shows that the number of people at the poorer end of the income scale has increased and that the trend is upwards. Will he name a year when poor people will be better off under a Labour Government? Will it be next year or the year after? Will it be 2000, 2001 or 2002? Or is what he has said an example of spin over substance? Does he believe that the Government are tackling poverty merely by saying that they are going to do so? Will he name a year?
    Mr. Rooker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome. I know that it was not well meant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No one has ever accused me of being subtle, so I have no apology to make. Our document measures the year before our changes came into force and shows the legacy of the previous Government, which will still be rolling along for some time. The hon. Gentleman asked for an example. Constituents of mine—and those of most hon. Members—who have been claiming family credit and have now gone on to the working families tax credit will be substantially better off under this Government, notwithstanding those—
    Mr. Pickles: Which year?
    Mr. Rooker: This year. I am talking about those who are transferring now as family credit comes to an end. Those who are on the minimum wage will be substantially better off this year.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What plans he has to review the jobseeker's allowance regulations. [93754]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): A large-scale research programme to evaluate the jobseeker's allowance has been conducted and the final report in the series will be published early next year. The findings from that programme will enable us to consider what changes we might need to make. In the meantime, we will consider changes to the jobseeker's allowance when problems occur or when a reason for amendments is identified.
    Dr. Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend for that announcement. Does she agree that the Tories introduced the present regulations not only as a means of cutting benefits for those made unemployed by their policies, but as one of 30 fiddles to hide the true unemployment rate at the time? Is she aware that people who are made redundant when their firm goes into receivership or liquidation cannot claim this allowance at the moment? Previously, such people were able to claim unemployment benefit, which was recovered from any payment due in lieu. Will she consider correcting that unfairness?
    Angela Eagle: We are aware that people who have money owing because their employer has gone bankrupt are not able to receive benefit. We will therefore propose regulations at the earliest opportunity to remedy that anomaly. In future, jobseeker's allowance and income support will not be refused because of earnings owed to people when their jobs end.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Graham Brady: What recent representations he has received about his proposals to reform the Child Support Agency. [93755]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We have received a wide range of views on the detail of our proposals since the White Paper was published. I am glad to say that there is widespread support for the radical changes to the current system.
    Mr. Brady: To inform future contributions to the debate, will the Secretary of State tell the House how many parents will have their entitlement to maintenance reduced, and by how much?
    Mr. Darling: We expect that about 1 million children will gain because of the changes. That contrasts with the fact that, at the moment, some 66 per cent. of children do not see all the benefit to which they are entitled under the present system.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing changes to the CSA regulations, and on offering the prospect of greater fairness in the making of maintenance assessments. Will he consider people who are working part time or in seasonal labour? The CSA often takes into consideration

    699
    only the income based on periods when such people are in employment. Would not it be much fairer to take into account annual income when assessing maintenance, rather than three or four weeks when such people are in employment? The CSA has applied that principle in some cases, and it is difficult to understand how it can do so in some instances but not in others.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises a difficult point which also concerns people whose income can change dramatically because of the availability of overtime. The difficulty is that, at the moment, it takes up to 100 pieces of information to make a basic calculation. Under the new system, we will be able to calculate the sum due in a matter of days, rather than months. That means that where someone's income fluctuates because of the circumstances described by my hon. Friend, it will be far easier to make a more accurate assessment of what is due. There is a balance to be struck in terms of what is fair to the parent without care, as well as to the parent with care. However, I am sure that if we simplify the system to ensure that the calculations are made more quickly, we will have a better chance of making sure that we do the right thing by both parents—but above all, by the children concerned.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In the new proposals, what will deal with a parent without care who is self-employed and decides to ignore the CSA? I have constituents who have been waiting two and a half years for any payment, and some people are getting away with blue murder.
    Mr. Darling: In the White Paper, we are considering what greater civil penalties can be imposed where parents will not co-operate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the CSA will be given powers, where appropriate, to get to the records held by the Inland Revenue to find out how much someone earns. Many of us have constituents who are not receiving a penny from, usually, the estranged husband, who can be seen driving around town in a BMW and leading a life style that is wholly inconsistent with his assertion that he has no money. I am sorry to say that, as I understand it, the Conservative party is against our proposal.
    Ms Claire Ward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that more will be done to give the CSA power to investigate fathers who are not paying their children's maintenance, but will he ensure that the agency does not tackle only the soft targets: those who are already making a contribution and are being persistently pursued for more? Will he also ensure that bureaucracy is cut back so that my constituents can get a reply to their letters and telephone calls within a reasonable time?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises two points. One concerns the administration of the Child Support Agency, which we are overhauling. Part of the problem is that its case load has increased dramatically—by about 60 per cent.—in the past couple of years, and that is putting a strain on staff. The agency has a high staff turnover, a problem which we are seeking to tackle, and the complexity of the rules and regulations under which it has to operate leads to difficulties. I regard the situation as wholly unsatisfactory, which is why we are simplifying
    700
    the rules and regulations so that instead of 100 pieces of information, three or four will be sufficient to get claims into payment.
    I agree with my hon. Friend's other point, which was that equity demands that people believe that the CSA will pursue anybody who does not pay, and not only those who are more readily accessible. Currently, far too many staff are employed assessing claims and very few enforcing them. I believe that as a result of the changes that we are making far more attention will be given to enforcement, carried out in a fair way.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will the Secretary of State answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) asked? How many parents with care will have their maintenance assessment reduced under the Government's proposals?
    Mr. Darling: I understand the hon. Lady's point, but let me repeat that, as a result of the changes that we will make, 1 million more children will get the maintenance to which they are entitled. It is perfectly true that, as a result of the simplified formula, which was published in the White Paper—the ready reckoners are there—some parents will pay more, and some less, but the fundamental point that concerns Labour Members is the fact that those 1 million more children will receive their benefit. I wish that Conservative Members would pay more attention to those children rather than concentrating on those who seek to dodge their responsibility.
    Helen Jackson: What responses he has received to the White Paper, "A New Contract for Welfare: Children's Rights and Parents' Responsibilities", (Cm 4349); and if he will make a statement. [93759]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, responses to the White Paper show continuing support for radical reform of the child support system.
    Helen Jackson: Have the responses reflected the total muddle, confusion and inefficiency that have dogged thousands of children and families because of the way in which the Child Support Agency was introduced in the previous Parliament? Thousands have been driven into our advice surgeries, desperate for some response from Government. Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Government will concentrate on prioritising the needs of children; offering wherever possible a face-to-face consultation as opposed to the thousands of telephone calls that people currently have to make; and, above all, ensuring that there is an efficient and fully prepared set-up to deal with the changes?
    Angela Eagle: We are acutely aware that, because of the muddle that the agency got in when it was introduced and the extreme complexity of the formula that it has had to try to implement, what my hon. Friend describes has come to pass. As constituency Members, we have all seen a string of people who have been affected in various ways by the agency's inability to do its job effectively. That is why the move to a much simpler formula for calculating maintenance has been widely welcomed. Changes to child

    701
    support regulations are at the centre of our fight against child poverty. It is essential to get maintenance into payment efficiently and effectively.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: In considering these responses, will the Minister consider offering congratulations to the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, Mrs. Faith Boardman, for her speedy, thorough and comprehensive replies to letters from Members, of which there are many? In so doing, will the Minister consider whether this splendid example of public service might not be taken up by Ministers, some of whom appear to treat Members' letters with contempt and delay replies for four months or more?
    Angela Eagle: I am more than happy to pass on my congratulations to Faith Boardman on the job that she does in extremely difficult circumstances. As far as I am aware, delays in ministerial replies are not as long as the hon. Gentleman says, except in very occasional circumstances.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: May I pass on to my hon. Friend the support that I have received from my constituents for the changes that are proposed for the Child Support Agency? Their only concern is the length of time that it will take to bring in the new and simplified procedures. Has my hon. Friend received any assurances from the Conservative party that when the necessary legislation is introduced, Conservative Members will help to speed its passage through the House, so that we can implement the changes, which are much desired, as soon as possible?
    Angela Eagle: I cannot tell my hon. Friend that we have received any assurances from the Conservative party. If I had been responsible for the mess that it introduced, I would be less happy about coming forward to criticise how things are going now.
    Mr. David Willetts: You voted for it.
    Angela Eagle: We voted against the Second Reading of the Bill that introduced the CSA. Many of the things that we warned against during the passage of the Bill in 1991 came to pass.
    I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that at the centre of our deliberations are the issues that her constituents bring to her, and my constituents bring to me, about the difficulties that have been caused. We must remember that we have an absolute duty to ensure that the 1.8 million children who are left without any support as a result of their parents having abandoned the family home are supported. The Government need to facilitate that in the most effective and efficient way.
    Mr. John Bercow: In legislating for parents' responsibilities, would the Minister agree with me that it is essential in each case to be absolutely certain who the parents are? Further to that obvious point, and given the fact that one of my constituents has been instructed by the Child Support Agency to make payments of £111.92 per week, a sum which he cannot afford, to support a child who he insists to this day is not his, will the Minister agree that in any reform package for the CSA
    702
    my constituent should have a right to demand a DNA test, which he has thus far unavailingly requested since February, to establish beyond doubt whether he is or is not the parent?
    Angela Eagle: I never thought the day would come when I agreed with the hon. Gentleman—the week may even get better as it goes on. Clearly it undermines the whole system if parentage is not properly established. We want to do our best to establish DNA testing to solve the few instances where there is controversy over parentage.

    New Deal (Disabled)
    Mr. David Watts: What lessons his Department has drawn from the working of the new deal for the disabled in helping disabled people obtain employment. [93761]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): There is clear evidence that the new deal for disabled people is helping people to move from incapacity benefit into work. One thousand people have found jobs through these new deal pilots so far.
    Mr. Watts: I thank the Minister for his reply. May I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that any problems that have been highlighted during the pilot scheme are resolved before the scheme goes national? Given the concern about the closure of Remploy factories, will he give me a guarantee that when the new system is up and running, when pilot schemes are extended, and when there are new deals for the disabled throughout the country, there will be better, not fewer, options for the disabled?
    Mr. Bayley: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. We have learned a great deal from the new deal pilots. We have found that it is possible to help people with a wide range of disabilities, including some who have been extremely seriously disabled. When I visited one of the pilots a few weeks ago in the north of Scotland, I met a man who had been unemployed because of incapacity for 29 years. The new deal had provided him with an opportunity that he had sought for a long time—the opportunity to work.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is making available additional resources to pay for supported employment. That will help Remploy and other organisations that are providing supported employment.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister ensure that he takes more seriously than it has been taken before the research commissioned from the Institute for Employment Studies that suggests an alarming shortfall in future supported employment placements? The figures suggest that there may be a deficiency of between 40,000, on a narrow estimate, and up to 179,000, on a broad estimate, of potential future demand for supported places. Will he therefore ensure that if he implements a national roll-out of the new deal for disabled people, he and his colleagues will provide the places before the scheme

    703
    comes into effect, so that they do not disappoint the many disabled people who would wish to avail themselves of those places?
    Mr. Bayley: There is certainly a need to provide supported employment, but it would be wrong to characterise the new deal as a scheme that simply provides opportunities for people to work on Government-financed or Government-subsidised schemes. It is far
    704
    wider than that. We have to ensure that work pays by changing the benefit and tax systems that we inherited; and we have to ensure that people who are disabled and seek work get the personal advice and support that they need to obtain employment. We are doing that. We must ensure that barriers to work—some employers are good but others are much poorer—are removed, which we are doing through the disability discrimination legislation. We must advance on all fronts, and we are doing so.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Most Members of this House, whatever their political party, are justly proud of the hard-won freedom of speech we have in this country and the freedom of legitimate, peaceful protest. We were surprised last week that the Home Secretary did not come to the House to discuss the public order situation surrounding the visit of President Jiang Zemin. Have you heard whether the Home Secretary intends to come to the House to discuss the unprecedented suppression of the demonstrators last week?
Madam Speaker: As far as I am aware, neither the Home Secretary nor any other Minister is coming to make a statement. Of course, when the Home Secretary comes to answer questions, the hon. Gentleman may table a question on this matter. No doubt he will do so.

Orders of the Day

  Financial Services and Markets Bill (Suspension)
  3.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Services and Markets Bill:

  1. Standing Committee A shall report the Bill to the House, so far as then amended, not later than Thursday 11th November.

  2. On the report of the Bill to the House in accordance with paragraph 1, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended until the next session of Parliament.

  3. If a Bill is presented in the next session in the same terms as the Bill reported to the House in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall be read the first and second time without Question put, shall be ordered to be printed, and shall stand committed, in respect of those clauses and schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in this session, to a Standing Committee of the same Members as the Members of the Standing Committee on the Bill in this session.

  I am pleased and privileged to move the motion. Its effect is to stay proceedings on the Financial Services and Markets Bill in Standing Committee A at the end of this Session and to carry it over into the next Session. The Bill will then be resumed in the next Session at the point in Committee that it reached before Prorogation.
  This is the first occasion on which a motion has been moved to carry over a public Bill and I am grateful to Opposition Front Benchers for their agreement to apply this procedure to this important Bill. I think that we can all agree that it will receive better and more detailed parliamentary scrutiny through being considered to a timetable that will not be constrained by the end of the current parliamentary Session. I hope that, in time, this procedure will become regular parliamentary practice because it will help to maximise parliamentary time and will lead to more thorough scrutiny.
  The carry-over procedure was recommended to the House in the first report from the Modernisation Committee in July 1997. That report was agreed unanimously by the Committee, which included representatives of the official Opposition. The report said:
  "The Committee agrees with the principle that, in defined circumstances and subject to certain safeguards, Government bills may be carried over from one session to the next in the same way as hybrid and private Bills".
  The Modernisation Committee's first report was approved by the House, without a vote, on 13 November 1997. In that debate, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), a distinguished former Leader of the House, said:
  "On the carry-over of Bills and paragraph 102 of the report, I think that it is right to have the flexibility that applies to private and hybrid Bills, not least because it is one way of handling the too frequent problem where many amendments come back from the House of Lords and we rush them through in the last three or four days.
  No one could argue that this is satisfactory. The problem arises because, inevitably, some Bills will be introduced later in the Session; they cannot all be done earlier. A genuine pressure on time causes that. Used sensibly, this proposal is a way of ensuring better scrutiny at that stage.—[Official Report, 13 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 1080.]
  Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Minister really saying that it is a good thing to bail

  707
  the Government out of difficulties caused by the bad management of business? It is bad management for a Government to leave the conclusion of important Bills to such a late date in a Session that a large number of amendments from another place cannot be handled properly in the House of Commons. The reason that the Minister has given for introducing this new policy is not very convincing. Should not he concentrate on getting the Government's act together and managing business more effectively?
  Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to manage business effectively and make good use of parliamentary time. I have no criticism of any of his tactics in the House, as he uses the conventions properly. With the support of Opposition Front-Bench Members, the Government advocate this approach in the case of the Financial Services and Markets Bill because we believe that it is a complex and important measure with important principles that require careful thought and analysis. It would not make sense to lose the Bill, and the City would not support that.
  The Modernisation Committee subsequently produced another report on the more detailed arrangements. That report recommended, first, that Bills be carried over by ad hoc motions, rather than under a general Standing Order. Secondly, it recommended that the procedure should be used on Bills that had not yet left the House in which they originated, rather than on ones already going through the second House. The Committee's third recommendation was that the eligibility of Bills for carry-over must be settled by agreement through the usual channels. That report was also unanimous and was agreed by the House, without a vote, on 4 June 1998.
  The Committee set out a number of conditions for carry-over. The first was that the Government should identify as early as possible any Bill that they wished to be carried over. The second was that carry-over should be used only for Bills that were to be subject to Select Committee-style scrutiny, or which were introduced after a certain period in the Session. The third recommendation was that no Bill should be carried over more than once. The Financial Services and Markets Bill fully satisfies all those conditions.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the Minister say whether the Labour party in opposition ever pressed for carry-over provisions to be introduced?
  Mr. Tipping: The introduction of such provisions is one of those matters that the House must consider very carefully indeed. For my part, I have long advocated the notion of carry-over. As I said, the Financial Services and Markets Bill has satisfied the conditions for carry-over set by the House.
  The Government gave the earliest possible notice of their intention by announcing at the time of last year's Queen's Speech that they would seek agreement to carry the Bill over.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: Does the Minister think that carry-over would have been necessary if the original draft Bill, which was published
  708
  on the last day before the summer recess in July 1998, had been halfway decent? Instead, it was so heavily flawed that much additional work had to be done on it.
  Mr. Tipping: The Bill is a complex measure, and it has the support of the City. Clearly, such Bills can be improved by parliamentary scrutiny, and I am delighted that this Bill was able to benefit from new procedures. A Joint Committee was able to look at the Bill and make recommendations, many of which have been accepted.
  Mr. John Bercow: The Minister's emollient style—it resembles that of a good general practitioner—is almost universally admired in the House. It seems, however, not entirely to atone for the relative weakness of his argument. Will the Minister reflect on the fact that, if the logic of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton)—that a good and complex Bill can be improved by scrutiny—is pursued too far, it may come to justify rolling over every legislative measure that the Government introduce to the House?
  Mr. Tipping: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments—emollience in a great dose. For my part, I admire the hon. Gentleman's more usual rough and ready style. Individual Bills must be judged on their merits. The Government do not seek to carry over a host of Bills to the next Session. We made it clear at the beginning of the current Session that the Bill was complex and that we would seek to carry it over.
  Parts of the Bill were published in draft form in July 1998 and April 1999. The Joint Committee was set up to consider the draft Bill in March. It conducted a thorough examination, and the Government have agreed many of its recommendations. The Financial Services and Markets Bill is detailed and complex. It has been improved by the Joint Committee, and I expect further improvements to be made by the Standing Committee and during the remaining parliamentary stages.
  Mr. Loughton: If such great consideration and so much time was given, why had the Joint Committee less than two months to complete its deliberations before the deadline for the first report? The Committee was limited to looking into only six areas among the 367 clauses of the Bill. If the Government offered time so generously, why was the Committee, which was so important and which did such a good job, not given more time for scrutiny?
  Mr. Tipping: I thank Lord Burns and the Joint Committee for their work on the Bill. My impression is that the Committee examined the key points and made helpful and valuable adjustments to the Bill, many of which the Government have been prepared to consider. The Committee's report, when it eventually came, was unanimous, but—let me be emollient again—we are proposing a new procedure and it may be that we should in future look again at the timetabling of Bills.
  Today marks another stage in the implementation of the Modernisation Committee's work to adjust the procedures of the House to the needs of an effective Parliament, ensuring greater parliamentary scrutiny of an important Bill. Many people outside the House will benefit from the Bill, which has substantial economic implications. I thank,

  709
  again, the Joint Committee for its work, and the members of the Standing Committee for their current and future work on the Bill. I commend the motion to the House.
  3.43 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister has outlined a case for modest constitutional reform in line with the proposals of the Select Committee on Modernisation. I approach such proposals with considerable caution. As a member of the forces of conservatism, I recognise that these proposals are not always brought forward entirely with the public good in mind. There is usually a strong element of party advantage in any reform proposal. A healthy dose of scepticism is, therefore, in order when reforms are proposed. I do not go quite as far as the Duke of Wellington who, when presented with a proposal from one of his Ministers, is supposed to have responded: "Reform! Reform! Aren't things bad enough already?"
  Nevertheless, without going quite as far as that previous leader of my party, I believe that any proposal of this nature should be carefully approached and circumscribed. For instance, I do not accept the Minister's observation that the occurrence should be a regular one and that the carry-over of Bills from one Session to another should take place more than infrequently. This proposal—if used—should be used with great precision; for example, it is certainly not appropriate to use it when a Bill has become bogged down in another place. Furthermore, it should be considered only when the Bill in question is of a technical nature.
  After those opening observations, I turn to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which could have been dealt with in one Session of Parliament if it had been brought forward more speedily and in better order. Undoubtedly, in the past, the rule of the House has been that a Bill should complete all its stages in both Houses in a single Session. This Bill—currently in Standing Committee—could have satisfied that rule if the Government had better understood, earlier, the complexity with which they were dealing.
  The proposal to reform the regulatory arrangements for financial services was announced soon after the 1997 general election. At that time, the important issues of justice and fairness were not fully understood by the Treasury; nor was the possible conflict with the European convention on human rights—a convention which the Government are simultaneously incorporating into British law. The Bill published a year later, in 1998, was seriously defective; indeed, it was unworkable in a number of respects. To improve that draft Bill, it was submitted to a Joint Committee. It was planned that the Committee would sit in January this year, but it was eventually convened in March. As I pointed out on Second Reading, all participants found that the innovation was successful. The Committee did not examine the whole Bill; because of the shortage of time, it concentrated on only six areas. It produced two reports—the latter of which appeared in May this year.
  The Government accepted the majority of the Committee's conclusions. I am glad that they did so. Indeed, they stated:
  "The Government finds itself strongly in agreement with the great majority of the Committee's conclusions, although in some cases our proposed way forward is not identical to that recommended by the Committee."
  710
  Based on the recommendations and the Government's statement, the Opposition agreed that an amended Bill should be introduced immediately, and that its Committee stage should start in July and carry over to the next Session. Thus, we intended that the financial services industry should acquire a Bill that it needs urgently—indeed, without legislation, the present uncertainty is damaging to the market. It is also damaging that, in effect, the Financial Services Authority is operating without proper statutory cover. On the one hand, our intention was to get a Bill on the statute book without unnecessary delay. On the other hand, we intended further to improve the Bill—especially to ensure that the recommendations of the Joint Committee were fully implemented.
  Mr. Loughton: My right hon. Friend is being overly generous to Treasury Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, said that "very many" of the Burns Committee's recommendations had been accepted and that was later downgraded to "many", whereas my right hon. Friend has said that "most" of the recommendations were accepted. In fact, analysis of the final Bill shows that fewer than half of the Burns Committee's recommendations were taken on board when drafting the Bill.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In the light of my hon. Friend's remarks, I shall briefly outline some of the Bill's provisions that were recommended by the Joint Committee. The Bill introduced in July was an improvement on the original draft. However, I and others, including my hon. Friend, said on Second Reading that the improvements, welcome though they were, left considerable gaps in the legislation and that we expected further major improvements to be made thereafter.
  In some cases, our concerns centred on the items recommended by the Joint Committee that were not accepted by the Government. I refer particularly to the proposal to split the role of chairman and chief executive of the Financial Services Authority after the current incumbent leaves that—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has given the House a long explanation and he will now come to his arguments relating to the procedural matters on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I bow to your judgment, Madam Speaker. I thought that it would be for the benefit of the House to set out the stage we had reached in our deliberations on the Bill, so that the House could assess whether it was appropriate to carry the Bill over to the next Session.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a simple answer to the following question: is he in favour of the Bill being carried over—yes or no?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman had been alert to the earlier part of my speech, he would have heard me say that the Opposition agreed to the carry-over, and I am now outlining the reasons for that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not weary the House by asking me to repeat matters that I have already covered.

  711
  I have mentioned one or two of the Joint Committee's recommendations that the Government did not accept. I am also concerned about certain of the Committee's recommendations that the Government did accept, but which have not yet been fully incorporated in the legislation—for example, recommendations relating to market abuse. Those who engage in that practice can be fined, but that is not properly defined in the Bill as it stands. That defect in the Bill has attracted widespread criticism from outside.
  Substantial areas of the Bill were not scrutinised at all by the Joint Committee and defects in those areas have become apparent only under scrutiny. During sittings of the Standing Committee in July and in the past week, we have found several examples. I have time to give only one example—that of internet trading or e-commerce, which is not satisfactorily dealt with in the Bill. The Bill attempts to regulate financial services on the basis of country of reception, whereas the Government as a whole, including the Department of Trade and Industry, have been urging this country to adopt country of origin regulation. Unless that part of the Bill is corrected, there will be a standing contradiction between the legislation and the Government's overseas negotiations.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case, which would persuade me that we should drop the Bill completely at this stage and rethink it properly, so that it can be re-presented at a future stage and dealt with carefully. The logic of my right hon. Friend's case is not that we should do some fudge and carry-over, but that the Bill should be dealt with in the proper, traditional way. It should be taken away and rethought entirely. All the weaknesses that he is so admirably pointing out should be resolved, and the Bill should be brought back to the House in a proper manner.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Bill is proceeding in Standing Committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend will interest himself in our future deliberations. We have reached clause 52 out of 367 clauses, so there are plenty of opportunities for him to engage in the debate and seek the improvements that we all want.
  The course of the Bill will depend on how the Government respond to the concerns, of which I have mentioned just two or three. The timing is also in the hands of the Committee. Although we are aware that the City and the financial services industry as a whole do not want any unnecessary delay, we all agree that it is better to produce a good Bill than one that proceeds on an unrealistic time scale.
  We want a Bill that regulates a huge and very important British industry, but it must be the right Bill. We will support the Government when they do something right in the Bill—parts of the Bill have been significantly improved—but we will oppose the Government when there is something wrong in the Bill or when they refuse to accept the necessary improvements. The motion will assist the House if it helps the process of scrutiny and thereby gives the industry an Act of which the House can be proud.
  3.57 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on the procedural motion relating to a complex Bill, which the Government seek to carry over and which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, we agree should be carried over into the next Session.
  As this is the first time that any Bill has been carried over, it is important to put down one or two markers, as the Parliamentary Secretary did. I fear that unless we are careful, and unless future Governments of all persuasions are disciplined about the carry-over procedure, it will come to be used at times when legislation has been held up because it is highly controversial, or has been brought in late because other highly controversial legislation was held up and took too long.
  I remind the House of the old nostrum, which has certainly been true during my 20 years here, that one of the few weapons, if not the only weapon, of an Opposition is delay. The proposed modernisation reduces the power of opposition. That should be done extremely carefully. Practically no one who has entered the House has not at some stage during his or her period here parroted the notion, which has a great deal to recommend its being parroted, that there is far too much legislation, it is far too complex and most of it is too little thought out. That would certainly apply to the Bill.
  I am not saying that a great deal of work has not gone into the Bill behind the scenes and in Committee, but the fact that it has 367 clauses and 16 schedules is not a compliment to the Bill. It is an indication that Pascal's famous nostrum—"I am sorry I have had to write you such a long letter, but I did not have time to write you a short one"—applies in the present case, as elsewhere.
  It has been noted in Standing Committee more than once, and perhaps more than half a dozen times, that the Bill will effectively achieve two things: it will create a framework within which the new Financial Services Authority can regulate and govern almost every aspect of financial services in the City; and, getting down to the nitty-gritty, it will give almost unfettered powers, to both the Treasury and the FSA, to regulate exactly how they choose. The Bill's 228 pages, which contain those 367 clauses and 16 schedules, are nothing more than broad guidelines that frequently descend into detail, but which always, I think I am right in saying, have a mop-up clause that provides for reopening the widest possible discretion for the Treasury and the authority.
  For that reason, it is no exaggeration to say that, if he had been invited to do so, the parliamentary draftsman could have published a 50-page Bill, and it would have been a great deal better if he had. Then, at least, what I have described, and what I believe to be entirely true, would have been seen by the public at large and either accepted or not accepted. That would have enabled us to focus better on one or two fundamental points, which we may get wrong, and which we would have found easier to do without the obfuscation of length and detail. I shall give two examples.
  First, we have frequently said, and have voted for the fact, that competition or competitiveness should be one of the objectives of the authority when regulations under the Bill are drafted. It should be included in the Bill. We would have no difficulty with that, because we have

  713
  argued for it, but any Minister or Opposition Front-Bench spokesman backed into a corner would undoubtedly say on "Question Time" or elsewhere that he strongly believed in the competitiveness of the City. There are four objectives, which rightly deal with proper regulation, but I do not think that we would have the slightest difficulty in combining those with competitiveness. That would help to keep the regulators, who will have massive discretion, on the right lines thereafter.
  I am afraid that I am a lone voice on my second point. I said on Second Reading, and I repeat now, that one aspect of the Bill is deeply unwise: it makes anybody without the proper regulatory authority a criminal—I am not complaining about that—which of course puts enormous firepower into the hands of the FSA, but it goes on to say that anybody who fails, for one reason or another, to get himself properly authorised will be unable to enforce the deals into which he enters unless he can slot himself into some very narrow exceptions.
  I am quite prepared to see unenforceability as a principle that is available for the safeguarding of citizens who do business with those who are unregulated, but I have emphasised more than once—and as anyone who has sat in the House and watched financial affairs debates over the past decade or two knows—that there are sharks on both sides of the water at all times in the City. There are sharks who will seek to prey on those who invest their money and there are investors who will seek to escape their legitimate liabilities by fair means or foul.
  Are we to create a regulatory system that will enable someone to escape what would otherwise be his legitimate liabilities because of some technical mistake, which may have been caused by carelessness? It is a grave mistake to make something totally unenforceable. One should leave it to the discretion of the court so that the citizen who is trading, if he is in the wrong, can at least fall back on the court's discretion without fetter.
  A 228-page Bill covers this area, as do mountains of useful paperwork produced by the authority in consultation, regulation and technical books. The one that I have had the pleasure of reading was written in part by a lawyer who has given us a great deal of help. It amounts to 400 pages of detail that could not possibly be read by anyone who is not merely a lawyer, but a lawyer specialising in the field. It simply could not be understood by anybody else.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman rose—
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I give way to the hon. Lady.
  Madam Speaker: Order. May I bring the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House back to the procedural motion on the Order Paper? It is interesting to have some of the examples that have been given, but I now ask hon. Members to stay within the motion before us. Given my ruling, does the Hon. Lady still wish to intervene?
  Mrs. Ellman: Yes, Madam Speaker.
  Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Bill has involved so much time because detailed consideration is being given to every precise point that Opposition Members, including him, are making?
  714
  Does he agree that that is a strength of the Bill and the reason why this procedural motion should be agreed to without much more ado?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am most grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and to the hon. Lady for bringing me back to the point. The answer to her question is yes and no. Yes, there has been valuable scrutiny and, without wishing to praise the Opposition too much, we have made and tested some sensible points and shall continue to do so for some months to come. However, it is not too unfair to those with the job, in both the Government and the Financial Services Authority, of getting the Bill into workable order to say that they are still busy consulting and thinking through much of the detail, which, ideally, should have been thought through before the Bill began.
  This brings me solidly on to procedural ground, Madam Speaker. Had the Bill been thought through before we started, we would have been far less likely to need a carry-over motion. Such motions should be extremely rare. The Government should be as good as their word and should not table carry-over motions without giving full notice in advance—to be fair, that was given—except when the matter is technical and highly complex or when such a motion is absolutely necessary for proper scrutiny. I take exception, politely, to what the Minister said. Carry-over motions should not be used simply because a Bill was started late in a Session. They should certainly not be used for that reason without agreement behind the scenes.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: As a member of both the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee, I welcome both the general proposal and the specific proposal in relation to the Bill.
  On the carry-over procedure, the House has an underlying difficulty because those with the power to change procedure are inevitably the Government of the day, while those most in favour of reinforcing the powers of the House are inevitably those who sit on the Opposition Benches. Thus, at any stage of any Parliament, a delicate balancing act must be performed if the House's procedures are to be moved forward constructively. Our carry-over procedure achieves that delicate balance, and will achieve some extra capacity for the House to keep a grip on legislation that the Government put before it.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) made some of my points for me. This is a difficult and complex Bill. The alternative to carrying it forward is not to abandon it, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might hope, but to rush it through in the remaining fortnight of this Session. That is traditionally how Governments have dealt with complex Bills when they have got to the end of their time and the end of the Session.
  This motion enables us to give complex Bills proper consideration right the way through, and thereby improve them. I am a new Member and, like every inhabitant of the United Kingdom, I have been subject to the laws of the House since the day of my birth—and probably even before that. The laws produced by various Governments and endorsed by the House in various configurations have frequently had serious defects and have had to

  715
  be revisited. Those defects have often arisen because proper consideration had not been given to the detail of the Bill. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you would not want me to illustrate that at great length; it can be taken for granted.
  This provision will allow the House to exercise better scrutiny in better time, which it is hoped will produce better outcomes. The Bill has already gone through consultative procedures that are new to the House and to the other place, and they have produced improvements. More improvements can be made if we proceed with this motion.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked whether the carry-over procedure should become more widely used. I hope that it will be more widely used. Legislation is sometimes rushed and fumbled, because our legislative cycle inevitably compresses the consideration of detail into the end of the parliamentary Session when we are least able to manage it. If we were rational, not only would we have an announcement in the Queen's Speech of the Bills that the Government propose to introduce during the Session, but we would be given the order in which they would be introduced so that the work on those Bills could proceed in an orderly and thorough way through the procedures of the House. Inevitably, Bills introduced in the second half of the Session might require the carry-over procedure.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another rational approach would be to introduce fewer Bills, thus allowing the House of Commons to do its job more effectively all the time, not just when carry-over is permitted?
  Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman may have a point that fewer and better laws would be good for everyone, and perhaps our summer recesses would be even longer. However, given the complexity of our modern society, every successive Government since the war has introduced more Bills than their predecessor, regardless of their political complexion. I do not foresee that changing unless we get a legislative benefit from devolution, but I shall not hold my breath on that. Although it is a nice wish, it is not a realistic proposition.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a benefit in the House of Commons having a limited time to examine legislation? In other legislatures, including the so-called European Parliament, which do not have that discipline, consideration of legislation goes on for ever, and they often do not have the ability to take legislation off the books when it manifestly should not be proceeded with, and when any sane person would say that it should be dropped. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a benefit in the House of Commons having a set timetable and knowing that at the end of that time it must deal with a Bill?
  Mr. Stunell: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention, because it enables me to say that the Modernisation Committee considered the point very carefully. That is why the carry-over procedure allows a Bill to be carried over only once, which I consider appropriate.
  716
  It has been suggested that if we had had more time, we could have had a shorter Bill. That is along the lines of the observation by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that perhaps we should have fewer laws. In fact, we are not likely to have either fewer or shorter laws in the future. What comes before the House needs to be considered carefully by hon. Members. We may or may not be able to make Bills shorter: I would not want to hold my breath on that. The main point is that output from the House must be good law which is enforceable. That may involve a little extra time and effort, but I believe that that is what we are here for.
  I consider the case for carrying over this Bill to be practically overwhelming. It is a complex Bill, and hon. Members have argued that it should have been shorter and simpler—but it is not. It is before us now, and the choice is not good. We can try to get it through in the next fortnight, or we can do as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested and withdraw it completely. The City is anxious for the Bill to be passed. Its regulatory procedures need attention, and the Bill addresses that need. I do not honestly think that the right hon. Gentleman is really signing up to a crooks charter, with the Bill withdrawn and no progress made on the regulation that is required. That cannot be what he intends to achieve.
  What we are left with is a perfectly sound procedure for this Bill, which will allow it to be examined properly and returned to the House in good order, with proper discussion. I strongly believe that the House should welcome this opportunity to use the carry-over procedures, and should be happy for this Bill to be the first example of legislation dealt with by that means.
  4.17 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I strongly oppose the measure, so I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) indicated his acquiescence to it. I say that for a number of reasons. The first is a matter of principle: I have never accepted the argument that it is desirable for us to find means of allowing more and more legislation to emanate from this place, rather than less legislation, including fewer Bills.
  I have never seen this place as a legislation factory. I have always supported procedures making the passage of legislation more difficult rather than easier, because I believe that, although there is an enormous propensity among politicians to produce more legislation in order to justify their existence, it must be in the greater interest of people for there to be fewer Bills. I therefore feel that any measure facilitating an increase in the amount of legislation is counter-productive and undesirable, which is why I was not in favour of the so-called Modernisation Committee's so-called progressive measures to facilitate that.
  An important issue has arisen in the context of this motion. It is the first time that it has arisen in the House. The discipline imposed by the one-Session principle that we have employed up until now has always struck me as a good one. Governments should be forced to give proper priority to their measures, and to give greater priority to more important and more complex Bills so that they can be dealt with in the time available. That discipline is about to disappear. If we approve the motion, a major step will

  717
  have been taken in the removal of an extremely desirable discipline which we have always—perhaps "enjoyed" would not the right word—imposed on ourselves.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the discipline of a complex Bill. Few Bills are more complex than the Finance Bill, which comes before us every year. We used frequently to sit throughout the night to discuss it. On Wednesday, we shall be discussing the consequences of the Pepper v. Hart ruling, which occurred at a very awkward time and which arose from the proceedings of the Finance Bill. Decisions were taken, and were subsequently considered. What is most important, however, is that if the pressure of time is there, Committees can meet more frequently. Will this proposal not stop them from meeting more frequently, and sticking to their timetables?
  I am in favour of the motion, but I think that it should be used only in exceptional circumstances, rather than being taken into account just because a Committee is rather slow in making decisions and rather leisurely in carrying out its responsibilities.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose experience in the House is great and almost unparalleled, for pointing out that, if it were the will of the House to find mechanisms better to examine and to scrutinise Bills, it should be able to find them, rather than take the risks that are inherent in what it is doing. He is the second right hon. Member, following my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), to say, "We will allow it in the case of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, but I hope that it will not happen too often." Both of them have been here long enough to know that that is a pious hope. Having opened the door, the Government are almost certain to want to walk through it ever more frequently. I would never use the word "naive" in the context of right hon. Gentlemen, but it is a triumph of hope over expectation.
  Mr. Bercow: Although I naturally endorse and support with enthusiasm the stance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), does my right hon. Friend agree that possibly the real motive behind the carry-over of the Bill is nothing to do with the public interest or the rights of the House, but is the pressing need for Ministers who are not professionally qualified in these important matters to get their minds round the 367 clauses and 228 pages of said Bill?
  Mr. Forth: That is entirely possible, but, having had the honour of serving on the Committee, I would hesitate to make that judgment. All I would say in the context of the comments of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is that, if I may point it out to the House, I was largely instrumental in guiding a Bill of almost identical size through the House in the 1992–93 Session. It had 350-something clauses and 21 or 22 schedules. We managed to do that. It was, of course, a magnificent Bill. It was virtually flawless. As a result of my guidance through the parliamentary process, it completed its passage on time and without the need of any chicanery of the sort that we are being asked to consider today.
  718
  My second reason for opposing the measure is simple: I still cling to that, sadly, apparently diminishing idea that it is the job of Her Majesty's Opposition to oppose, not to connive in the passage of Government legislation. That is why I am still mystified, despite the superb and elucidatory speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, about why the Conservative Opposition should find themselves conniving with this Government, of all Governments, in the passage of legislation. I cling to the view that Oppositions are here to oppose. I see no reason to overturn that excellent principle, even in the current case. I am not persuaded that it is an exception.
  My other reason has been touched on by one or two hon. Members. One of the most undesirable principles in the House is of all-party, or consensually agreed, legislation. Over many years, some of the worst measures that have emanated from this place have been agreed by all parties and driven by consensus. I am sure that the list is familiar to right hon. and hon. Members, so I will not repeat it, but it makes me rather uneasy when I am told in emollient tones, "Do not worry, we have all agreed to the measure."
  The Liberal Democrats apparently agreed to it, somewhat to my surprise. My right hon. and hon. Friends agreed to it and the Government want it. That would be bad enough, but another reason has been given to the House—it has been mentioned a couple of times: the City wants the Bill, so it must be rushed on its way.
  Usually, if we are told that an outside interest group wants legislation, that makes us more than a little nervous and suspicious. In other circumstances and cases, I would be suspicious if I were told that a powerful interest group was anxious to have legislation. That would make my antennae tremble more than usual and I would want to know why. In this case, however, we are being told by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the City is very anxious to have the legislation—with the implication that the House should hurry its proceedings, to ensure that the City is pleased by having the legislation in place as soon as possible.
  Mr. Tyrie: I am very sympathetic to the argument being made by my right hon. Friend. However, on the point that he is now pursuing, I think that he is slightly off-beam. The City is very keen to have certainty—any type of certainty will do—rather than the uncertainty of being caught between two loads of legislation. The City is dead scared of the Bill—it thinks that it is a ghastly leviathan—and would rather it had never been introduced in the House. That strongly supports my right hon. Friend's argument that there should have been a much longer, more careful and thoughtful process before such comprehensive legislation was introduced to replace current regulations.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If he has accurately summarised the rationale behind the City's argument on the legislation, I am even less impressed with the City. If the City is saying, "This is a rotten piece of legislation and we fear it greatly, because we think it might damage us—but, please, may we have it quickly, because it is better than uncertainty", I am not very impressed with it.
  I think that probably all hon. Members have today received a document appealingly headed "Justice in Financial Services". It was sent to us by a man—whom I

  719
  do not know personally—named J. R. S. Egerton. He makes some interesting assertions in his letter, dated 21 October. He states:
  "The Financial Services and Markets Bill has been condemned by the City editor of the Evening Standard as the greatest threat to individual liberty and the rule of law for a generation."
  I am not familiar with the views of the Evening Standard's City editor on the Bill, but can assume only that the letter gives a reasonably accurate interpretation of them.
  The letter goes on to say that the Bill's
  "excesses have been denounced by the Times and the Telegraph and received unfavourable notice in the Financial Times."
  I am not suggesting that we should be driven in our legislative deliberations by the press any more than by the City, but if those press experts are making those types of arguments, it seems to be a factor that should be taken into consideration and give us pause before finding ways of hurrying the Bill's passage. As has already been alluded to in the debate, the deliberations of the famous Joint Committee—which has been hailed as such an advance in the legislative process—on the Bill were less than complete.
  I have only briefly quoted the two-page letter from the Justice in Financial Services organisation. I do not know that body or its provenance, but am simply trying to make the point that there are different points of view on the matter—rather than the cosy apparent unanimity that was in danger of emerging before I managed to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
  It simply is not good enough for us to be told that we should pass an exceptional motion to give the Bill a second wind and further consideration, overturning all the House's previous tradition, because the Bill is large and complex and was introduced too late in the Session. Such a move makes me uneasy. I am not persuaded that the Bill is an exception—I do not think that there should be any exceptions.
  Nevertheless, let us not use the motion as a first example of what I fear will become much more normal than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne have said. I should perhaps defer to them, as they have been Members longer than I have, but do not share their confidence—if that is the right word—that such motions will be a rare exception or one-off.
  I suspect that, in future, the motion will be used by the Government as a precedent. I hope that the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells reflect much more accurately the position that the Opposition will take in future. Even if we have been persuaded, or conned, to go along with the motion on this occasion, I hope that we will learn a lesson from it. If the House—in my view mistakenly—gives its go-ahead to the motion today, I hope that it will be the last time that we approve such motions, and that we will not see its like again.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: There are two issues relating to the suspension motion that need to be considered: the points of constitutional principle and parliamentary procedure to which my right hon. Friend
  720
  the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred; and the reasons why the suspension motion should be applied to the Bill. I should like to say a few words about both issues, more on the latter than on the former.
  I am sympathetic to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on constitutional principle and was almost completely persuaded by them. A carry-over sounds nice in theory, but it hands a good deal of further power to the Executive. The power of delay is almost all that the Opposition have and I was flabbergasted to hear the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who will undoubtedly be in opposition all his life, saying that its use should be further curtailed.
  The relationship between the delaying power of the House of Lords and the carry-over provisions has not been mentioned so far. In certain circumstances, there is a risk that its power of delay could be eroded. That is set out clearly in a note prepared by the Clerks in the third report of the Modernisation Committee. The crucial two sentences say:
  "But if such a Bill were sent to the Lords late in the Session, with the intention of its being carried over, the Lords would have inadequate time to give it proper consideration. Nonetheless, the Parliament Act provisions could, legally, be applied by the Commons in the ensuing Session."
  In other words, in those circumstances the key power of delay—perhaps the only major power left in the hands of the Lords after the Parliament Act 1911—would be greatly eroded.
  In their desire to assist the Modernisation Committee with their support for the idea, the Clerks suggest some possible safeguards to deal with that further erosion of Lords power. Those safeguards are not well thought out and I should like the Government to come forward at the earliest opportunity with their proposals on how the House of Lords power of delay can be thoroughly safeguarded if, as the Minister said a moment ago, carry-over provisions are to become more common.
  My second point relates to the Bill. We are not debating the general issue of whether carry-over provisions should be permitted. We are considering the specific issue of whether the Financial Services and Markets Bill should be subject to the provisions. That depends on two points. First, it was understood between the usual channels that there should be general agreement across the House for the Bill being carried over. Secondly, the circumstances of the Bill and the progress made on it should be relevant to the decision.
  The Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny from a Joint Committee to enable a consensus to be developed. However, I am not convinced that the Government have stuck to their side of the bargain in delivering responsiveness and flexibility to proposals that have been made. They have not responded favourably to the proposals of the Burns Committee, and they have not shown much flexibility towards Opposition proposals in Committee. In fact we have had a mixed reaction to the Burns Committee proposals, to which I shall refer in a moment.
  I wish to raise some general points on which little flexibility has been shown. First, everyone agrees that the Bill is creating a leviathan—a huge and extremely powerful body such as we have not seen in Britain before.

  721
  The Government have put in insufficient checks and balances on the authority, and on its power. Secondly, a tendency to err on the side of reducing risk for the regulator at the expense of the industry pervades the Bill, and thirdly, little attention has been given to the need to make the Bill flexible to take account of changing market conditions.
  It is worse than that. We need a review procedure so that, every few years, we can come back to the Bill to see how it ought to be amended. However, we have the opposite. We have clauses enabling the Treasury to institute reviews—and to make them independent—if it feels like it, or not if it does not. Indeed, the Bill states that independence itself will be defined by the Treasury.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Tyrie: The Minister shakes her head, but that is clearly the case. I urge her to read clause 10 and, if she has done so, to explain where I have got it wrong.
  On the leviathan point, we must remove the FSA's immunity from prosecution. I will not elaborate that point, as now is not the time to do so. However, there must be some consideration of that matter. There must be further consideration also of the need to strengthen the tribunal procedure.
  Mr. Stunell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the very weaknesses that he outlines are the justification for this House accepting the carry-over, so that we can improve the Bill? Is this not a case of strengthening the hand of the House against the Government and not weakening it, as he suggested?
  Mr. Tyrie: It is extraordinary to suggest that we should allow the Government whatever timetable they want, and that, by doing so, we will always strengthen and improve Bills. If we use this procedure, we must at least make ad hoc assessments of whether there has been flexibility and whether the Bill has been improved. That is what we are doing today. We must also look at the progress that is being made on the Bill to make a judgment on whether to support the motion.
  To return to the leviathan, there has been some progress—but by no means enough—on the tribunal procedure, in response to the Burns Committee. We should have an opportunity to debate that in Committee shortly, and I hope that the Government will show flexibility. On over-regulation, the Bill must include the objectives of competition and competitiveness to counterbalance the other objectives. The former are not included in the Bill as an objective, but as a justiciably weaker "principle", and that is unacceptable.
  On the huge enabling powers given to the Treasury—including the power to make further legislation by order—we must have a commitment to regular, thoroughgoing reviews.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend think that if we agree the motion today and allow the Government more time, the chances of what he thinks should happen to the Bill being accepted will be improved or diminished?
  Mr. Tyrie: That judgment hangs on a knife edge. I am concerned that my right hon. Friend may be right and there may be less flexibility. I said earlier that I was well on the way to being persuaded by his argument.
  722
  Everyone in the City to whom I have spoken agrees with the three points about creating a leviathan, over-regulation and the excessive enabling powers and inadequacy of review; but people in the City are too scared to speak up—as they have been prepared to say privately, at length—because they have been cowed by the powers of the FSA, the fear of investigations and the size of Labour's majority, as they know that they will have to carry on working with Labour, although we hope that before long that will no longer be the case.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: It is not the universal view of the City that there will be a leviathan. There is a widespread view that, having had nine different regulators operating different codes, it is time to sort out the confusion. The Bill has been widely welcomed, as has the flexibility that has been built in by leaving regulations to secondary legislation. On both those points, the hon. Gentleman's comments are inaccurate; and they have been debated on several earlier occasions.
  Mr. Tyrie: Yes, and I am sure that they will be debated again. I would be fascinated to see evidence from anyone in a position of influence in the City who is prepared to say in writing that this Bill is creating the opposite of a leviathan: a tame creature that will show the flexibility that the City wants. That is inconceivable; but there is an element of truth in the hon. Gentleman's point that the mishmash of regulation that is being replaced needed attention. I am not suggesting that it has been easy to regulate in this area: it has been very difficult, and the previous Government made mistakes in the mid-1980s, as I have been the first to concede.
  We are straying off the main issues, and I do not want to get into what could, if we are not careful, become a Second Reading debate. The crucial point is that Conservative Members agreed to go ahead with the suspension order on the general understanding, some months ago, that the Government would show flexibility towards the recommendations of the Burns Committee. An assessment of how far that flexibility has been forthcoming is crucial to the judgment whether we should go ahead with the suspension.
  I commissioned a study of that and I have had a good look at the question myself. I shall not list the 20 or 30 areas in which the Government failed to respond to the Burns Committee, but I will mention a few major areas in which they have given an inadequate response or ruled out the Committee's proposals.
  Paragraph 45 of the Burns Committee report recommends that the market confidence objective in the Bill
  "should be expanded to include a reference to the management of systemic risk".
  There is a memorandum of understanding between the FSA, the Bank of England and the Treasury on the matter, but it is a pretty feeble document which has not been adequately considered in Committee.
  We are debating the fundamental question whether, in its present form, there might be an increased risk of the banking system collapsing under stress as a result of changes in the rules and the way in which we interpret them. The Government's response that all the

  723
  Committee's concerns had already been met, but that they would continue to reflect on the issues, was inadequate and feeble.
  In paragraph 98, the Burns Committee recommended a review of the challenges posed by communications and technology—e-commerce—and the Government's response was that that was not thought necessary: as simple as that. Paragraph 113 also recommended that the chairmanship and the post of chief executive of the FSA should be separated, to provide a quasi-constitutional check on the huge powers given to the first chairman and chief executive. The Government decided that they were content with the present arrangements.
  An issue pertinent to the House was raised by the Burns Committee in paragraph 122 of its report, when it said that there should be parliamentary confirmation hearings for the FSA chairman and chief executive appointments. That was dismissed by the Government as undesirable, so we shall probably not have any confirmation hearings.
  Paragraph 133 of the Burns report raised the issue of whether the FSA should be required to consult the consumer and practitioner panels and to publicise their disagreements. The Government decided that there should be no requirement to consult.
  There is also the issue of compensation awards. In paragraph 146 of the Burns report the Government were asked to consider allowing the investigator to award compensation or allowing the FSA to make ex gratia payments. That was dismissed out of hand.
  There are 20 more recommendations to which I could refer, but I think that I have dealt with quite enough of these matters. I think that those to which I have referred give a feel of the extent to which the Burns Committee recommendations have been ignored. As I have said, the principle that lies behind the Opposition's acceptance of the motion hinges on whether joint consultations yield fruit in terms of the Government's being responsive to our proposals and those of the Joint Committee. We have not seen enough of either.
  I am worried about the suspension order. The Bill is of very mixed quality and I am not convinced that, by carrying it over, we shall improve its quality. We have seen the Government's relative unresponsiveness to proposals to try to make it better. My inclination would be to argue that that unresponsiveness is close to being a breach, if it is not an actual breach, of the agreement that was reached through the usual channels about the use of suspension orders.
  My colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench are all gentlemen. I think that, if there were a Division, they would honour the deal. I think that, on balance, they have decided not to break the agreement. With some reluctance, I shall go along with their judgment. However, that still leaves me with my constitutional objections in principle to this procedure. I believe that it increases the power of the Executive and puts at risk one of the very few powers that the House of Lords possesses.
  I am a member of the Committee that is considering the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and, in thinking through these constitutional issues, I am left deeply sceptical about the carry-over provisions. If the Government had shown more flexibility in this case, I might have been more inclined to be supportive of the process generally.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker and to those on both Front Benches for not being present to hear the opening speeches. I remark in passing that the manner in which the Government are conducting the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill—the amendments to it are approaching 500—within a month of the Queen's Speech is putting a bit of a strain on London Members, and it was that Bill which kept me out of the Chamber. I shall return to that Bill in my brief remarks.
  I declare an interest as chairman of the Building Societies Ombudsman Council, which is obviously affected by the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Given my role as chairman of the council, I have deliberately not spoken on the Bill up to now. I shall speak only on the principle of the carry-over. I declare a further interest as I am the Member responsible for the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, a private measure which is subject to a somewhat different procedural climate, but is in the same area.
  I entered the Chamber to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) advance a powerful argument for exceptionality, with which I wholly agree. I disagreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), though he and I both have some mutual sympathy with each other. We both sat through the debate on procedure last Thursday in our respective capacities without either of us being called. We are veterans of different campaigns. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's argument that this procedure should be used more often rather than less. As so often, I agree with the general thrust of the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The Greater London Authority Bill—we both served on its Committee and, as he will remember, occasionally disagreed during that time—has had some 500 amendments tabled to it in the House of Lords, mainly by the Government, and that will set this House a considerable task between now and the Queen's Speech for obvious reasons. The House of Lords has not even reached Third Reading yet.
  One could argue, and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove might do so, that the Greater London Authority Bill would therefore be a good candidate for a carry-over, in the interests of good legislation. However, it left Committee in this House at the end of March and it is extraordinary that it is still at Report stage in the House of Lords at the end of October. If the pressure on Governments to attend to the details of their Bills is lifted in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, we would soon get in a pretty pickle. It would not be good if the procedure became less exceptional.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the safeguard that the procedure can be used only if those on the two Front Benches agree is sufficient to prevent the situation that he rightly warns against?
  Mr. Brooke: My right hon. and learned Friend, with salient perception, has anticipated a point that I intended to make later. I am grateful to him for having provided a trailer and harbinger of my later remarks. It would be a bad habit to carry over several technical Bills into another Session. Professor Parkinson's great law that work expands to fill the time available is a classic example why the procedure should be restricted, not open-ended.

  725
  I also disagree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove about this House's historic practice on technical Bills. I agree that procedure may have to be hurried at the end, but it is not my experience in 22 years—the experience of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is even longer—that time cannot be found for, for example, the Finance Bill, provided that people think in advance about how much time will be needed.
  The Greater London Authority Bill would certainly qualify as large and complex, but it would not satisfy the requirement that notice must be given. The point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire about agreement is a critical element of the safeguards against the misuse of the carry-over procedure. If the Government cannot secure agreement that carry-over is appropriate, a Bill cannot undergo the procedure.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is an eloquent advocate, but sometimes I find when I listen carefully to his speeches that if there are five points that relate to an argument, he—like the writers of some editorials—covers the first four but does not include the fifth. On this occasion, I did not hear him deal with the issue that agreement between both sides of the House is a definitive way to ensure that too many Bills are not subjected to the procedure.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to fill the lacuna. It may be that my right hon. Friend, with his infinite courtesy and consideration, has total trust in and admiration for our Front-Bench colleagues. I do not.
  Mr. Brooke: That is a highly pertinent observation for my right hon. Friend to have made. However, he will recognise—and I mean it in the nicest possible way—that the view that he has just expressed does not wholly surprise me.
  I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst assert that the Minister had said that he expected the carry-over procedure to be used more often. As I was not in the Chamber at the time, I did not hear the ipsissima verba that the Minister used, or the reasons that he gave for putting forward that view. I apologise for missing those reasons and I hope that the Economic Secretary—who I take it will wind up the debate and whom I congratulate on her promotion to the Front Bench—will explain why there will be more use of the carry-over procedure in the future. I share with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, and with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, a feeling that the use of that procedure should be exceptional. I sincerely hope that history will not find any of the three of us naive for having taken that view.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Tim Loughton: I, too, must apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being present for all the debate, although I was able to catch the opening speeches. However, I had a meeting with a Home Office Minister about a constituency case that has occupied me for some three years. That meeting was arranged a long time ago: I was loth to miss it, and I hope that I have been able to achieve some success in the matter involved.
  726
  In contributing my few pennyworth to this debate, I wish to declare the interests set down in my name in the Register of Members' Interests. A handful of hon. Members in the Chamber today have lived, breathed and slept the Financial Services and Markets Bill since we were made members of the Burns Committee last September. The last thing that I want, having gone through that experience, is to have to start considering the Bill all over again because its carry-over has not been allowed.
  However, the carry-over of the Bill should not be let through on the nod. If the carry-over is agreed to, it must be made absolutely clear that the Opposition are helping the Government off a hook of their own making. The Bill is very important. The City needs it, as does the financial services industry. Indeed, one could also say that the Labour party needs it: before we started considering the Bill, the present Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, when she was Economic Secretary, said that part of the process of creating new Labour was to change Labour's attitudes to the City.
  The Bill has dragged on too long already, through a very sensitive period for the financial markets. Those markets could have been affected by matters such the Y2K problem and the introduction of the euro, and by big changes to capital gains tax and the savings industry. The interregnum in regulation that has existed since last year's Bank of England Act has not helped anyone.
  The City wants and needs a Bill that is workable and practical, and will help it and the financial services industry to get on with their jobs. I am afraid that this Bill—as it stands now, but even more so in its original form—does not provide that help to our satisfaction. Labour Members should worry about that, given that the industry accounts for 7 per cent. of the country's gross domestic product and, directly and indirectly, employs more than a million people.
  It is the Government's fault that we are here today. The Bill has an unhappy history. It was sneaked out in July last year, on the last day before the long summer recess, in a heavily flawed form. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), I was privileged to serve on the Burns Committee. That Committee did an excellent job, and Lord Burns deserves the congratulations that he has received. However, to a great degree, that Committee got the Government off the hook. The Government did not admit that the original Bill was heavily flawed: instead, they transferred responsibility for sorting out the mess to a new and innovative Joint Committee.
  I believe that the Joint Scrutiny Committee did a good job and that it has a role to play in connection with exceptional pieces of future legislation—those highly technical and detailed Bills to whose consideration expert witnesses may contribute.
  The time constraints imposed on the Burns Committee were crazy—two months for the first report, and rather less than four weeks for the second, on market abuse. The Committee was able practically to consider only six subjects during that time—statutory objectives, scope, accountability arrangements, discipline arrangements, market abuse and the ombudsman.
  The whole consultation period for the Bill has been highly haphazard. The Treasury and the Financial Services Authority have prided themselves on pushing out

  727
  a lot of purple consultation documents. When the Joint Committee began to consider the legislation in detail, 20 or so documents had been published. Only one of them had received a response from the Government. We were flailing around in the dark. The Government had not decided how to respond to their own consultation exercise responses. That was highly unsatisfactory. Both the Joint Committee and the Standing Committee have had to tease out the Government's position. In many cases, it has become blatantly clear that the Government do not know their position and can give us no time scale within which they will know it.
  Unhappily—I mean no detriment to the two Ministers present—there have been three Ministers since the draft Bill was launched. There have been two Ministers since the final Bill came before the Committee. The team of three Treasury junior Ministers has changed completely over the summer. I wish the new Ministers well, but that changeover cannot be helpful. Part of the job of the previous Economic Secretary to the Treasury—I dare say she did it well—was to roll up her sleeves and become involved in the consultation exercise. Many people went in and out of her office, although perhaps not as many from the sharp end—the practitioners—as we should have liked. However, the substitution of a new set of Ministers who were not part of the consultation process weakens that process. The change is bad for continuity.
  Now that the House has returned from the summer recess, the Standing Committee has begun to study the Bill. I am unhappy to hear that the Treasury door was not very open—if open at all—to practitioners during the three months of the summer recess. That is unsatisfactory when we are faced with a highly technical—and very long—Bill. Following the year between publication of the draft and final Bills, the Government have had a further three-month breathing space during the summer, and it is worrying that the situation seems not to be improving. The revised Bill remains full of flaws.
  The Government are still not ready with many of their amendments. One need only read the Standing Committee Hansard to confirm that. Every week, announcements come that seem to conflict with previous pronouncements. Last week, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that there would be a system of light-touch regulation for non-financial service firms, which raised questions about where the dividing line is drawn for financial firms. The Government are applying varying standards to different companies and altering their interpretation of rules over time. Many questions have been raised over the even-handedness of the Bill's approach. All that should have been worked out months, if not years, ago, but it was announced to us only last week.
  Hansard shows time and again that the Government are not ready. The Government say:
  "We therefore propose to table amendments aligning financial promotion".
  Again, they say:
  "We will table amendments to this effect in due course."
  And, again, they say:
  "We therefore propose to introduce amendments".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 October 1999; c. 422.]
  Those statements come from just one column of one Hansard from last week. Sixteen months after they published the draft Bill, and four months after publication
  728
  of the final Bill, the Government are not able to table proper amendments for the Committee to discuss. That means that, when those amendments are eventually forthcoming—presumably on Report—they will not have been subject to the same degree of scrutiny in Committee that one would have expected for the Bill, and that certainly should have occurred. That is most worrying.
  The overriding concern is that running through the Bill are—as one newspaper expressed it—the threads of a disease that has become endemic to legislation under the Labour Government: the reserve power. When the Bill is eventually enacted, it will allow the Government to change the rules without bothering with legislation in many cases. The Treasury will decide which activities will or will not be regulated by the Bill, what financial information will or will not be allowed, and so on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) mentioned, the Government are creating an enormous leviathan without first defining its terms of remit.
  I want to flag up a few concerns. How on earth can the Government proceed to create an authority that has statutory immunity, sold to us on the rather flimsy excuses of what happened back in 1986 and on what may or may not happen in the United States, without the counter-balance of an independent inspector with the power to award compensation? That is a major issue which should have been resolved some time ago, but has not been.
  The timing under the Bill of the competition objective principle that we should like to see is extraordinary—[Interruption.]—Labour Members do not seem to want to touch on those facts. During the same week that we were faced with that matter in Standing Committee, Mr. Cruickshank—who had been appointed by the Government to look into competitive practices in the banking industry—produced a draft report. We are expecting the full report later on this year. That draft report quite clearly conflicted with what we had been led to believe the Government were trying to achieve in the Bill. Therein lies an absurdity: if the Chancellor is to accept the terms of that report—if the draft becomes the full report later in the year—there will be a conflict of interest with what we are trying to debate in Committee as to the terms of competitive practices in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester referred to market abuse clauses; they have still to be dealt with. However, the whole problem of conflict with the European convention on human rights, to which the attention of the Burns Committee was drawn, has still not been resolved. I am not aware that any progress has been made.
  Mr. Beard: Is it not true that all these questions—the tribunal, the conflict with the European convention on human rights and all the other issues raised by the hon. Gentleman—have actually been resolved, but not in the way that he would have preferred?
  Mr. Loughton: If only that were so. The hon. Gentleman who, like me, served on the Standing Committee and the Joint Committee, should re-check the Burns report and the subsequent amendments to the Bill. He knows full well that those questions have not been resolved. The Bill remains wide open to be taken to the European Court for abuse of the ECHR. There have

  729
  certainly been some improvements in respect of legal aid and the non-use of incriminating statements but, as the Treasury's own solicitors said, when they accompanied the then Economic Secretary, now the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, to give evidence to the Burns Committee on market abuse, they simply cannot be certain.
  The Burns Committee heard extremely learned judgments from legal experts that threw serious doubt on the compatibility of the Bill with the ECHR. If the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) studies the text of the report again, he will acknowledge that. By no means is the Bill in the clear.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not want to descend into too much discussion of major items in the Bill. Madam Speaker has already ruled that there can be allusion to particular points in the Bill, but we cannot have a Second Reading debate. We are debating a procedure motion.
  Mr. Loughton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall conclude my comments. Without going into the ins and outs of certain clauses, I merely wanted to illustrate my argument as to the timing of our scrutiny of the Bill. We are expected to scrutinise legislation which the Government have not yet formulated properly. That process relies on our good will in believing that the Government will table amendments on Report. Unless the Report stage is extremely long, those amendments will not receive the scrutiny that they deserve. Without returning to specifics, I emphasise that important issues have yet to be resolved.
  The Bill has so far had a bad passage. Its progress has been greatly assisted by Lord Burns and his Committee coming to the Government's rescue after the Government launched a rather ill-drafted Bill in July 1998. Let the Government be in no doubt: if the Opposition agree to the carry-over, it will be because we put the needs of the financial services industry—which desperately needs the Bill—first; and because of the threat that, if the carry-over were not to pass, the Government would impose a guillotine to push through the legislation in the new Session, regardless of the detailed scrutiny that such a Bill requires.
  I hope that, if the Opposition go along with the Government's proposal today, Ministers will shape up and become more responsive to the practical concerns that we have raised on behalf of many experts in the financial services industry and that, as the Bill progresses through Standing Committee, they will adopt many of the suggestions that we have tabled in the form of practical amendments to the Bill. Let us not forget that, of the 367 clauses, the Committee has reached only clause 52. In the renewed spirit of co-operation, I hope that the Government will be able to redeem themselves in the remaining weeks and months of the Bill's passage, both before and after the Queen's Speech.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I share the dislike of a carry-over and the precedent that it sets. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) stated, a
  730
  carry-over removes the discipline of a timetable and creates a precedent that may be abused in respect of other legislation.
  I accept the carry-over of the Financial Services and Markets Bill on good faith: the Opposition agreed to carry over the Bill, subject to the Government's publishing it promptly, which they did, and subject to the Government's following the recommendations of, and resolving the issues raised by, the Burns Committee. I hope that Ministers will tell the House this evening that they will address the outstanding issues raised by the Burns Committee.
  As my colleagues have pointed out, there is no practical alternative to the carry-over. Many drafting problems have been discovered in the Bill and the Government are to table an enormous volume of new clauses and amendments to the Bill on Report. The imposition of a guillotine now would be against the interests of consumers, the industry and the country. From a practical perspective, all of us are forced to agree that there is little choice but to carry over the Bill. Incidentally, I should declare an interest as set out in the Register of Members' Interests.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, said that the Bill was supported by the City; in fact, the Bill is by no means supported in its entirety by the City. The financial services industry, quite correctly, accepted the majority by which the Labour Government were elected and their right to legislate as set out in their manifesto. The industry desperately wants the law to be completed, because it is unsatisfactory that the Financial Services Authority is operating without statutory cover. However, the industry—by which I mean not just the City, but the industry throughout the country and the hundreds of thousands who work in it—is not content with many aspects of the Bill as it stands.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) noted that the Bill does not address the conflict with the European convention on human rights, and that there is a substantial body of legal opinion that the Bill remains defective.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) pointed out that, as a framework Bill, it is far too long. The framework should have been dealt with in 50 pages. My right hon. and learned Friend and others drew attention to the importance of making competition an objective of the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend also observed that better law is often made by leaving certain issues to the discretion of the courts, rather than by seeking to regulate for every situation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) covered some key points not referred to by others. He said that the Bill has not fully addressed the Burns Committee recommendations with regard to systemic risk—a matter on which none other than the head of the United States Federal Reserve has been critical of the proposals in the Bill. The Bill has not dealt with the proposals that there should be confirmatory hearings by the House of Commons on the appointment of the Financial Services Authority's chief executive, or the requirement for the FSA to consult consumer panels.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) expressed the very human desire for the carry-over, to avoid having to go over the

  731
  same ground again. He made some sound practical points, and observed that it is substantially the Government's fault that this debate is taking place.
  My hon. Friend reminded us that there are about 1 million people working in the financial services industry, representing 7 per cent. of our national product, and thus of the importance of getting the legislation right. He pointed out that part of the problem has been the extraordinary succession of new Ministers being required to get their minds around such a complicated Bill.
  With regard to the Burns Committee recommendations, we believe that there are important areas in which the Government have not followed the deal—perhaps they intend to do so in a different way. The Burns Committee advised that the complaints investigator should be entirely independent of the FSA and should have the ability to award damages. It also recommended that individuals should be able to defend themselves under the European convention on human rights against serious regulatory offences. The body of legal opinion has made it clear that that goes well beyond the market abuse offences.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What has that to do with the motion?
  Mr. Flight: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that he does not provoke.
  Mr. Flight: This has everything to do with the motion. There was conditional agreement between the Opposition and the Government, and the Opposition wish to honour that in good faith. I repeat that we agreed to the roll-over on the understanding that the Government would follow the Burns Committee, so it is of great relevance to the House to know and understand where the Government have not followed the Committee's recommendations. I hope that, when the Minister winds up, she will be able to give the House comfort, and say that the Government intend to follow the recommendations of the Burns Committee.
  Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend saying that he will recommend that Conservative Members support the motion only if he receives the assurances for which he is asking from the Government and that, by implication, we will not support it if we do not receive those undertakings? I gather that that is what he is saying. Will he confirm that?
  Mr. Flight: I thank my right hon. Friend. I have made two points: one concerns the Opposition behaving honourably—something that we should do—and the other is that there is no choice but to agree a roll-over. Although the Bill is in need of substantial further correction, we do not have the time to do that and the alternative is that a measure that would seriously damage the livelihoods of 1 million people might be enacted. However, I look to the Government to give the assurances that they will honour the basis on which we agreed to the roll-over and
  732
  that they intend to address the outstanding issues on which the Burns Committee made recommendations where they have not yet done so.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: On the matter of parliamentary convention, which my hon. Friend is dealing with, does he agree that it would be impossible for the Government to take the Bill through the House of Lords in this state? Were the House to vote the motion down, the Bill would fall. However, does it not follow from that that the maintenance of the convention in good faith is absolutely essential and that he is entitled to insist on it?
  Mr. Flight: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, who has brought out the point that I was seeking to make. The Bill is in no state to be guillotined and to go to the House of Lords. Given that 7 per cent. of our economy and the jobs of 1 million people are at risk, any responsible Member of the House would want the Bill to be put into proper shape. It would be irresponsible to take any other stance.
  If you will briefly indulge me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall refer to areas on which the Burns Committee was silent, although it invited the Government to come up with proposals. Those are the areas in which the financial services industry itself is looking to the Government to sort out the various problems and to get the legislation right. The Bill attempts to regulate the business of non-UK branches and activities of UK-based businesses.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is out of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) to excuse me. I do not need sedentary advice from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and wish that it would cease.
  Mr. Flight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Briefly, clause 56 not only empowers the FSA to determine remuneration throughout the industry, but could deny a livelihood to the 30,000 senior executives. It is substantially too powerful.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I delicately say that there is a distinction between the rulings given by the previous incumbent of the Chair and those that we have just been given? Perhaps you might clarify the position.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been great consistency on the part of incumbents of the Chair. We have said that the substance of the Bill can be referred to when arguments are being made for or against the motion, but the weight of emphasis should be on the procedural aspects.
  Mr. Flight: As others have pointed out, there is a major mistake in the proposed regulation of E-commerce.

  733
  The Government want to support E-commerce in this country and make Britain a leader in it, but clause 19 will be extremely damaging to the interests of E-commerce.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins rose—
  Hon. Members: He has just come in.
  Mr. Hawkins: I must apologise to my hon. Friend. Although I have not been in the Chamber, I have watched a great deal of the debate in my office between meetings.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The only way in which an hon. Member can truly participate in debates in this House is by being here.
  Mr. Flight: The Government have not yet demonstrated that they are keeping their side of the bargain and following the Burns Committee recommendations on certain key issues. Neither have they, by further consultation or in their proposals, responded to several key issues of widespread concern to the many people who work in the industry. We look to the Government this evening to give us comfort on those issues.
  I wish to make it clear that we support this carry-over motion in the interests of common sense and of the industry, where there is little alternative.
  5.25 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I shall endeavour to stick to your recent injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to keep to the procedural points as closely as I can, rather than stray down the path of dealing with the substance of the Bill.
  After this Government came to power, we announced that the existing patchwork of financial regulators—nine in total—would be replaced by a single statutory regulator, subsequently named the Financial Services Authority. This Bill is a prime example of the Government's aim to reform and modernise Britain. It responds to the changing face of the financial services industry, brings a fair deal to both consumers and providers, and reduces the current scope for duplication and inconsistencies.
  As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is complex. However, it will bring a range of positive benefits, which are pro market confidence, pro consumer protection, pro consumer awareness and anti financial crime. It will enable the FSA to be tough on City crime, malpractice and abuse, including insider dealing, rogue trading, money laundering and market manipulation, and will give the FSA wide powers to deal with those unacceptable activities. In giving the FSA a coherent set of modern regulatory powers, it constitutes a thorough and necessary overhaul of the relevant part of the statute book. That is a major task, which is why the Bill is so complex. It is a task that this Government have not shirked and on which we have been determined to consult fully. We therefore listened to and responded to the views of many individuals, institutions and groups.
  Opposition Members disagree among themselves about what their response should be to the Bill, the City and this carry-over motion. This evening's debate has reflected their disagreement. We have, however, heard some voices of sanity from those who wish to honour their
  734
  commitment to allow the Bill to proceed through this carry-over motion. They recognise that the Bill is extremely important and will bring substantial benefits to the financial services industry and its regulation in the UK, and therefore to the future of the global industry. It will also bring substantial benefits to consumers.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived in the Chamber.
  I shall deal with some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I had some sympathy with his interest in the detail of this matter, but I sometimes felt as though I had already arrived in Standing Committee A, which will discuss the Bill tomorrow. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about how much the Bill had been thought through beforehand. That needs to be addressed time and again. The purpose of the revised procedure, which the House supported, is that it enables us to produce better legislation by putting complicated Bills through the draft Bill procedure. At least two Opposition Members who are present today were members of the Joint Committee that looked at the draft Bill. That Committee arrived at its conclusions unanimously. That shows that consultation and discussion can bring about further improvements to legislation, which is why we have gone through this part of the process.
  Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Johnson: No, not at this point. I may give way later.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) suggested that there should be fewer Bills, so that they could be better scrutinised. The Bill has made slow progress because it is receiving such detailed scrutiny. Until the summer recess, the rate of progress was 19 or 20 clauses in 11 sittings. I am not criticising that rate of progress: I am merely pointing out that it is an important Bill and that some clauses require more detailed scrutiny than others. Consequently, we shall not make it through 367 clauses, and I have considerable sympathy with those who say that it would not be a good thing were the Bill to be guillotined.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) believes that there should be fewer Bills. He put that maxim into practice—although not with the popular consequences that he foresaw in this case—when he killed the private Member's Bill to ban fur farming. His actions did not have the public support and acclamation that he thinks that principle should receive.
  The right hon. Gentleman is seriously at odds with his Front-Bench colleagues on this Bill. He believes that they are conniving with the Government. It is sad that Opposition Members who are working to try to improve a Bill—often in opposition to the Government, but not always—are seen as conniving with the Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman also attacked the City, which is extraordinary, and shows another dimension to the odd views expressed by Conservative Members. Let me make

  735
  it plain to the House that we have had much support from the City on this Bill. The British Bankers Association said that the
  "introduction of a single legislative framework for the financial services industry in the UK is welcome, as is the creation of a single industry regulator."
  The Independent Financial Advisers Association said that it
  "broadly welcomes the objectives and provisions … fully support the objective of bringing all financial regulation under the control of a single authority."
  From a different point of view, the Consumers Association said:
  "We are certainly enthusiastic about the Bill and we see a variety of advantages in having a single regulator".
  It is a complicated task, and no one would deny that.

  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton—under—Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) asked whether this is an exceptional arrangement, and it is worth while addressing that issue. The agreement with the Opposition is that consideration will be given on a one-by-one basis. An individual Bill will be considered for carry-over if it has been agreed beforehand that that procedure could apply, and if the Bill is still before that House at the end of the Session. Those conditions will not vary: they are safeguards built into the carry-over provision. If we do not stick to them, there would be difficulties. However, there is no danger of our not sticking to the provisions that have already been made with the agreement of both sides of the House.
  Mr. Brooke: I understand that, and it is common cause between certain Conservative Members and the Minister that that is the case. However, I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he thought this procedure would be used more often. I asked him to explain why that should be.
  Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to emphasise that we shall consider each Bill one by one. That is the correct way to make a decision on such matters. We should consider how strong the evidence is on an individual Bill. In this instance, the evidence is strongly in favour of putting this Bill through this procedure.
  The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who, sadly, is no longer present, referred to the Burns Committee, and our response to amendments. We believe that we have taken on board most of the Committee's points; indeed, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat—Amory) conceded that we had taken on board many, indeed the majority, of those points.
  Mr. Loughton: This point arose earlier. The very institution that the Minister cited has also carried out a proper audit of the Burns Committee report vis a vis the Bill—and the Government have taken on board not many, not the majority, but fewer than half of the Committee's proposals. If the Minister was so impressed by the unanimity on the Committee, why did the Government not take on board the majority of its recommendations?
  Miss Johnson: We must agree to differ. I believe that we have taken on board the majority of the recommendations.
  736
  There is a danger of our losing sight of the fact that the point of a Standing Committee is to enable Bills to be debated in detail, clause by clause. Some Members are apparently tempted to try to do that here today.
  We share the enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for ensuring that the Bill reaches the statute book. We agree that its importance should be recognised. I have given the right hon. Gentleman assurances about the way in which the procedure is likely to be used.
  There is a dichotomy in the views expressed by Opposition Members. They do not seem to know in which direction they are going. Some seem to believe that consultation is important, and that we have not engaged in that process well enough at times; others believe that consultation has been holding up the process, and want to know why we could not announce the results immediately, so that we could make speedier progress with the Bill. Some consider that the Bill is ill drafted, but the whole point of the new procedure is to enable Bills to be better drafted. This Bill was not ill drafted in the first place, but it has benefited from exactly the kind of discussion in which the House believes. There is no point in our spending hours debating legislation both in Committee and in the Chamber if that does not enable us to make improvements.
  Some Opposition Members believe in financial services, and in support for the City—many, I trust—but there are those who do not believe in those things, and who do not believe that the City welcomes the Bill. There are those who think that the carry-over should be opposed regardless, because they do not believe in the carry-over principle, no matter how much damage that would do. There are those who have faith in their Front-Bench Members, and those who do not.
  When we have accepted amendments in Committee recently, or have accepted the spirit of amendments, Opposition Members, rather than welcoming that, have criticised us on occasion, saying that it is not good enough and that there will be a longer debate on Report as a result. They cannot have their cake and eat it.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Yes, they can.
  Miss Johnson: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Opposition are trying to have their cake and eat it. That confirms what I suspected.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said that the industry was not content. The industry will be even more not content if the Bill is abandoned, rather than being carried over. It is the duty of both sides in the Committee to ensure that we have a good Bill, and we believe that we have a good Bill—although no doubt we shall have a better Bill as a result of the debates that we are likely to have in Committee.

  The hon. Gentleman complained about the framework, agreeing with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire that it should have been tighter; but, whenever the Committee has proposed secondary legislation, Opposition Members have said that they are not happy about that either. We have to be able to address the rest of the Bill in Standing Committee in the detail that it deserves, which cannot happen in this Session.
  I will not detain the House further with a list of our improvements and commitments to consider recommendations, to which we will return as the Bill

  737
  continues its passage through Parliament. The Bill is bound to provoke a technically complex and wide-ranging debate. It will transform the financial sector for the better. Our policy aims are clear: to create a world-class regulator that operates in a fair, efficient, proportionate and accountable way, combining a light regulatory touch where possible, with better consumer protection where necessary. We need the legislation to pass through as quickly and efficiently as possible, so that the many benefits that I have outlined can be gained. Against that background, I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  MR. MIKE HALL and MR. DAVID JAMIESON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and MR. ERIC FORTH was appointed Teller for the Noes; but no Member being willing to act as a second Teller for the Noes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
  Question agreed to
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Services and Markets Bill:

  1. Standing Committee A shall report the Bill to the House, so far as then amended, not later than Thursday 11th November.

  2. On the report of the Bill to the House in accordance with paragraph 1, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended until the next session of Parliament.

  3. If a Bill is presented in the next session in the same terms as the Bill reported to the House in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall be read the first and second time without Question put, shall be ordered to be printed, and shall stand committed, in respect of those clauses and schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in this session, to a Standing Committee of the same Members as the Members of the Standing Committee on the Bill in this session.

  Thursday Sittings
  [Relevant document: The Third Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Thursday Sittings (HC 719).]
  5.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
  That, in the next session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:

  (1) The House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past Eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;

  (2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at Seven o'clock; and

  (3) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past Ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss motion No. 3.
  I also announce that the Speaker has selected the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
  Mr. Tipping: In moving the motion, I will not detain the House long as it is almost identical to the one that was agreed on 16 December 1998, providing for an experiment with advancing Thursday sittings by three hours. I shall also refer to the motion to give Standing Committees greater flexibility.
  Since December 1998, we have had the experience of seven months of Thursdays and an assessment by the Select Committee on Modernisation of that experiment. As the House will know, the Committee concluded:
  "Although some Members of the House continue to have reservations, it does appear that the majority of Members consider that the experience has been a success".
  Before I deal with those reservations, I should remind the House of the benefits of the experiment.
  For many hon. Members, bringing forward Thursday sittings by three hours has enabled a better balance to be struck between Westminster duties and constituency commitments. Much serious business has been dealt with on Thursdays, including some Opposition days. Moreover, the House has sat nearly an hour longer on Thursdays than it did in the previous year, before the experiment. Those who argue that the Government are trying to reduce accountability to the House perhaps need to digest that fact.
  The experiment has also shown that, on one day a week, it is possible for the House to do a full day's business within what most people might consider to be normal working hours. I do not think that that that is a bad or small achievement for modernisation.
  The Modernisation Committee's report on the experiment records the practical aspects. I realise that the experiment has required some adjustments in Standing

  739
  and Select Committees' Thursday morning sittings, but have to confess that I had not anticipated how imaginative individual Committees would be in using the greater flexibility in Committee meeting times—which we are also asking the House to renew today. Perhaps we have learned the merit of giving each Committee the freedom to adjust its own sitting pattern to the business of the House and the other commitments of its members.
  The second motion, on Standing Committees, will continue that flexibility. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is Chairman of the Procedure Committee, has tabled three amendments to extend that flexibility even further. If he is minded to move his amendments, I assure him that the Government would welcome such flexibility, and would accept the amendments.
  I stress that the motions provide for a further Session's experiment. Therefore, the renewal would not be permanent, but be only for another Session, in which it will be possible to fine-tune the procedures and minimise any further difficulties. I hope that the Government's acceptance of the amendments will be a real demonstration that we are keen to make progress and to take people with us.
  The change in Thursday sittings has been a significant modernisation of our sittings hours. So far, the experiment has proved worth while, and I see no strong pressure to revert to sitting from 2.30 to 10.30 pm on Thursdays. I therefore ask the House to continue the arrangements in the next Session.
  5.48 pm
  Sir George Young: The two motions both relate to Thursdays and the experiment that began earlier in the year. The first motion relates to continuing the experiment, and refers to the Modernisation Committee's report—which steered a path between two opposing views. One view was that the experiment had been a success and should be made permanent, and the other was that the experiment should not have started and should be abandoned. The Minister mentioned the lively debate that we had just before Christmas, when, at the end of the debate, the House decided to go forward with the experiment. The report advocates a third way, in that it neither abandons the experiment nor suggests that it should be made permanent.
  The report brings us up to date with the experiment. In paragraph 9, it quite fairly makes the point that
  "The evidence we have received … is largely anecdotal rather than formal".
  The report also makes the point, in paragraph 12, that statistics can be interpreted in different ways. The table shows that, on Thursdays, fewer Government Bills have been debated, but that there have been more Government Adjournment debates. Nevertheless, in its conclusions, the report quite fairly states:
  "Although some Members of the House continue to have reservations"—
  740
  I certainly have reservations about the fact that there are now relatively few all-party meetings on Thursdays, thereby downgrading Thursday a little in the parliamentary week—
  "it does appear that the majority of Members consider that the experiment has been a success."
  This is personal vote territory and I am happy to go along with the recommendation on the basis that we are carrying forward the experiment, not making it permanent.
  Motion No. 3 is consequential on motion No. 2. I was delighted to hear that, were my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to move his amendments, the Minister would be minded to accept them. That gives additional flexibility and is a sensible response to the experience of Standing Committees.
  I hope that this may be a more consensual debate than the previous one. I shall support the motions.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received a request from the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House to make an apology for a news conference that he has given this afternoon outside the House about the railway summit, and to make a statement to the House about the outcome of the summit?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No such request has been received. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Chair is not responsible for the business of the House. It is always possible that a request to make a statement on that matter will be made or that the hon. Gentleman will find some other way of raising the matter during our proceedings.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Were you or Madam Speaker aware that the Deputy Prime Minister was apparently saying something of some importance outside the House? Were you surprised that no request came from the Deputy Prime Minister to say something in the House rather than outside?
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not get into the substance of the debate, but I know that you realise that the Transport Sub-Committee took detailed evidence from the Deputy Prime Minister on the contents of the meeting last week. What he said is recorded in the Committee report in considerable detail.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I can only repeat that no request to make a statement has been received. It is entirely up to the Minister concerned whether he believes that that is the appropriate course of action. I can make no further comment on that.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I have a small point to raise and I apologise for troubling the House with it. The Speaker's procession is important to parliamentary life. I do not have to explain or justify that to hon. Members. I should like to explore with Madam Speaker whether it would be possible for the procession to stay at its traditional time. Some might find that a surprising request, but a principle is to be breached by the morning

  741
  sittings in Westminster Hall, which, the document says, are not Committees, but the House of Commons sitting, albeit in Westminster Hall and with no mace and no prayers. That is the fiction—I do not mean that disparagingly—that is being put to us. It should not be beyond our capacity to arrange for the Speaker's procession to be restored to 2.30 on Thursdays. All that I am asking is for that to be considered. It would clearly be helpful and appropriate.
  Mr. Tipping rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are having a debate. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was making a speech, to which the Minister may reply in due course, but I suspect that there are other contributions to be made first.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was giving way to the Minister, but you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that the Minister will have an opportunity to reply to the hon. Gentleman's important point.
  I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to this short debate on Thursday sittings and the meetings of Standing Committees. I should like to speak to my three amendments and to move them when appropriate. I hope that you will give me advice on when it is appropriate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to move his amendments now.
  Mr. Winterton rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order; I stand corrected. We are dealing with two motions together, so it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to speak to his amendments and then move them formally later.
  Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for that sound advice. I thought that I could speak to my amendments now and then have an opportunity to move them formally a little later.
  I want to follow the comments of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House about Thursday sittings and the agreeable opening remarks of the Minister. There is still debate in the Modernisation Committee on whether the experiment is a good thing. After seven months of the new Thursday sitting times, some hon. Members are still uncertain as to whether they are appropriate and have been a success. I suspect that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) may seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not stimulating her or encouraging her to speak, but I know that she has strong views on the subject and played a major role when she was a member of the Modernisation Committee.
  I have two hats in the debate, because as well as being a member of the Modernisation Committee I am the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—a job that I greatly relish and regard as a privilege. The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) did not succeed in getting in
  742
  to speak during the major debate that we had at the end of last week, but I suspect and hope that he intends to speak today.
  There is still some uncertainty. The Committee had a full debate on the subject. The Leader of the House and the majority on the Committee were sensible to strike a happy balance between the traditionalists who want to return to the former procedures of the House—
  Mr. Forth: Yes.
  Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend is clearly one of those, although he does not sit on the Committee. There are also those who feel that the new way of operating has been a success, enabling the House to perform its role properly, while allowing some Members of Parliament to return to their constituencies and fulfil their important responsibilities there. I go along with my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House in wanting to give it another 12 months so that we can see, in the light of real experience, how successful the experiment has been. The statistics that the Minister drew to the attention of the House are relevant, showing that some of the views, concerns and opposition might not be entirely justified. It is important that the experiment should proceed.
  I am grateful to Madam Speaker for accepting my three amendments on the sittings of Standing Committees. There are certain times when all Members of Parliament, whatever they are doing at the time, should be able to come to the Chamber. One such time is Prayers. There may be only a dozen, 20 or 30 Members present—although I am glad to say that attendances are generally higher than that—but, as long as Prayers are part of our procedures and the parliamentary day, all Members should have an opportunity to take part. That is why the amendments have been tabled.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: When these changes were being considered originally, was not it always the firm intention that every Member of Parliament should have the right to be present in the Chamber for the whole of Question Time and prayers?
  Mr. Winterton: The hon. Lady is right, and I am sure that the original timings failed to appreciate that Members would need to come from Committee Rooms that are some distance from the Chamber. If the adjournment of Standing Committees does not take place until the sitting of the House begins, clearly Members will not be able to come from the far-flung reaches of the Palace of Westminster—from Standing Committees and, in due course, from Westminster Hall sittings—to be present.
  My amendments would ensure that people could be in the Chamber before prayers, but I am concerned that we may not be providing sufficient time. On Thursdays, there are not only questions, but business questions, which can be followed by important statements or private notice questions. Those who have been in the House for some time—such as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and me—will know that Question Time and statements can sometimes continue until 5.30 pm or even longer, on a normal parliamentary day. On Thursdays, that would translate to a different timetable, but it would still mean that some Members who would wish to contribute, or merely to listen to what was going on, would not be able to do so.

  743
  I am grateful to the Minister for showing flexibility on the timetable, and I hope that he will indicate that there will be a continuing disposition towards flexibility so that if, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, there are reasons for further adjusting the times that the House meets, the Government—perhaps through the Modernisation Committee—will be prepared to look at that and to propose further amendments.
  The House must look at its procedures from time to time, and clearly the motions deal with matters that have received a great deal of support across the House—particularly from the Government, but also from the Opposition. However, I am not seeking to speak in any way for the Liberal Democratic party, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—who has notes in front of him—clearly wishes to speak in this debate. I welcome the flexibility and the agreeableness of the Minister's approach, and I shall be happy to follow the splendid example of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for giving me such a warm introduction.
  I support the extension of the Thursday experiment, and I hope that it will become a permanent institution of this House, as it introduces more sensible working practices. For all the reasons that have been given, I believe that it is right to continue the experiment, and I look forward to a debate at the start of the next Session in which we can confirm that permanent Thursday sittings should be in our Standing Orders.
  The measures giving flexibility to Standing Committees have been welcomed, and I hope that the Committees will learn to use that flexibility to its fullest extent. I am content for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Macclesfield to go forward. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a member of the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee, and I believe that we are inching towards practices which more clearly reflect the modern society in which the House operates and the terms and conditions that we would expect for Members of Parliament.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The only aspect of this matter that I welcome is the fact that the experiment is being extended for a further provisional year, so that we might have an opportunity to come to our senses subsequent to that. I say that because there is a hidden matter here which dare not speak its name. Hon. Members speak with approval about truncating Thursdays because—perhaps for understandable reasons—many want to get away from this place; it is obvious that a large number, if not most, do not particularly like being here. I sometimes wonder why they went to such great efforts to get elected.
  Mr. Stunell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forth: Yes.
  Hon. Members: Don't encourage him!
  Mr. Stunell: It is not my intention to encourage the right hon. Gentleman. However, does he acknowledge that the House has sat for additional hours as a result of the changes, not reduced hours?
  Mr. Forth: No. This is the sleight of hand that is being practised. It is one thing to claim that the House is sitting for more hours on Thursdays, but the hidden casualty of this has been Fridays. The number of Fridays on which the House sits has been reduced dramatically, apart from those allocated to private Members' Bills—which I very much welcome and enjoy, as not many Members here will know.
  The Minister, in his coy but charming way, referred to the balance between Westminster and constituency time. The implication is that there is something undesirable about time that Members of Parliament spend at Westminster, and something positive and good about the time that Members spend in their constituencies. The tragedy of that argument is that—in so far as we, as Members of Parliament, conspire to downgrade the time that we spend at Westminster—we contribute to the lesser respect with which people at large and the media have for what we do at Westminster. If we demonstrate time and again that we want to get away and spend less time here, how can we expect people outside to have respect for what we do?
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's constituency is about 18 miles from Westminster; mine is 318 miles away, as is the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). I understand that it takes the right hon. Gentleman 30 minutes to get back to his constituency; it takes me almost six hours from door to door. In the light of that, does he think that some of us can quite rightfully ask for more time in our constituencies when we spend 12 hours at least every week travelling back and forth?
  Mr. Forth: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not totally agree. Previously, I had the honour of representing a constituency in the west midlands, and there was some travelling time involved in getting to and from there. However, I would not have argued any differently then from now. I have a clear view of the priorities that a Member of Parliament should hold. The vital part of a Member of Parliament's work is here at Westminster, trying to hold the Government to account and scrutinising legislation. Constituency duties, important as they are, should be fitted in around that.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: When I was first elected here, I represented a west country seat, and many of us who had a very long journey—mine took more than five hours by car—were extremely irritated when we were told that the Scots should always have preference, because they needed to get home. Since they flew, which took less than an hour, and we spent many hours on the road, some of us find not entirely realistic the suggestion that only by going home on a Thursday night can one fulfil one's duties.
  Mr. Forth: I accept what the hon. Lady says, although we may be on the way to resolving the Scottish problem in a way that we did not altogether anticipate.

  745
  I accept the motion, which says that we will review the matter further at the end of the next Session, but I want to flag up the fact that we are in danger of losing Fridays almost completely as part of the parliamentary week. I would deeply regret that, because anything that diminishes the time available to the House for deliberation and scrutiny is to be regretted.
  Mr. David Winnick: There must be quite a number of Conservative Members or former Members who wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had spent more time away from the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not being taken in by his own propaganda, as those of us who have the honour of being elected here consider that our duties are first and foremost at Westminster. That does not conflict in any way with our constituency duties. There is no substance to the idea that Labour Members consider Westminster an occupation of two or three days and that our main duties are in the constituency. We have always recognised that our job is first and foremost here. That is why we stood for election in the first place.
  Mr. Forth: That would be all very well if there were no such thing as what I gather the Government call constituency weeks.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: They have been abolished.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that they have been. I hope that they are a matter for some shame among Government Members. The fact that the Government were prepared, in the hubris following the general election result, to say, "Don't bother about Westminster; go off to your constituencies," is a shocking illustration of their contempt for this place.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Many Labour Members were allocated constituency weeks but never took them up. I was allocated one and did not take it, and the same goes for hundreds of Labour Members.
  Mr. Forth: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says of himself, but if he really wants to pursue the matter, a perusal of the voting records for the first year or two of this Parliament might reveal a different story. Perhaps he and I could amuse ourselves by considering the voting records of the 417 Labour Members elected in May 1997 to see whether they bear out what he says. I am sure that he was here almost all the time, but I wonder about some of the other 416.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman take heart from the fact that sometimes experiments are abandoned? That is precisely what happened with constituency weeks. Let us move on.
  Mr. Forth: I wish that most of the experiments that we have here were abandoned. That would give me great joy, but I do not hold out too much hope.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: In the so-called move towards more modern practices, is not public access to Parliament one of the casualties? There is less opportunity for people to see their elected Members and
  746
  sit in the Gallery or, most importantly, for school parties and others to be taken around both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That can really happen only on a Tuesday morning now. Our action in consulting our own convenience is detrimental to the people who sent us here.
  Mr. Forth: I could not agree more. We run a risk of being perceived as putting our convenience ahead of the access that our constituents have traditionally had and still want.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does not the next item on the Order Paper reinstate Wednesday morning access to the Chamber and deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)? The right hon. Gentleman need not worry about access to the Chamber.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend was talking about Thursday mornings, because that is the item that we are debating now. I would not have had Wednesday morning sittings in the first place, and neither do I agree with the so-called Main Committee or Westminster Hall sittings, about which I will have more to say later or on a subsequent occasion, as I have now been to Canberra and seen the original and realised what a deception was practised on us when we were sold that false bill of goods.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I agree with the tenor of the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and understand his unease about the present pattern of Thursday sittings. I, too, am glad that the experiment is to run for another year.
  I sympathise with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). On Friday, I travelled to a trustees' meeting in the Lake district, in a constituency adjacent to his. I had to decant from the train at Preston because of the tragic accident suffered by the Royal Air Force at Shap, and the journey was pretty prolonged. I recognise the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I are both London Members and that some other hon. Members' constituencies are a considerable distance away.
  There are problems—not connected with travel—with Thursdays for London Members, too. I receive almost 3,000 invitations a year in my constituency, and I regularly attend business questions, and, frankly, the fact that one does not know whether that will happen at 12.30 or later inevitably takes a great chunk out of one's working Thursday and is a complication. The private convenience of London Members is not decisive in the balance, but I mention it to make it clear that there is an alternative point of view.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that experiments can be reversed.
  Paragraph 13 of the Modernisation Committee's report says:
  "The number of meetings of all-party groups and backbench committees on Thursdays appears to have gone down in this Parliament compared with the last."

  747
  I do not know where that word "appears" comes from—either it has gone down or it has not—but I take it that the meaning is that it has gone down. The paragraph goes on to say that perhaps we are having more such meetings on Mondays.
  I have a separate problem with all-party groups: at the last count, there were 266 of them and rising. The figure is becoming ridiculous. There is no way in which outside groups can get a decent attendance by Members of Parliament if there are 266 all-party groups competing for our attention on Tuesday, Wednesday and part of Monday. I hope that, when the experiment is monitored in a year's time, the present practice and performance of all-party groups will be examined.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is becoming increasingly difficult to get a room in which to hold a meeting on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is another problem that the Modernisation Committee should consider, because of the shortened week and the fact that there are now virtually no all-party group meetings on a Thursday?
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I entirely agree that any examination of the all-party group issue in a year's time should be comprehensive and take in all considerations.
  I have made the point that I wanted to make, which relates to paragraph 13. I am glad that the experiment will be given another year's run, and I look forward to the review.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Tipping: I am slightly anxious because during the previous debate I was described as emollient while in this debate I have been described as coy but charming. There are two more debates this evening and I feel rather exposed.
  We have had a helpful debate. There has been an understanding in the Chamber about the need for flexibility and there is flexibility within the motion on Standing Committees. It will have occurred to many Members that, apart from a slight prescription, the House is giving Committees the opportunity to meet when they want. One of the opportunities that Select Committees and Standing Committees may want to take in future is to meet when the House is not normally sitting during holiday periods. No group has yet taken that opportunity, but I do not think it will be long before groups of Members take it.
  Members work hard, and one of the themes that have run through the debate has been the desire to be in the House to pursue business and causes. There is also the desire to have the opportunity to listen to constituents and other ordinary people as well as to know the tone and mood of Parliament. I was slightly surprised when the
  748
  right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that a consequence of that is that Fridays have changed. The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House longer than I and he will realise that the changes have come from the Jopling report. He and other hon. Members have recognised that it seems from the experiment that we have had so far that on a Thursday the House is meeting for an hour longer than previously. I think that during the experiment next year we shall be able to judge more thoroughly what sort of business is taken on a Thursday.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned the Speaker's procession. I think that he was talking about his desire for a Speaker's procession on a Wednesday. If a later motion is approved, it may well be possible for Madam Speaker to recommence the procession on a Wednesday. Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays will be similar meeting days. It is a matter for Madam Speaker. There are others in the Chamber with greater influence than I. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point has been heard. The traditions of the House are important. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said, it is important that people have the right to come and appreciate these traditions and to see the House at work. If we are minded to go forward with the Westminster Hall experiment, Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays will be available for constituents to visit the House in the morning.
  I have different experiences from some hon. Members of people who visit the House on a Thursday. Some groups who have come on a Thursday have been delighted to have the opportunity to see Question Time in the morning and then discuss what they have seen over lunch. We have the opportunity of giving people choices.
  I want to stress that I am keen that we are flexible on this matter. We have been able to take amendments this evening and I think that there will be further changes. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said that this is a sensible third way forward. I am grateful for his comments. Perhaps I can return the compliment in buckets and say that this seems to be the common-sense approach.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That, in the next session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:

  (1) The House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past Eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;

  (2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at Seven o'clock; and

  (3) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past Ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).

  Meetings of Standing Committees
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, in the next session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
  Standing committees shall have leave to sit at any hour and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, subject to the following provisions:

  (a) on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of one o'clock and half-past three o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees); and

  (b) on Thursdays when the House is sitting, no standing committees sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of half-past eleven o'clock and half-past twelve o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), with the substitution in that paragraph of "half-past eleven o'clock" for "one o'clock" and "a quarter to twelve o'clock" for "a quarter past one o'clock".—[Mr. Tipping.]

  Amendments made: In paragraph (b), after "between the hours of leave out "half-past" and insert "twenty-five minutes past".
  In paragraph (b), after "paragraph of leave out "half-past" and insert "twenty-five minutes past".
  In paragraph (b), after '"one o'clock' and" leave out "a quarter" and insert "twenty minutes".—[Mr. Nicholas Winterton.]
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.

  Sittings in Westminster Hall
  6.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
  That there shall be no sittings in Westminster Hall under the terms of the Order [24th May] until Tuesday 30th November.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
  That following the Order [24th May], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Frank Cook and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during the next session.
  Mr. Tipping: The motion supplements the motion which was agreed by the House on 24 May, to provide for an experiment with sittings in Westminster Hall. I will not repeat the points that were made on 24 May because the motion covers only two specific points. First, it enables the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel to be appointed as additional Deputy Speakers to take the Chair during the sittings in Westminster Hall. They are all well known to the House for a variety of different reasons, but tonight, I shall stress only two: their impartiality in the Chair and, secondly, their well-known independence in debate on a range of different matters. All four can safely be called prominent supporters of the voice of the House.
  The Members in question are the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). I believe that the House accepts that they are all well qualified to carry out the duties of the Chair during sittings in Westminster Hall.
  The House will be grateful to those four Members for being willing to give up even more of their time in taking the Chair and ensuring that the proceedings in Westminster Hall, as an experiment, get off to a smooth and good start. The Chairman of Ways and Means will take the lead in those sittings. He and the existing Deputy Speakers will also take an active part in chairing proceedings.
  The second part of the motion sets Tuesday 30 November as the starting date for such sittings. This is because the new Session is due to start on Wednesday 17 November. Starting the sittings in the second full week of the Session will give sufficient time for the Speaker's Office to conduct the ballots for Back-Bench Member debates on Tuesday 30 November and Wednesday 1 December. I want to make it clear that that means that there will be no morning sitting in the House on Wednesday 24 November.
  6.28 pm
  Sir George Young: As the Minister said, the motion arises from the debate that we had on 24 May, when, on a free vote, the House decided to proceed with sittings in Westminster Hall on an experimental basis. There are two parts to the motion. On the first, perhaps the Minister will confirm, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the physical arrangements will be completed in time for the sittings to start on 30 November. Is he able to say anything about the

  751
  likely business that will be taken in the week beginning 30 November? If this experiment is to take place and be successful, it is important that there should be a series of lively debates in the first week. Within the constraints of a ballot for the motions, I hope that the Government will do all that they can to promote the debates.
  As the Minister said when dealing with the second part of the motion, the House is grateful to the four Members who are assuming additional responsibilities. It may not be a matter for the Minister, but will the Chairmen's Panel need reinforcement if some of the existing Chairmen are diverted into other responsibilities? If they are to be additional Deputy Speakers, and I think that the Deputy Speakers are paid for their work in that role, I wonder whether any additional remuneration—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) shaking her head sadly. She has probably answered my question. It seems that they will be Deputy Speakers in name.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Whenever there is extra work and no pay, my name automatically leaps into the frame, in conjunction with various other right hon. and hon. Members, but when there is pay and no work somehow I mysteriously disappear off the list.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Lady needs a good shop steward to represent her interests, because her generosity is clearly being abused on a monstrous scale. She has answered my question, but I hope that the Minister can reassure us that all the physical arrangements will be in place and that such decisions as the Government are able to take will be taken to ensure that the experiment starts. On that basis, I am happy to give my support to the motion.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a superficial reading of the motion, it would probably be anticipated that it will go through on the nod, but one or two comments should be made. The point made by the right hon. Member for North—West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about payment is relevant. Incidentally, we should congratulate the Minister, because two reshuffles ago—that is of course not very long—he started to receive salary for the first time for his work as a Minister. Generally and in politics, I do not like the idea that people should do things for nowt instead of for the rate for the job.
  The question of salaries for the new Deputy Speakers is not addressed in the motion, but I am worried that we may be making appointments in a flip way without thinking through the status appropriate to the office of Deputy Speaker and the duties involved. At some stage, the House should consider the possibility of appropriate remuneration and other benefits that accompany the office of Deputy Speaker, and the question whether Deputy Speakers appointed for Westminster Hall should be part of the wider team. I am mindful of the fact that the Canadian House of Commons has the same number of Speakers and Deputy Speakers as we have, but it has far fewer plenary sessions. I take my hat off to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues because you sit
  752
  in the Chair for many hours. There are not enough of you in the team and, in due course, we should consider whether the responsibilities of the new team of Deputy Speakers should be extended to this Chamber. If that happened, we would also need to consider the question of salary and—without embarrassing anybody by making a specific reference—the other emoluments and benefits that flow from the office.
  I raise my second point with some hesitation, because all four of the hon. Members named in the motion are, to say the least, fine Members of Parliament. I consider them my friends and, contrary to their better judgment, they may have some regard for me. However, I do not believe that this is the correct way to appoint Deputy Speakers. This is the first time that we have appointed a plethora of Deputy Speakers in mid-Session. Those named are the four most senior members of the Chairmen's Panel and proven parliamentarians who are known for their impartiality, but if in future we come to appoint more second division Deputy Speakers—I do not mean that disparagingly—or indeed other Deputy Speakers, we should adopt a procedure on the same lines by which we elect the Speaker of the House.
  Before the parliamentary recess, I talked to the Clerk about the procedures for this evening's motion and I asked him whether it would be possible to amend it or to divide the House. If the previous debate had continued, we would not even have been able to have this discussion, but the appointment of Members to senior offices of the House of Commons should be the subject of proper debate and involve nominations from the Floor of the House, not be handed down on the basis of seniority on the Chairmen's Panel. I hope that in future we might consider a similar selection process for the seven Deputy Speakers as applies to the election of the Speaker.
  My final point may be seen as pedantic, but I first visited the House of Commons at the age of 12 and ever since I have steeped myself in its ritual and history. We are told that the sittings in Westminster Hall will be sittings of the House of Commons itself, not of a Committee. In that case, I would have assumed that the Mace would be present, as it is before us tonight, because I understood that without the Mace the House of Commons is not sitting. The Mace has been called a bauble and I did not write the rules, but I would like the point to be clarified. Is it in or out? If it is so important, it should be placed in Westminster Hall for the sittings, and if it is not, it should be put in a glass case.
  Sometimes we rush to alter and vary rules and proceedings without thinking through the consequences, but the House is entitled to know whether it will be the House of Commons sitting in Westminster Hall. If so, what are the new rubrics and Standing Orders that take account of the fact that the Mace will not be in place? Perhaps we should have a whip-round to buy a new Mace.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might borrow the mace from Congleton, from which the parliamentary Mace was copied some time ago. I am sure that the burghers of Congleton would be only too delighted to lend it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I wish to point out that we are now straying some way from the motion.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I am disappointed that you take that view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am making a serious

  753
  point about the Mace. Why should we be so arrogant as to change 600 years of history this evening? I was upset when the Prayers were altered arbitrarily. I would have liked to submit my version, but the changes just happened without discussion. For example, I notice that the phrase about laying aside "all partial affections" no longer appears. I shall not labour the point further, but the new status of Westminster Hall, and its place in our histories and traditions, should be made clear.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I wish to endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). It is curious that we take great pride in the fact that we elect our Speaker—the voice of the House—but the Deputy Speakers and now these new appointments arise from that mysterious process known euphemistically as the usual channels. I am rather tired of the usual channels.
  I had the privilege of accompanying the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to Australia and to see the Main Committee in action. I also had discussions with the Clerks to the Main Committee. Afterwards, I was even more worried than before, when this ghastly new institution was introduced at Westminster. I did not know before that that party discipline in the federal Parliament in Canberra is even stronger than it is here and the opportunity for individual Members of Parliament to express views—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the motion concerns simply the dates for sittings in Westminster Hall and the appointment of Deputy Speakers. It is quite tightly drawn.
  Mr. Forth: In that case, I shall cast my remarks in such a way as to make it clear that I wish that the date proposed were different. I would prefer it to be postponed so that we could consider, for example, whether we have sufficient Standing Orders in place to protect the role of individual Members of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned. Postponing the implementation of the Westminster Hall sittings and adjusting the motion accordingly would allow us to give further consideration to the question whether the Standing Orders that we have at present cover adequately the procedures necessary to protect the role of individual hon. Members.
  I fear that the new process may gallop out of the control of hon. Members. I recall that we were told that only non-controversial business would be discussed in Westminster Hall. However, on my visit to Canberra I discovered that the Australian definition of uncontroversial business covers what is agreed through the usual channels, and that the role of individual Members there is almost zero. I worry that that is what will happen here unless we are adequately and fully protected by Standing Orders.
  I hope that that problem will be given proper attention before 30 November. Although I could wish that that date could be put back to allow more time for that consideration, I hope that the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock will not be forgotten. There may be scope now to examine how appointments—such as those contained in the motion or even, dare I say it, to the
  754
  Chairmen's Panel—are made. At present, the process is rather mysterious. A more open process would enable the holders of such important jobs to have even more confidence than at present that they have the support and endorsement of rank-and-file Members of Parliament.
  I hope that we can return to that matter in future, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock for raising it.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Until about 10 minutes ago, I was not planning to speak in the debate, but I am worried by the wording of the motion. It describes the people who will be appointed to preside over proceedings in what, in effect, will be known as another place.
  Mr. Mackinlay: No, it is the House of Commons. I must tell my hon. Friend, with the greatest respect, that I think that he is wrong. No doubt, my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm this, but we have been told that the sittings in Westminster Hall will be part of the proceedings of the House of Commons. I am not sure that I approve, but we have been told that those sittings will not be Committee sittings and that they will not be regarded as comprising another Chamber of the House.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is precisely my point: Westminster Hall will be another place in the sense that it will be another Chamber of the House of Commons, rather than a Committee.
  The motion states:
  "That … Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Frank Cook and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during the next session."
  However, the second report by the Modernisation Committee states:
  "We therefore recommend that sittings in Westminster Hall should be chaired by the Deputy Speakers, and that the four members who have served longest on the Chairmen's Panel should be formally appointed by the House as additional Deputy Speakers to sit in Westminster Hall. We do not envisage that those Members would be subject to the restraints on political activity which apply by convention to the existing Deputy Speakers."
  I have always understood that Deputy Speakers in the House of Commons complied with the convention that constrained their political activities. It has only just dawned on me that the motion will establish a structure under which a Deputy Speaker will be free, for the first time, to be politically active on the Floor of the House of Commons. That might be misconstrued, both in the United Kingdom and in those other parts of the world where we are advocating the Westminster constitutional arrangement.
  That is not a spurious point. I hope that the four eminently knowledgeable and sensible people referred to in the motion will not punish me in the future for my remarks this evening. However, the proposed change is an important one. The four hon. Members mentioned in the motion will be known as Deputy Speakers of the House of Commons. No distinction will be drawn outside the House between this Chamber and another Chamber—what I have called another place—of the House of Commons. The result will be that there will be two

  755
  different types of Deputy Speakers: those who are able to engage in politics in the Chamber, and those who cannot. There is something wrong with that in principle.
  However, there is a way to resolve the problem. We can describe the new appointments in a different way. They should not be referred to as Deputy Speakers of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman who, being one of the appointees, has an interest in the matter.
  Mr. Winterton: Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I had no intention of speaking in this debate on this motion. However, I hope that the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) will confirm that, although we shall be known as Deputy Speakers, we will be the Deputy Speakers who preside over proceedings in Westminster Hall. We will not preside in this Chamber of the House of Commons, even though Westminster Hall will be a complementary adjunct to the House of Commons as we know it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I warn hon. Members in advance that we will never be able to argue that distinction when we present the House of Commons to people in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in the world. They will simply not understand what we are talking about. To all intents and purposes we are creating, by means of this motion, four new Deputy Speakers in the British Parliament. Before we agree to the proposal, we should consider seriously its implications. The distinction drawn by the hon. Member for Macclesfield will not be understood outside the House of Commons.
  Mr. Clive Soley: As a member of the Modernisation Committee that was so keen on introducing this innovation, I must ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that it is an experiment. As with any experiment, some of the complexities—such as the one that my hon. Friend has identified—require further consideration. Dealing with all such matters in advance in Committee would have caused our deliberations to go on for ever and a day. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that we must revisit the structure that is being established in this experiment.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have no objection whatsoever to the structure being created. I am in favour of it, and all hon. Members want it. However, I maintain that we should not call the four hon. Members mentioned in the motion Deputy Speakers of the House of Commons. To do so would be an error. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the matter very seriously. The motion is wrong. It will lead to misunderstandings and will create difficulties.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman may be slightly reassured to note that the motion specifies that the four hon. Members mentioned will be
  "appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during the next session."
  The period is therefore heavily qualified. That might give hon. Members another opportunity to return to the matter, when we can deal with the points that have been raised. The words "during the next session" mean that a backstop is available. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that that is reassuring?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Although I have invariably taken a different view from the right hon. Gentleman on the changes that have been introduced, he will know, from his own experience of dealing with questions of modernisation over the past few months, that such changes, once in place, become almost irreversible. The House accepts them if they appear to be working. The point on which I am focusing is very narrow. The House will not necessarily want to reconsider it unless a dispute develops internationally, perhaps through the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the CPA. I am simply alerting the House to a problem that I know will arise.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: In addition to the reassurances offered from both sides of the House, would it further reassure the hon. Gentleman if "additional" were given a capital A? The motion states that the four Members named will act as "additional Deputy Speakers". By making that "Additional Deputy Speakers", would we not make matters different? I take the hon. Gentleman's point that, if the experiment extends to a year and appears to be successful, the precedent may have been set.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman seeks a compromise, but even that arrangement would be wrong. The four Chairmen are not Deputy Speakers of the House of Commons as I understand that office. They would not avoid conflict in the Chamber. Indeed, some of the four appointees are controversial Members with very strong views. I welcome the controversy that they bring, and have done over the years, but giving those four hon. Members the title "Deputy Speaker" would undermine the position of Deputy Speakers under our current arrangements.
  Mr. John Bercow: At the risk of inflicting grave damage on the hon. Gentleman's reputation, let me say that I entirely agree with him. Does he agree that the issue is not whether the new arrangements work or not? In fact, we do not even know what "work" means in this case. If all we mean is that the four newly appointed "Deputy Speakers" should behave when they chair proceedings in Westminster Hall, we shall learn nothing that we cannot guess from the characters of the four distinguished hon. Members concerned. The point is that it is wrong in principle to designate them Deputy Speakers. It is clumsy and stupid, and we have an opportunity to prevent it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and I have no difficulty in doing so as this is a House of Commons occasion, not a Government matter or a political debate. We are discussing the credibility and integrity of the House of Commons. I appeal to the

  757
  Minister not to proceed with the motion as it stands. The four named hon. Members will be Chairmen of debates in Westminster Hall. We should call them Chairmen, not Deputy Speakers.
  Mr. Soley: Let me try to take my hon. Friend with me. I agree that he is a great parliamentarian—[Interruption.] I think that he is. The House must face up to the fact that, if we are to modernise—and everyone keeps telling me that they want modernization—
  Mr. Forth: No.
  Mr. Soley: Well, not everyone on the Opposition Benches, perhaps.
  We cannot dot every i and cross every t, but we can revisit matters later. My hon. Friend is forgetting that, in addition to the ability of the House to revisit the matter, the Modernisation Committee will examine how the proposals work and will recommend changes if necessary. My hon. Friend's point is a good one, but we should not use it to hold back change.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I believe that Governments can table motions at any time that they want. There is always time to debate a motion that must pass through the House of Commons. We have learned that lesson over the years. I have never been convinced by arguments about Government time.
  I am worried—I shall repeat the point so that there is no misunderstanding—because the office of Deputy Speaker is a non-political office in this Parliament. It has been so during the 20 years that I have been a Member. Long should it remain so.
  As of today, however, the office of Deputy Speaker will become a politicised appointment, from which its holders may argue a political case in the House of Commons. The very silence in the Chamber convinces me that many of the hon. Members sitting here know that I am right, and that that point had not dawned on them when they passed the Modernisation Committee's report. Members are considering what I am saying, because they know that there is truth in it. We are making a mistake, and I beg the Minister to withdraw the motion.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Tipping: This has been a narrow debate around two issues. The first concerns the appointment of four people to chair sittings during the Westminster Hall experiment. The second is the date on which the experiment will start. I stress that we are discussing an experiment, perhaps one of the largest modernisation experiments that the House will consider during this Parliament. As with all experiments, some things will undoubtedly go right, and others wrong.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made his point well. Indeed, he made it three or four times to make sure that I got it. I did, and senior members of the Select Committee on Modernisation, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), also got the point. Several hon. Members have tried to reassure my hon. Friend that we will examine the point and learn from the experiment.
  758
  I was asked whether Westminster Hall would be ready. Preparations are under way and we will be ready to start on 30 November.
  I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) that Westminster Hall must get off to a good start. It is an important experiment, giving Back-Bench Members much greater opportunities. There will be 140 extra Back-Bench debates, the chance to debate three dozen extra Select Committee reports and the possibility of 17 or 18 general debates. Those figures give the lie to any suggestion that the Government are denying Back-Bench Members the opportunity to raise issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that he had read the report and the motion superficially—
  Mr. Mackinlay: No, I did not. I did not read them superficially. I said that anyone who read the motion superficially might think that it was about Deputy Speakers. It is, in fact, about much more.
  Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend used the words "on a superficial reading". One thing that I admire about my hon. Friend is that, when he reads things—even superficially—he has a tendency to read things into them. I can assure him that there has been no collusion between the usual channels about how the four names were selected. The method of selecting the names came directly from the proposals of the Modernisation Committee. Discussions have been held with the Chairmen's Panel, but the panel does not, in my experience, collude with the Government. The panel's voice is very much independent, no matter how uncomfortable that may be for the Government or for the Opposition.
  We have had a long debate over whether the name Deputy Speaker is right. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) pointed out that these would be additional Deputy Speakers sitting in Westminster Hall. These are new creatures, and their roles will develop. I do not say that we have necessarily got it right, and I repeat my undertaking to look again at that matter.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister has used the word experiment, a word used many times. If he insists on describing what we are doing as an experiment, with the unstated implication that it will be up for review, will he be good enough to tell us the criteria by which its success or otherwise will be evaluated? Will the criteria include the considerations to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has drawn attention—that is, the capacity of people outside the House and outside the United Kingdom to interpret the difference between the additional Deputy Speakers and those who hold the existing office?
  Mr. Tipping: That may well be one of the criteria by which the matter is judged. The issue of whether it is confusing to have one group of people bearing the name "Deputy Speaker" or one group with the name "additional Deputy Speaker" is a fairly small one by which to judge success. The success or failure of the body will depend on whether Back-Bench Members of Parliament have the

  759
  chance forcefully and robustly to raise issues that affect their constituencies. It has been said that that is a separate matter, but, for me, it is the key issue.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand the problem that hon. Members express; I would be happy to consider some other title. I have been called many things in my life—not always parliamentary. Surely, we have overlooked one aspect of the matter; many members of the Chairmen's Panel have the ability to swap roles. When one is in the Chair, one is impartial. All of us also participate in other parts of the parliamentary programme. Indeed, if the Chairmen, who are all volunteers, or pressed men and women, were dependent on being chosen by the usual channels, the Chairmen's Panel would be very different from the one that we have at present. That is a mildly unrealistic description of the situation, if my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive for saying so. At present, all of us take the Chair, sit there for many hours and I hope—indeed I know—that we are impartial. However, we then do other things without any difficulty. If a change of nomenclature is all that is needed, I can think of a dozen different words—including some of the things that I would call some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Tipping: With her great experience, my hon. Friend makes the point fairly and more forcefully than I could. Earlier, the hon. Member for Macclesfield said that he wore two hats. If the experiment goes ahead, he will have yet another hat to wear.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister has provoked me. In fact, I wear three hats. If the motion is passed, I shall be wearing four hats. [Interruption.] I hear cries of "Big head". The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is absolutely right; members of Madam Speaker's Chairmen's Panel undertake that job voluntarily and are wholly impartial when they are in the Chair. I point out to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised a number of issues. If the new additional Deputy Speakers for sittings in Westminster Hall were remunerated, the situation would be very different indeed. In that case, clearly, we could not operate both in the maelstrom of the House of Commons—taking party political positions—and as additional Deputy Speakers. However, at present, that is not what it is about; we are asked to undertake that additional duty voluntarily as Members of the House of Commons—all four of us have the great honour and privilege of accepting it.
  Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman wears many hats, some of them extremely large. I know the reason for that—his constituency is one of the centres of this country's hat-making trade. I am delighted that he so vigorously argues the case for Cheshire's hat-makers. However, he makes a serious point—as does my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich
  760
  (Mrs. Dunwoody). At present, the fact that those posts are unpaid gives their occupants—whoever they may be—an independence. They are not linked to anyone's patronage, and all the proposed names will continue the long tradition of speaking vigorously and independently, while being fair, open and honest chairpeople.
  Finally, I confirm that the Westminster Hall sittings will be complementary to those of this House; it will not be a Committee, but a complementary or alternative body to the House. The matter raises interesting questions about the Mace; the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is pursuing her own case—Cheshire Members are out in force tonight—to try to find a solution. We shall need to consider such issues.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Paragraph 40 of the minutes of the Modernisation Committee for 3 February 1997 states:
  "Ceremonial with or without a Mace and precise staffing requirements by a Serjeant at Arms, Doorkeepers, Office Keepers, Attendants and security staff will have to be discussed and agreed once more details of the Main Committee emerge."
  That implies that the House as a whole would approve what those arrangements should be. I am not sure that we have done so today, either in this motion or in our debate and vote on the thrust of the Committee's report. Unless I am mistaken, the matter has yet to be discussed. If we have resolved the matter, perhaps the Minister could explain when we did so, as it is not clear to me.
  Mr. Tipping: As has been said, this is a fairly narrow debate. I remind my hon. Friend that the Modernisation Committee report was discussed earlier this year, when there was ample opportunity to make points such as those that he has just made.
  I return to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush and myself: this is a big experiment and we shall not get it right immediately. I am going out of my way to be flexible and to point out that we may not have got it right, and we may not know all the consequences, but interesting issues are being raised. However, I give an undertaking—
  Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend is putting in the rivets as the ship goes down the slipway.
  Mr. Tipping: I want the ship to sail; I want it to be one of which we can be proud. My hon. Friends, who are members of the Modernisation Committee and have worked hard on this matter, can be confident of our good will and of our further undertaking that we are prepared to consider the experiment, and will wish the ship godspeed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That there shall be no sittings in Westminster Hall under the terms of the Order [24th May] until Tuesday 30th November.
  Ordered,
  That, following the Order [24th May], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Frank Cook and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during the next session.—[Mr. Tipping.]

  Questions to Ministers 7.7 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
  That, subject always to the discretion of the Chair, and in addition to the established rules of order on the form and content of questions, questions may not be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales unless the question:

  (a) seeks information which the UK Government is empowered to require of the devolved executive, or

  (b) relates to matters which:

  (i) are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament,

  (ii) are concerned with the operation of a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the UK Government and the devolved executive, or

  (iii) UK Government ministers have taken an official interest in, or

  (c) presses for action by UK ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers.

  This motion and the next two spring directly from the fourth report of the Procedure Committee on the procedural consequences of devolution, and the Government's response to that report. Hon. Members will recall that the issues were extensively discussed as recently as last Thursday.
  I want to reinforce two points. First, I am extremely grateful to the Procedure Committee for its thorough examination of the process. Devolution will bring about change. The motions before the House implement changes that will accrue over time. Secondly, I wholly agree with the Procedure Committee and the theme of the debate that took place last week: this is not the first time that we have discussed devolution, and it certainly will not be the last time.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have submitted a question to the Home Secretary on the changes that he proposes, by way of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Mental Health (Scotland) 1984 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. It is important that our right to continue to ask questions of that nature is stressed. If we are to be given the power of questioning Ministers on the operation of a concordat, or other instrument of liaison, between the UK Government and the devolved Executives, surely it is important that this House holds a debate on the memorandum of understanding and the principles underlying the concordats themselves. I should have thought that that holds for the relationship between Cardiff and this place; the relationship between Stormont and this place, assuming things over in Northern Ireland go well this week; and the relationship between Edinburgh and this place. How can we ask questions on concordats and the memorandum of understanding without the Government first laying down the principles underlying the memorandum and the concordats?
  Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend makes important points. He is right to say that the concordat and the procedures lying behind it give hon. Members an opportunity to look at the processes occurring between the Westminster Parliament and the new Scottish Parliament—it is about
  762
  the mechanics of the operation. My hon. Friend repeated a request made last week for a debate on the concordat and the memorandum of understanding. He will appreciate that, at this stage of the parliamentary cycle, time is extremely pressing and that I cannot give him a commitment today to hold that debate, but I assure him that his cry has not gone unnoticed. I am sure that we shall return to the issue he raises. My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise a point made in last week's debate—that it is important that UK Ministers here in the Westminster Parliament should continue to be questioned about issues that affect hon. Members and their constituents.
  At this point, I shall say only that we had a good, long and helpful debate on these matters last week. The House is being asked to approve three motions this evening: the first on questions to Ministers, the second on changes to Select Committees and the third on amendments to Standing Orders relating to the Advocate General for Scotland. Having made those general points and reserving the opportunity to take specific points relating to individual motions later, I hope that the House will endorse the way forward I have set out.
  7.12 pm
  Sir George Young: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you first clarify whether all the remaining motions are being taken together or whether we are to have three separate debates? I understand that the Minister would like them all to be taken together; is that to be the case?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We are currently debating motion No. 5, on questions to Ministers.
  Sir George Young: On that specific motion, I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that it would be helpful to have debates on the concordats and the memorandums of understanding.
  We had a full debate on Thursday, from which the motion arises. I make no apology for repeating a point I made then. The motion defines, in respect of questions to Ministers, what is in order and what is out of order; with one exception, what one can and cannot ask is relatively clear. If a matter
  "has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales",
  it is out of order here, whereas if the question
  "seeks information which the UK Government is empowered to require",
  it is in order. If the question relates to areas in which
  "UK Ministers … retain administrative powers",
  it is in order; likewise, if it relates to
  "legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament",
  or to "a concordat", it is in order.
  The grey area can be found in paragraph (b)(iii) which states that a question is in order if it relates to matters where
  "UK Government Ministers have taken an official interest".
  On Thursday, I asked whether that posed the threat of the whole issue becoming clouded. I gave an example of a UK Government Minister, the Minister of Agriculture,

  763
  Fisheries and Food, taking an official interest in whether the beef-on-the-bone ban was lifted in Scotland. The moment he took an official interest, hon. Members could table questions on a devolved matter. It would be helpful if, at some point, someone defined exactly what "an official interest" is. Is it any interest declared by a Minister, or can a Minister declare an official interest only if he has responsibility for the matter under the devolution legislation?
  I posed that question on Thursday, but, sadly, the Secretary of State for Scotland did not get around to answering it when he wound up the debate. If the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, can shed any light on the definition of "an official interest", it would help to avoid any confusion at Question Time about whether a question was in or out of order.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was unable to catch your eye during last Thursday's debate on the procedural consequences of devolution, so I am grateful to have the opportunity to address the House this evening.
  The point is that there are procedural consequences arising out of devolution. To a large extent, the motion before the House reflects those consequences, but I question whether it is sufficiently robust to provide the degree of clarity that Members of Parliament require to do their job. The procedural consequences of devolution are such that we are entering uncharted waters. Although a pragmatic and evolutionary approach might be more in tune with the general approach and predisposition of this House, I submit that clear guidelines are needed.
  Such guidelines are needed, first, to eliminate confusion and, secondly, to assist hon. Members in assessing what is or is not in order when tabling questions—we have had already the unhappy experience of considerable confusion occurring during Welsh questions before the summer recess. Thirdly, there is a need to respect both the spirit and the letter of the devolution settlements for both Wales and Scotland. It seems to me that the motion goes a long way toward implementing that principle, which was enunciated in the Procedure Committee's report.
  Because the experience in Wales is so often conflated with and subsumed in that of Scotland, I sometimes wonder whether the penny has dropped that the Welsh model of devolution is significantly different from the Scottish. It differs in two ways: first, primary legislative power in respect of Wales remains in Westminster, even in those areas of responsibility where some measure of power has been devolved to Cardiff; and, secondly, the Welsh method of devolution as set out in the Government of Wales Act 1998 could be characterised as "horizontal" in that, even in devolved matters, some secondary legislative and executive powers remain with the Secretary of State for Wales or other Secretaries of State, or are exercised concurrently.
  My view, which is shared by many in the Welsh political scene, is that the role of the Secretary of State for Wales will remain crucial if devolution is to be successful in Wales. However, his remaining responsibilities post-devolution are not clear cut. I agree with the Procedure Committee that the Secretary of State's responsibilities will be open to "varying interpretation", although that is perhaps an understatement.
  764
  The Procedure Committee recommended and the Government accepted that rules on the orderliness of questions ought also to govern the question of appropriate subjects for Adjournment debates, so the motion is far from being of solely academic interest to Back Benchers representing Welsh constituencies. I note that there are no rules at all with regard to oral supplementaries. Perhaps it would be rather difficult to prescribe rules in that regard.
  The preamble to the motion declares the basic principle that no questions should be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Welsh Assembly. That is fine and it is to be expected. It is in accordance with the spirit and the letter of devolution, but the motion refers to certain important exceptions, some of which were mentioned by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).
  The first exception is questions that seek information on subjects on which the UK Government are empowered to require information from the devolved body. That is a rather wide exception; I shall give an illustrative example. Section 123 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 includes a catch-all provision that states:
  "Where it appears to the Treasury that any information in the possession or under the control of the Assembly is required for the exercise of any function by the Treasury, the Treasury may require the Assembly to provide the information to the Treasury in such form as the Treasury may reasonably specify."
  In my view, and it may occur to other hon. Members, that raises the question whether, in the light of section 123, Welsh Members of Parliament are entitled to ask questions about how the Welsh block, as it used to be called, or the departmental expenditure limit, as it is now called, is spent. Are we entitled to ask specific questions about how the Assembly determines the Budget, bearing in mind that presumably, those are questions that, under section 123, the UK Treasury is empowered to ask?
  I shall deal briefly with the other exceptions. The exception under paragraph (b)(i) relates to matters that
  "are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament".
  That is wide in its ambit and somewhat vague, to say the least. I wonder whether it provides the guidance and clarity that hon. Members seek in order to do their job.
  Sub-paragraph (ii) deals with matters that are subject to
  "a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the UK Government and the devolved executive".
  I endorse the view expressed by others that it would be entirely right and proper for the House to debate the concordat and the memorandum of understanding. That, too, is extremely wide.
  Paragraph 23 of the memorandum of understanding refers to the Joint Ministerial Committee that is to be established. The terms of reference of that Committee are described, inter alia, as follows:
  "To consider non-devolved matters which impinge on devolved responsibilities, and devolved matters which impinge on non-devolved responsibilities".
  The question is obvious. Given that the exception refers to
  "the operation of a concordat"—
  I note that the wording on the Order Paper differs somewhat from the Procedure Committee's recommendation—this exception again is rather wide and vague.

  765
  I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire with regard to sub-paragraph (iii). What is "an official interest"? We ought to know, and guidance should be provided to the Table Office.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I press my hon. Friend on a minor point? I understand that Welsh and Scottish Members want to maximise their right to ask questions in the House about matters relating to Wales and Scotland. If that is their intention, why does my hon. Friend seek to tie Ministers down and make it more difficult for hon. Members, including himself, to ask questions? I do not understand the process through which he is taking us.
  Mr. Thomas: I am seeking clarity and a degree of certainty, to allow us to do our job and adjust our practices appropriately. That is what is important. I speak as someone who for many years has been a strong campaigner for devolution.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend seeks clarity. If we define the circumstances precisely, my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer, will know that, by the definitions that will have to be laid down, we will effectively be limiting the right of hon. Members to ask questions, as he wishes. I am sorry to press him—
  Mr. Thomas: Ultimately, devolution raises some thorny procedural issues. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is to be congratulated on wrestling with some of those issues. I do not pretend that the Government can give definitive answers, and I expect that the Government will wish to follow the strong recommendation of the Procedure Committee that there should be a thorough review of the issues, in the light of experience. That is my concluding point.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to be complimentary about the Committee that I chair, and we are grateful for that. Do we not need to limit the questions that can be asked, so that we avoid antagonising the devolved Assembly in Wales and the devolved Parliament in Scotland? We cannot be seen in this House to be dealing with matters that this House has rightly devolved to Edinburgh and Cardiff.
  Mr. Thomas: Precisely. We must be true to the spirit and the letter of devolution. I return to the unhappy experience that we had recently with Welsh oral questions. I am anxious to maintain the good name of the House and avoid such confusion. I simply seek a little more guidance and clarity, realising that it may be unrealistic to expect it. We shall have to revisit the subject in the light of experience. I do not necessarily expect definitive answers to the points that I have raised from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when he responds for the Government. Clearly, the matter will need to be reviewed.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I speak as a member of the Procedure Committee, but I do not want it to be assumed that everything that I say is strictly in accordance with the views expressed in the Committee's
  766
  report. We should acknowledge straight away that we need to make the changes set out in the motion and that, broadly speaking, they cover the right territory in the right way. I hope that the House will approve the changes.
  I shall spend a minute or two on the implications of the remarks of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). He was trying to balance the interests of Members in this House and their legitimate desire to hold the Government of the United Kingdom to account, and in the case of Welsh Members, to defend the interests of their constituents, with the legitimate concern to ensure that the Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland are allowed to hold their Governments to account in their own way. It is fair and proper for the House to have regard to their sensitivities and needs, as well as to its own needs. The motion does that, to a reasonable extent.
  I am not persuaded by what the hon. Member for Clwyd, West said about the need for a more precisely regulated framework for questions. I have a number of points to make about that.
  Precision may be achieved when cases are made, but trying to achieve it at this stage would constrain Members from asking certain questions. It would be better to have one or two test cases, and to search for ultimate tidiness at stage I would be a mistake. Members of the House are persistent and ingenious—one has only to consider the way in which Prime Minister's Question Time has evolved, if that is the right word. Some might say that it has degenerated, but it has a certain formulaic approach that is designed to bypass any of the rules that the House might otherwise have in place so one asks the Prime Minister about his engagements.
  I have a feeling that, before long, certain formulas will be devised by which any Member of the House will ask any question he chooses about anything happening in Scotland or Wales. However undesirable that may be thought to be in theory, Members will find a way of achieving it. Trying to devise at this stage a set of rules or a formula that would prevent that from happening would be to search for the holy grail—or possibly the unholy grail, depending on one's particular point of view.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, West made a further suggestion. He said, with some regret, that he thinks it is probably not possible to devise rules covering oral supplementaries. I should think not, and the possibility of having such rules in place is somewhat dubious to say the least. I also think that the Table Office does rather a good job in the House, although I cannot be the only Member who regards submitting a question to it without at least one word of what I have suggested being changed as a major success. It will be able to interpret the rules in the spirit in which they are being put before the House and, again, undue prescription will not be terribly helpful.
  What we have done is about the best job available in the circumstances. It has given us a set of words with which we can defend the House from any charge of interference from our Scottish and Welsh parliamentary colleagues, by saying, "We have rules that prevent our Members in the United Kingdom Parliament from interfering." We have the book of rules to show as our defence and, at the same time, the rules are sufficiently flexible for Members of the House, in practice, to do exactly what they like. To me, that seems to be a good balance.
  7.33 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that we cannot at this moment expect to have hard and fast rules concerning the responsibilities of the Assemblies, the Scottish Parliament and this Parliament or the representatives in those legislatures.
  I say to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), I fell off the edge of the list of speakers last Thursday. The hon. Gentleman's report is very fine. For example, I agree with paragraph 37, which argues for informal contacts between Members of the different Assemblies and Parliaments, and since 1 July I have argued that case to the Convenor of the Local Government Committee in the Edinburgh Parliament. We need "official interest" to he defined because there are responsibilities that, to my mind, are not mutually exclusive—for example, to the Scottish Parliament or this Parliament. By and large, I shall confine my remarks to Northern Ireland and Scotland.
  A clearer groove is provided by paragraph (c) of the motion, which refers to a question that
  "presses for action by UK ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers."
  The example I gave earlier was prompted by a challenge I made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I suggested that it is not up to this Parliament to amend exclusively Scottish Acts of Parliament through that legislation. We are in a grey area here, and I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, this week, a Member of the Scottish Parliament has tabled two questions concerning the Home Secretary's decision to amend section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and sections in other Scottish Acts. Am I right to think that, although my right hon. Friend has administrative powers here, the Scottish Parliament has the power to amend the Immigration and Asylum Bill again, when it becomes an Act, in respect of three Scottish Acts?
  When the First Minister addressed the Scottish Parliament on 1 July, he said that it had the right to amend some legislation enacted by this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Minister may not be familiar with section 12 of the 1968 Act, but may I use it to give a brief illustration of the Home Secretary's administrative powers? It allows social work directors to assist financially people in desperate need who face a real domestic emergency, and I have used it several times to help poverty-stricken constituents. I have approached my local social work department to argue that moneys should be given to such people.
  We in this Parliament are changing that Scottish Act, but this is a grey area. The Immigration and Asylum Bill is obviously a responsibility of the Home Secretary, but I would have thought that those three Scottish Acts could be re-amended, despite what happens to the asylum legislation in this place. There will be conflicts and stresses between this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the two Assemblies, whenever the Northern Ireland Assembly gets off the mark.
  The motion refers to questioning Ministers
  "in areas in which they retain administrative powers."
  768
  I have the right to question the Home Secretary on those matters, but do I have the right to question the Secretary of State for Scotland on the implementation of those clauses in the Immigration and Asylum Bill that are exclusively concerned with Scottish matters? To whom do I go?
  I have tabled a question to the Home Secretary for answer next week on that very issue. Four or five months ago, I said to him that I thought he was acting ultra vires in respect of those Scottish Acts. Of course, they were passed by the House. The 1968 Act was put through by the late Willie Ross; it is a brilliant piece of legislation, but it has nothing whatever to do with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a Scottish Act.
  I agree that we have to maintain compatibility and mutuality between those Acts of Parliament, but who am I to question about those elements of the Immigration and Asylum Bill—the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Home Secretary? I think that the Home Secretary is out of order in amending those Acts. If he is not, I sincerely hope that the Scottish Parliament will be able to amend the asylum legislation. This is an important issue, particularly as regards people in need. Whether we are discussing the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, there are many grey areas. Ultimately, when legal challenges are made, those questions will have to be determined not by the judicial committee of the Privy Council, but by a constitutional court.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The case that the hon. Gentleman makes in relation to Scotland is a lesser case with regard to Wales, because we are dealing with secondary rather than primary legislation. However, in interpreting ambiguous areas of primary or secondary education, the courts have reference to what has been said in this place, the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. To that extent, if a conflict is possible, it is extremely important to know where authority lies.
  Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Before we have a constitutional court, perhaps we need a constitutional committee to deal with those problems, which I believe arise with the Bill that is now in the other place. In addition to the informal contacts, which the hon. Member for Macclesfield mentions in paragraph 37 of his report, contact needs to be made between the Parliaments and Assemblies at a level below ministerial. Back Benchers should be able to discuss those matters with our colleagues in other Assemblies. If things go well in Northern Ireland—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss Northern Ireland in the context of this motion. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman is going a little wide when he talks about liaison. I have listened carefully, because I know that he is trying to make a case in relation to the last part of the motion, but he should not stray wider than that.
  Dr. Godman: I am sincerely grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for referring to Northern Ireland. I was simply going to say that we shall soon debate a similar motion if Senator Mitchell and those obdurate negotiators come to some agreement this week.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the

  769
  problems of interpretation, which he has rightly brought up, arise only if this House insists on legislating on matters that are devolved to Scotland and on using its powers under clause 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 to do so? The way to avoid interpretation problems is for this House to leave it up to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to take on any consequential changes—or not, as they wish.
  Dr. Godman: I could not agree more. As regards assisting people in need, we should be willing to trust the representatives in Edinburgh and Cardiff if they choose to implement legislation differently. We should accept that there will be differences.
  Let me return to the question of concordats and the memorandum of understanding. I have an abiding interest in the fishing industry, which is where conflicts will arise. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and I have the honour of being honorary presidents of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. No one can challenge the fact that the Scottish fishing industry is far more important to Scotland than the English fishing industry is to England. Paragraph B3.12 on page 20 of the memorandum of understanding says:
  "Ministers and officials of the devolved administrations should have a role to play in relevant Council meetings, and other negotiations with EU partners."
  I take it that we shall have a concordat on the fishing industry and other devolved matters, which will entail, among many other things, attendance at Fishery Council meetings in Brussels. However, I do not want to see a junior Minister there from the Edinburgh Parliament. Although my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) knows a thing or two about fishing, he will not be Minister for a lifetime. It is therefore important that clear guidelines are given.
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the lead Department. What I seek, in terms of concordats, is the right to question Ministers in this House on the implementation of decisions taken in Brussels by Fisheries Ministers. Many people, especially north of the border, wrongly believe that MAFF is an English Department and that Scotland now has a fisheries department that is equal to that English Department. However, that is not the case because Ministers in MAFF negotiate on behalf of our fishermen. That is an administrative power. As regards the operation of what I might call a fisheries concordat, discussions need to take place between Ministers here and in the Edinburgh Parliament, but Back Benchers should also be involved in such discussions on behalf of our fishermen constituents.
  Everyone in the fishing industry knows that a concordat on safety is not needed because, traditionally and historically, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responsible for the occupational safety of our fishermen. It always has been, and I agree that that is where it should stay—until we get an independent Scotland, which is many years away. However, on quotas and total allowable catches, this House is responsible for questioning the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I just wonder where the Secretary of State for Scotland comes into this.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with fascination. That question has
  770
  been put to the Secretary of State for Scotland on repeated occasions, including last Thursday night, but he appears unable to clarify what his role will be.
  Dr. Godman: I do not accept that for one moment, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so. He is being provocative in a parliamentary way.
  I am raising a serious issue: will Scottish Members question the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Scotland on these matters? If the Ministry is the lead Department, I want to be treated as an equal when I get to my feet to voice the concerns of my fishermen.
  There should be a memorandum of understanding on the relevant constituency roles of Members of this place and Members of the Scottish Parliament. Responsibilities have changed. In response to the question put to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West, I say that responsibilities have changed dramatically—for instance in health and education, which are now the responsibility of MSPs. However, even in health, a Minister might have an official interest in a health matter where the lead is taken by the Department of Health in Westminster. For example, if a decision is taken to abolish the use of electroconvulsive therapy in the treatment of depression, the Scottish Health Minister may take the lead, and we would have something to say in this place.
  I welcome the motion. I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that we cannot have hard and fast rules, but it is important that Ministers respect our interest in matters that fall between reserved and devolved powers.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I want briefly to raise just one matter of interpretation—not nearly as many as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) raised this issue in the debate last Thursday, and it has been partially alluded to by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). The first exception to the rules on questions is that a question can be tabled if it seeks information that the UK Government are empowered to require of the devolved Executive. I accept that that is reasonable in a devolved system—which is not one that I would choose. It is reasonable that if the UK Government are empowered to ask for such information, Members of the House should equally be empowered to ask questions about it.
  However, we must consider that rule in conjunction with clause 96 of the Scotland Act 1998. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West referred to the equivalent clause in the Government of Wales Act 1998, which deals with questions that the Treasury can ask of the devolved legislatures. He said that the clause in the Government of Wales Act was fairly broadly drawn, but it is narrowly drawn compared with the clause in the Scotland Act.
  The clause in the Government of Wales Act refers to the Treasury asking for information for the purposes of the operation of the Treasury, or some such phrase. Clause 96 in the Scotland Act makes no such stipulation; it simply says:
  "The Treasury may require the Scottish Ministers to provide, within such period as the Treasury may reasonably specify, such information, in such form and prepared in such manner, as the Treasury may reasonably specify."

  771
  Those qualifications are to do with the period or the form in which the information must be provided. There are no qualifications on the subject matter of the information for which the Treasury can ask.
  All hon. Members realise, I am sure, that the Treasury is a reasonable Department and would not possibly ask Scottish Ministers to provide information that was not germane to the running of the Treasury. I suspect that that clause enables the Treasury to ask the Scottish Parliament to provide any information that it wants. That drives a coach and horses through these amendments to Standing Orders. If the Treasury can ask the Scottish Parliament to provide any information, Members of the House should be able to ask questions about any information for which the Treasury might ask—not information for which it has asked, but for which theoretically it might ask in the future.
  We need clarification of this issue. Will the Minister reassure me? I do not see how he can, because the problem is not with the amendments to Standing Orders, but with clause 96 of the Scotland Act and the equivalent clause in the Government of Wales Act 1998.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove argued that hon. Members will always find a way round the prescriptions that we are trying to put into Standing Orders. What on earth are we doing here if we know that, whatever we say, a way will be found to get round the amendments? I would rather waste my time doing something else than debating an issue of purely academic interest. I would welcome the Minister's reassurances on this matter.
  7.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I am pleased that colleagues who sat through the long debate on Thursday and did not get an opportunity to speak have recycled their speeches tonight, albeit on narrower points. In a sense, the narrower the point becomes, the more difficult it is to answer. There has been a curious tension in this short debate between those who want greater clarity and certainty and those from the grey camp who appreciate the benefit of this field being wide open so that discussions continue and practice develops. I would be foolish to try to resolve all the issues that have been raised.
  We should listen to the voices of those who want greater opportunities rather than those who want greater prescriptiveness. There will clearly need to be a balance, and the Procedure Committee considered that balance carefully. The Committee, in its report, made important strides forward. It acknowledged the need to keep this matter under review. That may be the only point of clarity that we can achieve tonight, but it is an important first stake in the ground.
  A second important stake in the ground is the recognition that this is a two-way process. Devolution is still in its infancy, and we must develop appropriate relationships with colleagues, whether at ministerial or Assembly level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, we also need to go below that and talk to Members of the Assemblies.
  It is incumbent on all of us to set a pattern of good behaviour. It is also important to consider any responses we receive. A good relationship is like a good marriage:
  772
  we may have flaming rows, but we stay together and keep discussing matters. The question of who does what and what belongs to each other is in that area. We should allow the process to develop, discuss the issues, and be honest with each other.
  A specific question was asked about the effect of the proposed motion on questions to Ministers. All that can be said at this stage is that it provides the basis for the Chair to decide whether a question is in order. It reflects the current rules of the House, modified to take account of devolution. There will always be grey areas. Our whole proceedings contain grey areas, and we are always trying to define responsibility and to find the right answers.
  The Chair uses discretion in these matters. It is important that we protect the integrity of the Chair and preserve that discretion. However, ultimately a pattern will develop over a period that will set precedents in the House.
  Mr. Grieve: I may be pre-empting the Minister's comments, but, with particular reference to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), I noted from the Order Paper that an answer was supposed to be published today—I do not know whether it has been—to a question about the executive functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Will the Minister refer to that when he seeks to answer the questions that have been raised?
  Mr. Tipping: I can make no reference to that, because I have not seen the answer to the question, but I will make inquiries.
  A number of Members asked why the terms of paragraph (b)(ii) of the motion differ slightly from the wording in the Procedure Committee's report. The straight answer is that time overtook us: the report was agreed before the memorandum of understanding and the concordat were published. All matters, whether devolved or not, are in theory covered by the concordat. The original wording would therefore have enabled questions to be asked about all devolved matters, but the revised wording makes it clear that questions can be asked about the mechanics of liaison with the devolved Administrations. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde earlier, the process rather than the outcome is under examination.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) raised a number of issues relating to innocent financial matters. Would the House still be able to debate expenditure in Scotland and Wales? Again, I feel that this involves a grey area, which will require testing. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that the House contained imaginative characters who would find new devices, but I think that it has been acknowledged, essentially, that the block grant will remain the responsibility of the two Secretaries of State. That means that the Estimates will be approved by the House, and that there will be ample opportunities for Members to discuss them. The real debate—the real area of potential disagreement—will, I think, focus on how the money is subsequently distributed, on a different basis. I should like to be able to give a clear answer now, but I think we shall have to work on this.
  My hon. Friend also made an important point, which accorded with what he said about having good working relationships with colleagues in different bodies

  773
  representing the same area. One point of conflict is likely to be the way in which constituency correspondence is handled. Some hon. Members are smiling. I am aware that this has already given rise to one or two flashpoints, and it is another matter on which we shall need to work, but guidance has already been issued to Departments.
  The general expectation is that constituency correspondence on non-devolved matters should be routed through a Westminster Member of Parliament, and that letters about devolved matters should be dealt with through a Member of the devolved legislature. If a Member of the devolved legislature writes to a United Kingdom Minister about a non-devolved matter, a substantive reply will, I think, be sent. I do not think that there is any belief that a substantive reply will have to be sent, but the advice in the letter from Ministers suggests that in future the constituent who has raised an issue relating to a reserved matter ought to raise it through a Westminster Member of Parliament. That will require a good deal of give and take. There will be difficulties, but if we are determined to make the process work it is incumbent on us all to do our best.
  Mr. Wigley: It is clearly incumbent on us to do our best, but I think it unfair to expect constituents to know exactly where the demarcation lies. That applies particularly in Wales, where the legislative function may lie in Westminster while the Executive and secondary legislative function may lie in Cardiff. That must be a matter of give and take between members.
  Mr. Tipping: That is a strong point. It must be recognised that, while we struggle with the issues here, constituents may have greater problems in resolving them. I have always believed that we are not the fount of all wisdom: occasionally we get things wrong, and a good deal of common sense exists among the electorate. I agree that we shall have to work at it, and that there will have to be a good deal of give and take.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If a United Kingdom Department received a letter from, say, a Member of the Scottish Parliament about a reserved matter, would there be any objection to a substantive reply being sent to the MSP, but a copy being sent automatically to the Member of the United Kingdom Parliament representing the area in which the MSP had his or her constituency?
  Mr. Tipping: There might be a good deal of sense in that, but I feel that we must respect confidentiality. Although in principle I would like to support that idea, I think that it involves clear issues of confidentiality and respect. I hope that, as we all become more accustomed to the procedures, we shall make further progress.
  Dr. Godman: I do not think that we have publicised sufficiently the responsibilities of MSPs and MPs in Scotland. Constituents, especially elderly constituents, may be confused. I am currently dealing with a health case involving a constituent, who has told me that she has no desire to consult the local MSP. There are four MSPs
  774
  in my area, so it is a complicated matter, and I think that better publicity would help constituents to knock on the right door.
  Mr. Tipping: One answer might be to consult the guidance note that will shortly be placed in the Library. It will set out as clearly as possible the division between reserved and devolved matters under devolution legislation. I know that many of my colleagues use the Library research papers as a way of informing members of the general public. I accept, however, that much work remains to be done.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked for a definition of official duties and official interests, and I should like to be able to give him a clear example. Let me attempt to explain how I think the system will work.
  It seems to me that if Ministers of the Crown are taking an interest in various items and are going around the country making statements and speeches and, in a sense, trying to influence policy-making, Back Benchers will notice that. I feel that such Ministers would be showing an "official interest". Again, this is a grey area, but technically they should not be going beyond their ministerial responsibilities. If they are unwise enough to speak out of turn and take an official interest in matters that are not technically their preserve in terms of a reserved-devolved list, I do not think that it would be unreasonable for Back-Bench Members to use their wits, and the resources of the Table Office, to question them. As I have said, however, it is a grey area, and one to which I am sure we shall return.
  That brings me back to where I started, and to where the Procedure Committee left off. These are difficult issues. As I said at the outset, this is not the first occasion on which we have discussed devolution, and I am sure that it will not be the last. Many Members on both sides of the House have anxieties. They appreciate and can identify the conflicts. We need to be honest with each other and to admit that there are difficulties and conflicts. However, we have decided on the current route and we should all use our best endeavours to make the system work.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, subject always to the discretion of the Chair, and in addition to the established rules of order on the form and content of questions, questions may not be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales unless the question:

  (a) seeks information which the UK Government is empowered to require of the devolved executive, or

  (b) relates to matters which:

  (i) are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament,

  (ii) are concerned with the operation of a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the UK Government and the devolved executive, or

  (iii) UK Government ministers have taken an official interest in, or

  (c) presses for action by UK ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers.

  Select Committees (Devolution)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) be amended as follows:

  In line 22, to leave out the words "and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only" and insert the words "and not within paragraph (10) of this order"

  In line 23, at the end, to insert the words "any statutory instrument made by a member of the Scottish Executive or by the National Assembly for Wales unless it is required to be laid before Parliament or either House of Parliament and not including"——[Mr. Tipping.]

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
  That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

  In item 12 of the table, to leave out the words in column 2 and insert the words "Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the offices of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General))"; and

  In item 16 of the table, in column 2, after "Welsh Office" add the words "(Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))"

  8.10 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I agree with the motion as far as it goes. I put down one marker: the Procedure Committee felt that the role of the Scottish, Welsh and, I hope, in due course, Northern Ireland territorial Select Committees should go further than the current Standing Order, or even the amendment to the Standing Order. It appears to the Procedure Committee that the work of the territorial Committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be unnecessarily limited if they cannot go further in inquiring into matters that will have a major UK impact on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland, who I am delighted to see in his place, at one stage had responsibility for transport. One can imagine matters relating to transport having a major impact on Scotland. Therefore, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs might want to take evidence from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It was the Procedure Committee's view that, if we were to have excellent co-operation between the devolved areas of the UK and the UK Parliament, the territorial Select Committees, which we recommended should remain, should no longer fall under the current Standing Order, but be able to take a broader perspective.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)—I am glad that I have got the constituency right; it is an important constituency in Scotland—raised a matter relating to agriculture. Clearly, in that instance, it would be important for the Scottish Affairs Committee to be able to take evidence from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have already referred to transport.
  I put that down as a marker. Last week, both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Leader of the House talked about flexibility and leaving doors open for
  776
  future discussion and amendment. I hope that the Government and the House will change the Standing Orders to enable the territorial Select Committees on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to adopt a broader perspective to ensure that the interests of all parts of the UK are properly taken into account.
  8.14 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Some months ago, during the passage of the Scotland Bill through this place, I questioned the advisability of retaining the Select Committees on Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland and, indeed, the Grand Committees, once the two Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament were up and running and had developed institutions and procedures of their own, but I acknowledge the good sense of what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said. If the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food comes back to the House from the annual negotiations in Brussels concerning total allowable catches and quotas, it might be useful for him or her to be questioned on behalf of Scottish fishing communities by the Select Committee.
  I am doing a headstand, but I believe that, in the long run, the Committees should go. We should devise other means of cross-examining Ministers and of carrying out our work on behalf of our constituents—I am talking about Scotland, of course.
  The recommendation in paragraph 21 of the Procedure Committee report has been honourably adopted by the Government. The recommendation is that
  "such Committees liaise with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly".
  The motion says:
  "In item 12 of the table, to leave out the words in column 2 and insert the words 'Scotland Office'"—
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is here—
  "'(including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament'".
  Let us look at what is being deleted in terms of the examination of the Scottish Office, the administration of and expenditure by the Advocate General's Department and the policy functions that are discharged by the Advocate General.
  Perhaps in the short run the policy makes sense, especially in light of what I said earlier about the need for Scots Members of the UK Parliament to liaise and to develop relations with Members of the Scottish Parliament. It appears that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will act as some kind of liaison committee with Committees in the Scottish Parliament. I wonder—the Minister will have to write to me, of course—whether discussions have taken place with the Executive in the Scottish Parliament concerning a similar Committee being set up in that Parliament to negotiate with the Scottish Affairs Committee in its role as a liaison committee.
  I remind the Minister that several Committees in the Scottish Parliament are concerned with the functions that are the responsibility of the First Minister and his Executive. Therefore, I should like to know whether there is a likelihood of a liaison committee being set up in the Assemblies, particularly the Scottish Parliament, so that the relevant two Committees can get together to deal with matters that appear to be reserved, yet are devolved in some respects.

  777
  I am sorry to come back to the fishing industry, but it is an important matter. In relation to Brussels, it will be dealt with by a concordat, presumably. I am glad to accept that, but it seems that issues may be raised within both the Scottish Parliament and UK Parliament, involving the Secretary of State for Scotland in the latter case, of course, where we need to liaise closely with our colleagues in Edinburgh.
  I should like to know what discussions have taken place with the body in Edinburgh concerning the important matter of maintaining good relations with the Scottish Parliament. It is not a bad idea for the Scottish Affairs Committee to perform that function in the short and medium term. That important aspect of the Select Committee's modus operandi might be overtaken in time with the setting up of a council of the isles, where matters of mutual interest will be debated by representatives of all the Assemblies and Parliaments. Until that comes along, despite my view of the Scottish Affairs Committee and Scottish Grand Committee, we will, as the Minister rightly said, inevitably have to review such matters, perhaps annually. Perhaps the Standing Order will have to be amended again in a year, when our Scottish Parliament will be a year older and, I suspect, our colleagues in that Parliament will—vis-à-vis the United Kingdom Parliament—be even more jealous of their powers.
  I should like the Select Committees and the Grand Committees to go eventually, but think that, in these very early days of what can only be described as a form of asymmetrical devolution, the Procedure Committee and the Government have acted very sensibly in their proposals. There are bound to be difficulties, conflicts and tensions, and to say otherwise would only be to act the daft laddie. I know from my discussions with the convener of the Edinburgh Parliament's Local Government Committee that there are differences of view on those issues. However, I believe that the Scottish Affairs Committee, playing the type of role that I have described, could enable both Parliaments to avoid, reduce or eliminate some of the tensions and conflicts that are inevitable in the early days of devolution.
  Some months ago, I said in the House that there will be not only intended, but unintended consequences of such remarkable constitutional change. In the short run, the Scottish Affairs Committee will have an important role to play in dealing with Members of the Scottish Parliament.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) in his statement that the Select Committees should continue in the short and medium terms. However, in the long term, I should like there to be a change in the Select Committees, as we should have members of the National Assembly for Wales and of the Scottish Parliament on a Joint Committee. I think that that would probably be a better way forward.
  Last week, we debated in full the Procedure Committee's report. I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that that report was an extremely good one. He has also said, and I agree with him, that the motion that we are now debating is good in so far as it goes. However, I think that there are some problems with the motion, which I shall illustrate with an example—although not the one that I used in last week's debate, as that was perhaps not good enough.
  778
  Currently, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which I am delighted to chair, is considering the matter of structural funds. Although the matter of structural funds in Wales is dealt with by the Assembly, public expenditure cover and match funding will have to come either from the Welsh block or from central Government funding. I shall not go any further into that example, as I am sure that I would be ruled out of order if I did.
  The problem with the Standing Order is that it will not compel the Secretary of State—or, in the case of structural funds, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to appear before the Select Committee, although it is necessary for the Committee to be able to interrogate various Departments on specific policy matters. Conversely, the Secretary of State for Wales—whom the Committee will be able to continue to call before us—does not have any role in policy making, in either devolved or non-devolved matters.
  The Select Committee will be examining cross-border issues, such as structural funds. If we cannot invite a Secretary of State to appear before us—and have a reasonable expectation that he or she will do so—to discuss policy on non-devolved issues, we shall be operating at a disadvantage. I do not think that the Government want Select Committees to work at such a disadvantage, because I believe that Ministers want Select Committees to work and to make devolved government work in Wales and Scotland.
  I accept that the Standing Order amendments will almost certainly be passed today. I do not object to the amendments, but think that they are good so far as they go. However, I should like a statement from the Minister, if he would be so kind, that Ministers and departmental representatives will be expected to appear before the Welsh Select Committee and—provided that the Committee makes a case—to give their views on policy issues concerning legislation on England and Wales that exclusively affects Wales. I shall be grateful if the Minister will deal with that matter.
  8.25 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Hon. Members have made supportive remarks on the roles and responsibilities of Select Committees and, to a lesser extent, of Grand Committees. Hon. Members seem to recognise that—in the short and middle term, although one or two hon. Members think not in the long term—there will be a continuing role for those bodies. The Government clearly believe that, at this stage, the Committees provide flexibility and serve as vehicles enabling us to deal with a changing situation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, spoke about an issue that his Committee is currently considering—a review of structural funds—and a desire to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer give evidence. I should say that this is not a new debate. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and some other hon. Members will know that there has long been a real dialogue between Departments and Select Committees seeking to get Ministers before them, to answer questions and to be grilled on their ministerial responsibilities. Clearly, with both the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the Select Committee on Welsh

  779
  Affairs, the relevant Secretary of State will be the key point of contact, and the strong voice of Scotland and of Wales in both the Cabinet and the Westminster Parliament. It will be important for Ministers to give evidence to those Committees.
  Over the years, however, there has never been a compulsory mechanism, forcing Ministers to appear before Select Committees. Over the years, various schemes have been intended to ensure that Ministers do give evidence. My expectation, however, is that things will not change overly. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South said, if a real and a strong case can be made, quite properly, there will be an expectation that Ministers should respond and give evidence.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that the order does not introduce that. All that I am at pains to say to him is that there is nothing new in his argument. We have talked about this being a two-way process that needs good will and adult politics. Ministers would be well advised to heed requests for their attendance. My hon. Friend need have no doubt that the report of this debate will be on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I hope that it helps his case in the short term.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield also talked about the need for a wider discussion. It is important that the relevant Secretary of State should be the touchstone and key point of contact with the Select Committees, but Select Committees and Grand Committees will also want to see other Ministers. The hon. Gentleman mentioned transport. I come from a rural area. I should like an opportunity to press Treasury Ministers on the fuel escalator, as would some of my constituents. Those in the rural parts of Scotland might want the Select Committee to press a case with a Treasury Minister on transport policy and the fuel escalator. A similar case could be made on excise duty on Scottish whisky. The Secretary of State is an important point of contact, but the matter is the responsibility of the Treasury and a strong case could be made. There would be anticipation that Ministers should respond.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for the guidance that he is giving to members of the Government in all Departments, albeit the touchstones will be the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. I hope that they will use their good offices to ensure that if the territorial Select Committees want to tackle Ministers from other Departments of the United Kingdom Parliament, the process will be facilitated and encouraged.
  Mr. Tipping: Despite what occasionally appears quite erroneously in the newspapers, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales want the process to work. They know that they cannot achieve that by themselves. They will use their considerable power and influence to ensure that other ministerial colleagues take part in the process.
  In a sense, that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) was asking. He has undergone a conversion on Select Committees and Grand Committees. He now believes that they can be helpful in the short term. He has also been helpful in
  780
  saying that the Scottish Affairs Committee could be a liaison device with the new Parliament. He asked me what discussions had taken place with the new Executive and the new Parliament about formalising that role. I will have to write to him about that. The new Parliament in Scotland is still in its infancy and coming to terms with its roles. It will be some time before we can achieve that. My hon. Friend asked for flexibility and a good working relationship. The model that he is putting forward is worth further exploration.
  Dr. Godman: It is not so much a question of conversion as one of pragmatism. I said that the Select Committee had an important role to play in the short run. I want the development of the Council of the Isles, which will tackle matters of mutual concern and interest. That body might take on some of the duties and responsibilities of the Select Committees.
  Mr. Tipping: The Council of the Isles is a new body in its infancy. If my hon. Friend wants me to look in my crystal ball and tell him the weather forecast, I think that the council will grow in influence and importance. We have to gauge the pace of change and work towards a goal.
  My hon. Friend asked whether it would be possible to amend the orders in the future. The spirit of the debate has been to accept that these are new and difficult areas. We shall not be renewing the orders annually, but, as night follows day, it will be necessary at times to change the Standing Orders. If it is in the interests of making progress and making the process work, there will be no hesitation, and efforts will be made to find the time to ensure that that happens.
  With that, I hope that the House will approve the order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) be amended as follows:

  In line 22, to leave out the words "and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only" and insert the words "and not within paragraph (10) of this order"

  In line 23, at the end, to insert the words "any statutory instrument made by a member of the Scottish Executive or by the National Assembly for Wales unless it is required to be laid before Parliament or either House of Parliament and not including".

  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

  In item 12 of the table, to leave out the words in column 2 and insert the words "Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the offices of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General))"; and

  In item 16 of the table, in column 2, after "Welsh Office" add the words "(Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))".—[Mr. Tipping.]

  ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) be amended as follows:

  In line 1, to leave out the words "the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland" and insert "the Advocate General and Mr. Solicitor General".

  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards and Privileges) be amended as follows:

  In line 58, to leave out the words "the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland" and insert "the Advocate General and Mr. Solicitor General".—.[Mr. Tipping.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 26th October, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. William Hague as if that day were one of the Opposition Days allotted under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business).—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  Armed Forces (Children's Education)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Bob Russell: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) to her first appearance at the Dispatch Box since her appointment in the summer. I am delighted that her debut is in a debate on the subject of state education for children of armed forces personnel—an issue which, while it is of considerable importance, is not party politically contentious.
  This country owes a great deal to those who serve in our armed forces. Sadly, as a nation, we are short-changing the children of our soldiers, sailors and airmen and airwomen who attend schools with a large number of the offspring of service personnel. There are around 85,000 of school age.
  Although this debate—quite rightly—will receive a response from an Education Minister, I must stress that the matters that I raise have an important bearing also on the interests of those serving in our armed forces. Therefore, I hope that what is said tonight will be drawn to the attention of Defence Ministers.
  Representing a garrison town, I see the consequences of a numerically under-strength Army having to deal with an increasing number of commitments. The overstretch, including back-to-back tours of duty in various parts of the world—keeping the peace in Bosnia and Kosovo are the two obvious ones at present, but there are others, both past and on-going—that this causes, coupled with the need for regular training and other duties, means that many of our soldiers are absent from their families for months on end.
  In many respects, their children are brought up for long periods as if they were from one-parent families. At such times, virtually every pupil in a school can come from a home with only one parent living there—a proportion considerably greater than would be found in just about every other school around the country.
  Retention of skilled and professional military personnel is an increasing worry for our armed forces. Large numbers of people are leaving the services because of family unhappiness caused by the overstretch commitments. Education concerns about their children can be a contributory factor for a service man or woman in deciding to leave the armed forces. If joined-up government is a concept that operates in practice, the Department for Education and Employment—wearing both its hats—must consider defence matters when it comes to the education and well-being of service personnel.
  The situation is not, of course, a new one, although it has taken on greater significance in recent years. However, perhaps it is only now that it has come to national prominence. I am delighted to announce that, next month, the National Association of State Schools for Service Children—formed earlier this year at a meeting in Colchester which I had the privilege to attend—will be holding a conference in London.
  I am advised that Education Ministers have declined to attend the conference. I regret that, and I hope that, after tonight's debate, that decision will be reconsidered.

  783
  The importance of the conference—entitled "A Fairer Deal for Forces Families"—warrants official ministerial recognition. The venue is within walking distance of this House. I am assured that it is on a safe route.
  In welcoming the formation of the NASSSC, I wish to pay tribute to the pioneers—those schools in Colchester with a strong Army involvement who, in 1992, formed the Colchester Association of State Schools for Service Children. The schools involved are Kingsford infant and junior; St. Teresa's primary; St Michael's primary; Alderman Blaxill secondary; the splendidly named Montgomery infant and junior; and, from elsewhere in East Anglia, Wimbish and Debden primary schools.
  The numbers of children from service families attending those schools range from almost one in five pupils at St. Teresa's Catholic school to 95 per cent. at St. Michael's.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: I concur with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. In my constituency, Coltishall Airfield first school, which was built as a middle school, has 100 per cent. service children, and we are campaigning on their behalf to turn it back into a middle school, because many service personnel and their children are being disadvantaged.
  Mr. Russell: That story is repeated in locations throughout the United Kingdom where there is a major military presence. St. Michael's school was on 99 per cent., but two non-military families moved in and knocked the figure down to 95 per cent.
  Word of the Colchester association gradually spread to schools in other parts of the United Kingdom catering for children of service personnel and, in March, nearly 40 heads came to Colchester to form a national association and to discuss "issues of turbulence", which I am advised is the official description of the special problems with which such schools have to contend.
  Essex local education authority acknowledges the unique requirements of schools with large numbers of children from Army families and does what it can to make additional provision from its tight budget. It has always been supportive of the particular needs of schools with service children and has provided the local association with a link officer; but not all LEAs follow that good example.
  I invite the Minister to regard special additional funding for the turbulence factor in such schools as a national issue, not to be determined at the whim of individual LEAs. In fairness, they are already under considerable pressure when allocating resources for all the competing demands that are made on them.
  The cost of defending the realm is met centrally. I suggest that the same principle should apply to the special education funding needed at schools that admit as pupils children of military personnel, simply because the geographic locations of military establishments that serve the whole nation are not governed by LEA boundaries.
  Head teachers from the national association are deeply concerned about the extreme turbulence experienced by the schools and their pupils, as well as about target setting and benchmarking. A further concern is the time of year when regiments and other units move to new bases in
  784
  the United Kingdom or go overseas; and there is also the question of those returning to the UK. We are talking not about one family moving because a parent gets a new job, as happens from time to time in all schools, but about perhaps half the school population leaving in mid-term, to be replaced the next week by an equally large number of new pupils. That presents human and logistical problems with which no other kind of school has to contend.
  At Colchester garrison, infantry regiments traditionally move after a posting of between two and four years. Next year, as a result of the recent formation of 16 Air Assault Brigade, two battalions of the Parachute Regiment will move from Aldershot to Colchester to replace the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment and 1st Battalion, Royal Scots. The massive pupil movements associated with the departure and arrival of the soldiers are set to take place in and around the period when the youngsters face their standard assessment tests and GCSEs.
  One of the Colchester heads, Mr. Graham Eskell of Montgomery junior school, in a letter to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 23 September, said:
  "This kind of disruption to children's education is dreadfully disruptive for schools and makes a complete mockery of the investment of time, energy and money that has been expended in the previous months. The impact upon the children themselves promises to be potentially traumatic. While you are making every effort to prevent parents taking their children out of school during the SATs weeks the kind of disruption outlined above bears at least equal scrutiny.
  I would wish to stress that we have had tremendous support from our Army colleagues locally, and while local Military personnel are very well aware of the impact of movement at such an important time on children and families there would appear to be a significant lack of awareness at the very highest levels where strategic planning is taking place. The most sensible option as far as we are concerned would be that large strategic movements should only take place during the summer months once all the Key school examinations have been completed."
  May I invite the Department for Education and Employment to pursue that suggestion with the Ministry of Defence?
  I am sure that the Minister will concede that target setting is almost impossible for schools with large numbers of children from the armed forces. I am sure also that she will agree that heads of schools with a large turnover of pupils—where incoming pupils will replace pupils two or three times before a class of four-year-olds comes of secondary school age elsewhere in the UK or overseas—cannot produce viable targets as there are no national benchmark figures to enable them to make comparisons.
  That was confirmed earlier this year when The Times Educational Supplement quoted a senior official of the Department for Education and Employment as saying:
  "It's difficult where you have got very high turbulence. How can you use benchmark data when you have service children who don't have free school meals? And how can you use teacher forecasts when two years' ahead it's going to be almost a different class? We accept it is almost impossible."
  Assuming that the Minister agrees with those observations, will she also accept the findings of a survey conducted by the NASSSC, which stated that turbulence figures that show the percentage turnover of pupils each year should be used for benchmarking schools rather than free school meals? No allowance is made for pupil mobility when compiling these statistics. Why not?

  785
  An Oxfordshire primary school, for example, noted how its low level of free school meals put it in the upper reaches of the benchmarking tables. However, 60 per cent. of the pupils taking key stage 2 tests had not been there for key stage 1. There can be no argument that children's progress often slows after changing schools, and children of service personnel experience several changes.
  A report in March to councillors in the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead stated that the children of soldiers were suffering through having their education disrupted by the uncertainty of Army life. It was said that some children were displaying problems caused by the frequent moves as their fathers were given new postings. The high turnover of pupils at one school meant that there were only four children in year 4 who had been there since the reception class. The report stated:
  "Some of the children display emotional and behavioural problems caused by changing school and home so often."
  Head teacher Mrs. Valerie Clark of St. Michael's primary school, Colchester, where there are only nine pupils out of about 200 youngsters whose mother or father is not serving in the Army, tells me:
  "Our teachers work very hard and we do not want them to feel demoralised by inappropriate benchmarking or the setting of targets which may be unattainable if a cohort changes dramatically.
  The Association totally supports the Government's initiatives to raise standards and to improve the quality of education for our pupils, but the present system does not fully recognise the special characteristics of schools which can have very mobile populations in them."
  Target setting for a cohort is problematic when a significant percentage of each year group changes annually. With records from other schools often being variable, to put it mildly, making teacher assessments and predictions is difficult at best and useless at worst. The Government's White Paper, entitled "Excellence in Schools", makes no mention of pupil mobility, yet many of the policies pose particular problems for the high-mobility schools which children of service personnel attend.
  Dr. Janet Dobson of the migration research unit at the department of geography, University college London, is undertaking a research project on pupil mobility which is funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the Department of Education and Employment. The Department therefore knows the situation, but what is being done urgently to address the need to give a fairer deal for forces' families?
  Writing in The Times Educational Supplement in February this year about the response from heads to her call for information on how pupil mobility affects performance, Dr. Dobson said:
  "Schools close to Armed Forces' bases were described as having distinctive mobility characteristics in that large numbers of children could join or leave together at a particular time at the behest of a single employer and did so recurrently. In addition, individual families came and went for promotion or other reasons."
  Dr. Dobson also observed:
  "Schools with large numbers of children from forces' families expressed a particular concern about benchmarking as it currently operates. Not only did they have to cope with high levels of mobility and other aspects of family disruption associated with service life but their low level of free school meals meant that their performance was compared with schools that they perceived as being more stable and affluent than their own."
  Analysis by Dr. Dobson of the responses from head teachers revealed that comparative performances of mobile and non-mobile pupils at different key stages
  786
  showed that, in virtually all cases, the average performance of mobile pupils—the description given to children of service personnel—was below that of the non-mobile, often substantially so. Dr. Dobson went on to say:
  "Data from individual schools showed clearly how good performance by children who had been taught in the same school from the beginning could be hidden in aggregate school achievement figures which included many recent arrivals."
  The Minister will be aware that, with few exceptions, pupils who move from school to school do less well than their more settled classmates. During their years of education, children of service personnel generally attend several schools. That factor needs to be recognised and acted upon by the Government, with additional national resources being made available to help the children of those who defend our country's interests at home and abroad.
  I repeat my earlier question: what are the Government doing to help to improve the education of the children of our service personnel? It is almost a year since a previous Minister with responsibility for schools told the House that insufficient priority had been given to the effects on schools of high pupil mobility and that Dr. Dobson's research project would provide the basis of any policy changes needed to take account of pupil turnover. What has happened to implement the spirit of what was promised? Issuing policy guidelines is insufficient. Schools that educate the children of our service personnel need additional help now.
  The children of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and women deserve the best. At the moment, they are not being treated fairly. The nature of military life means that provision of education for children of service personnel will always have challenges and problems that are markedly different from those faced by children from settled backgrounds. The Government have a duty to do what they can to make life fairer and better for children from service families. Words are not enough: action is needed, and without delay.
  8.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) for his kind words on my first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I also congratulate him on obtaining this important debate, and assure him that my Department is working closely with the Ministry of Defence on the issue.
  The sons and daughters of service personnel are educated in three different settings: overseas, in UK independent schools and in UK state schools. I shall start with the first of those settings because it is important in the context of the education of service children.
  Many children of service personnel are educated abroad at schools run by Service Children's Education, or the SCE, an executive agency of the Ministry of Defence. It is run largely along the lines of an English local education authority and operates in accordance with sound UK practice, including the delivery of the same national curriculum that applies in England and Wales. Its schools are supported by child guidance and careers guidance services. There are some 50 SCE schools in areas of the world where the British forces have significant numbers of personnel, such as Germany, Cyprus, Belize and the Falkland Islands.

  787
  It is a measure of the success of SCE schools that their examination and assessment results would place them among the leading education authorities in the UK. Reports by the Office for Standards in Education, which provides an independent inspection service for the schools, have been consistently good over a number of years. The work of the schools is backed by SCE's own inspection advisory service, which provides extensive and varied training facilities to ensure that staff in schools are conversant with developments in the United Kingdom. It is worth noting that the SCE is also matching the Government's ambitious plans for the expansion of nursery education in the UK.
  There will be occasions when service personnel are posted to locations where there are no SCE schools. In those situations, children can attend the UK boarding schools—either maintained or independent—that are on the Ministry of Defence's admissible schools list.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Colchester is largely concerned with those children of service personnel based in the UK who are usually educated near where their mothers or fathers are based. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, because of the nature of their parents' jobs these children may often have to change schools, sometimes at short notice. Our aim, and that of the Ministry of Defence, is to ensure that those children suffer as little disruption to their education as possible.
  I deal now with the particular concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed. I am very much aware of the effects that the movement of Army personnel into and out of his constituency will have on service children and on state schools. Clearly, that problem also affects other hon. Members' constituents.
  There are about 185,000 service children in UK state schools. The movement of armed forces families can therefore have an impact on certain parts of the school system. The Government, together with those local education authorities with high concentrations of service children, have taken steps to minimise that impact.
  I take this opportunity to welcome the establishment of the National Association of State Schools for Service Children. Although Ministers will not attend the association's conference, officials from my Department will be there and will listen carefully to the concerns expressed and recommendations made. In addition, I can assure the House that Ministers are adopting a joined-up approach to the range of issues affecting service families, including education. We are doing so through the joint ministerial services families task force, of which I am a member. I have already attended a meeting of that task force, and understand that one of its early concerns in connection with education had to do with admissions. The Government recognise the particular needs of service children in that regard, and we have made significant progress.
  In March, my Department published its code of practice on school admissions. The paragraph entitled "Children of UK Service Personnel and other Crown Servants" states:
  "These families are subject to frequent movement within the UK and from abroad, often at relatively short notice. LEAs and School Admission Authorities in those areas with a significant standing presence of Service Personnel should ensure that the needs of Service children are taken into account, by considering inviting the Service Children's Education authority to the Admissions Forum."
  788
  Similarly, the section headed "Admission Appeals" states:
  "Any parent (except, temporarily, the parent of a child who has been permanently excluded from two schools and where at least one of the exclusions took place since 1 September 1997) who is refused a school place for which they have applied, has the right to appeal to an independent appeal panel. This right applies equally to parents returning from working abroad or subject to frequent movements within the UK, such as Service personnel and other Crown Servants."
  The chief executive of the SCE wrote to the 12 local education authorities with the largest concentrations of service personnel in August this year to determine their progress in setting up admissions forums and in including the SCE's representatives as members.
  Mr. Russell: The Department has recognised that 12 local education authorities have a particular interest in the education of children of service personnel. Does that mean that it will provide additional national resources for those 12 LEAs, as they have problems over and above those of other authorities?
  Jacqui Smith: I was about to say that the chief executive has written in similar terms to a further eight LEAs, so it is not right to say that we can easily identify the LEAs. My Department's priority has been to encourage partnership between the SCE and the LEAs concerned. I shall touch on local funding later in my speech.
  It may be helpful if I outline the background to current troop movements. Army personnel move in one of two ways—within formed units or as individuals. More than two thirds of moves are by individuals. Moves can take place at any time of year and must, of course, be subject to operational needs which, for a fighting force, must take priority. Having said that, the Army has in recent years attempted to concentrate such movements in school holidays, specifically the summer holidays. Service families want their children to complete whole years of schooling, and the Army is doing its best to meet that aspiration as far as is possible.
  Certain units in the Army—the front-line units—move as formed units because that is how they fight. Those units, and their families, are based in a range of locations in the United Kingdom and abroad. Some of those locations are arduous, and units can be posted to them for only limited periods. The Army calls the process of rotating front-line units through locations the arms plot. Two factors drive the arms plot: the maximum amount of time that units can remain in an arduous environment, and the times of the year when they can be replaced. Most arms plot moves, like individual moves, take place in the summer holidays, again because the Army wants to reduce the impact of these moves on service children.
  Two parachute battalions are being relocated from their long-established base at Aldershot to Colchester—the hon. Gentleman's constituency—as part of the strategic defence review. The Parachute Regiment will leave its home in Aldershot, where it has been since the second world war. Once in Colchester, it will form part of 16 Air Assault Brigade. However, space must be created to allow it to move to Colchester, which is why the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment will move out in April 2000, followed shortly next summer by the First Battalion, the Royal Scots.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman can appreciate that important operational reasons have dictated the timing of moves out of his constituency, which is why they are

  789
  taking place during the period of children's standard assessment tests. I assure him that we recognise the concern that that has caused, and that such moves are exceptional. Furthermore, where a parent is moved at that time, his or her spouse and children can remain in the accommodation for up to three months to enable SATs to be completed. For exams such as GCSE and A-levels, the period can be even longer. That displays the importance that the Ministry of Defence places on service children's education.
  My Department and LEAs recognise the turbulence that such changes can create, which is why LEAs—I am pleased to say that Essex is included—provide extra resources for the schools affected. That may partly explain why, according to research about to be published by Janet Dobson on the effects of pupil mobility, which is partly funded by my Department, the levels of achievement of children in schools with large numbers of service children seem to compare favourably with children in other schools where there is unusually high mobility.
  The research looked at only a sample of service children's schools, but it found that a high proportion of such children do better than other children with high mobility. That is testimony to the hard work of schools, and the involvement of service parents, in overcoming the difficulties of high mobility in order to help to achieve our aim of raising standards in all schools. I assure the hon. Member for Colchester that we intend to use the results of the research on mobility to help to guide future policies.
  In relation to target setting, I want to mention briefly our proposals for raising school performance. The Government strongly believe that setting specific, measurable targets at least once a year for pupil performance is a powerful lever for raising standards in our schools. That view was supported in the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority consultation on target setting. Target setting should support school improvement and should not become a burdensome administrative procedure. Targets have to be set each autumn term. They must relate to those pupils who will take the national curriculum tests, GCSE examinations or equivalent towards the end of the following school year—
  790
  that is, five terms later. Schools may want to augment those targets with others of their own choosing, to reflect their particular priorities. That may be especially important for state schools with high numbers of service children.
  In addition, schools should discuss indicative targets for future years as part of their dialogue with LEAs within the education development plan process. We expect LEAs to take account of circumstances such as the mobility of children of service personnel when setting those targets. The introduction of performance targets in schools is sufficiently flexible to take account of individual circumstances.
  To return to the hon. Gentleman's concerns about benchmarking, the effect of pupil mobility is also considered by Ofsted. In January 2000, we shall for the first time be collecting detailed information on pupils that will enable us to track the progress and the schools of individual pupils. We expect that that information about pupil mobility will thereafter be available to inspectors and will be included in the PANDA, or performance and assessment information, and PICSI, the pre-inspection context and school indicator, reports that are issued to schools by Ofsted.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that Ofsted's revised framework for inspection, to be published later this year, will require inspectors to collect data on pupil mobility when considering their inspections, and to comment on that where appropriate.
  In conclusion, schools, LEAs and Ofsted can all take into account the needs and difficulties that may face service children in state schools. We accept the commitment mentioned by the hon. Gentleman on the importance of ensuring that, as with all our children, education for the children of those people in our services is of as high a quality as possible. I am sure that he shares our commitment to the standards agenda—to raise standards for all children, including those from service families.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Nine o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Climate Change Levy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the impact of the Climate Change Levy on the transport industry. [94161]

  Mr. Byers
  As part of an ongoing process of dialogue and consultation between Government and business on the Climate Change Levy, I held a meeting with business representatives, including the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, on 20 October 1999.

  Forest Products
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the environmental non-Governmental organisations with which he has held meetings during the past 12 months to discuss the proposal to establish a World Trade Organisation agreement on forest products. [93834]

  Mr. Caborn
  My predecessor, Ministerial colleagues from other Government Departments, officials and I myself have held numerous meetings with environmental and other non-governmental organisations over the past 12 months to discuss the proposed new Round of multilateral trade negotiations in the World Trade Organisation. Proposals for tariff reductions on forest products have been dealt with in these meetings in the context of the United Kingdom and European Union approach to trade liberalisation in a new Round.

  Europlanner Disc
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many copies of the Europlanner disc have been created; at what cost; and how have they been distributed. [95230]

  Mr. Caborn
  The EuroPlanner (floppy disc) is a practical, self-help tool to help businesses prepare for the euro. Over 105,000 copies of the EuroPlanner have so far been distributed by Business Links, other intermediaries, the Treasury's euro telephone line (08456 01 01 99) and my Department to business to help them prepare their euro strategy. It is also available on the internet (www.connectbestpractice.com) and on a Euro CD ROM. The development and production costs for 155,000 copies of the disc were £109,000.

  My Department launched the EuroPlanner on 23 February in response to requests from UK businesses and Business Support Organisations. It is important that UK firms consider the implications of the single currency and where necessary take steps to prepare. I would encourage British companies to use the EuroPlanner to help them do this.

  European State Aid
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list, by country, the total amount of state aid approved by the Commission since the signing of the Single European Act. [95407]

  Mr. Caborn
  Between 1987 and 1997, the Commission approved a total of approximately 861,438 million euros in State aid throughout the EU, of which 430,240.21 million euros was paid to the manufacturing industry.

  These data were compiled from the Commission's surveys on aid to industry across the EU; the most recent being "The Seventh Survey on aid in the EU in the manufacturing and certain other sectors", which was published in March 1999. The Eighth Survey, covering the period 1997–98, has not yet been published. The surveys provide a broad overview on aid granted across the EU, but data on State aid to agriculture, fisheries, coal, steel, transport and the financial services sector are not broken down by country.

  The table sets out the total State aid to the manufacturing industry granted by each member state in millions of euro.

  Millions of euro

  Member state

  Total state aid to industry 1987–97

  Austria1

  1,600.00

  Belgium

  13,925.00

  Denmark

  5,213.79

  Germany

  144,983.00

  Greece

  35,998.20

  Spain

  23,303.10

  Finland1

  1,154.00

  France

  54,899.80

  Ireland

  3,986.22

  Italy

  116,907.00

  Luxembourg

  503.18

  Netherlands

  9,268.99

  Portugal

  5,419.54

  Sweden1

  1,140.00

  UK

  25,216.60

  1 Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU in 1995

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total value of contracts awarded to date in Kosovo since the cessation of hostilities, broken down by nationality of company. [95405]

  Mr. Caborn
  Almost all the contracts awarded to date to agencies and companies have been those to meet the immediate humanitarian needs in Kosovo. There is no central register of the multiplicity of such agencies which have won such contracts either through bilateral aid support or through that provided via other organisations such as the United Nations. However, British Trade International, the recently established joint DTI/FCO trade promotion organisation has, in conjunction with the British Office in Pristina, been asked (through the joint private sector Kosovo Taskforce established by the Secretary of State) to put together a list with details of all British companies which have won contracts in Kosovo.

  The most significant of these to date is the concession awarded to a British consortium led by Mott MacDonald to manage the power sector in Kosovo over the next seven

  657
  months; this should help ensure that there is sufficient power to enable Kosovo to get through the forthcoming hard winter. British Trade International has put nearly £500,000 into this project; a similar amount has been provided by the European Union.

  Sombrero Island
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 115, what is the latest position regarding the possible lease of Sombrero Island for the purpose of launching commercial satellites. [94800]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Officials from the British National Space Centre remain in contact with the Government of Anguilla providing technical advice and assistance on the outer space aspects of the request by the US company Beal Aerospace to lease Sombrero Island for the purpose of launching commercial satellites. Officials are also helping the Anguillans to assess the probable environmental consequences of the proposed activity. ICF Kaizer have conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment on behalf of Beal and a Planning Inspector has been appointed to advise the Anguillan Government. It is hoped that a public consultation with interested parties will soon be conducted.

  Hawk Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason the ECGD support for the export of the Hawk aircraft was agreed in March 1996 before the export licence was issued in November 1996. [95292]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD's support for the project was conditional upon an export licence being obtained.

  Parental Leave
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the numbers and percentages of(a) mothers and (b) fathers who will choose to take their parental leave entitlements in each of the first five years after that rights comes into force. [95168]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We estimate that about 100,000 parents will take parental leave each year when the rights are fully established in 2004. We have not estimated how many will choose to take parental leave in each of the first five years after the rights come into force. Parental leave is a new right and we do not have enough information to make such detailed estimates.

  Poland (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Minister of State's visit to Poland. [94707]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]I visited Poland from 21 to 23 September. My visit encompassed ministerial meetings, the opening of an all-British trade fair in Warsaw, visits to British businesses, a visit to Krakow to open the new British Council Offices and to support a project run by a British company to recycle the waste from the steel mill in Krakow.
  658
  The main reason for my visit was to raise the profile of British companies in Poland as part of British Trade International's strategy for encouraging more companies to consider the market. However, in meetings with Polish Ministers I also took the opportunity to raise the question of Polish coal exports to the United Kingdom and to underline our support for Poland in the EU accession process.

  Airlines
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take to protect consumers from the effects of predatory pricing activities by low-cost airlines; and if he will make a statement. [94708]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]Responsibility for ensuring 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.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set up an independent inquiry into predatory pricing activities by low-cost airlines. [94709]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]We have no such plans. However, if my hon. Friend has any evidence of predatory pricing activities he should bring it to the attention of the competent authorities. In the UK this is the Director General of Fair Trading, and for activities which affect trade between member states it is the European Commission.

  Plutonium
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement in respect of the proliferation implications of the plutonium shipment involving the Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal. [94713]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The UK's international nuclear trade, including the export of Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel, is undertaken strictly within the terms of international agreements on nuclear non proliferation, safeguards and physical protection and is entirely consistent with the UK's obligations in these areas. Very stringent physical protection and safeguards measures are applied to MOX at all time, including during transport, to prevent its theft or diversion to non-peaceful purposes. The Government are satisfied that the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation from the manufacture and use of MOX in Europe and its export to Japan is minimal.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Road Works Programme
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the financial allocation towards the minor and major road works programme in each roads division in the current financial year; [94451]
  659
  (2) what was the financial spending on minor and major road works programmes in each roads division for each year since 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1999. [94469]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. C. James. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from C. James to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 21 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Questions about financial allocations and spending on minor and major road works programmes in each Division of Roads Service.

  The information you sought in respect of the current financial year is as follows:

  Minor and major road works programmes—1999–2000

  Financial allocations £000

  Programmes

  Roads Service Divisions

  Minor works

  Major works

  Northern

  1,881

  3,106

  Southern

  1,779

  2,014

  Eastern

  3,022

  4,442

  Western

  1,876

  197

  You will note that the above table reflects our new Divisional structure following the Roads Service reorganisation on I April 1999.

  The information you sought in respect of the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1999 is as follows:

  Minor road works programme—financial spending 1995–96 to 1998–99

  £000

  Roads Service Division

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Ballymena

  2,157

  1,723

  2,100

  1,810

  Belfast

  2,129

  2,227

  2,612

  2,303

  Coleraine

  2,093

  1,817

  1,923

  2,013

  Craigavon

  2,363

  2,620

  2,369

  1,949

  Downpatrick

  2,254

  1,981

  2,329

  2,035

  Omagh

  2,272

  1,896

  2,202

  2,167

  Major road works programme—financial spending 1995–96 to 1998–99

  £000

  Roads Service Divisions

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Ballymena

  491

  2,050

  4,523

  2,372

  Belfast

  5,912

  6,104

  3,521

  3,501

  Coleraine

  629

  234

  117

  96

  Craigavon

  6,249

  2,202

  907

  683

  Downpatrick

  712

  1,394

  2,097

  640

  Omagh

  2,171

  1,499

  2,585

  400

  The 2 tables above reflect our former Divisional structure prior to reorganisation on 1 April 1999.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to address the problem of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. [94464]
  660
  Mr. McFall
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Eddie Grady, dated 21 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your question about help for the long term unemployed in Northern Ireland.
  The number of long term unemployed people (i.e., those who have been unemployed for one year or more) who are claiming Jobseekers Allowance in Northern Ireland has declined substantially in recent years. In September 1999 there were 24000 long term unemployed claimants which is 3000 less than 1 year earlier and 13000 lower than 3 years ago.
  It is against this background that New Deal, which is by far the largest programme for helping the long term unemployed back into work in Northern Ireland, is being delivered. Up to £200 million is available for New Deal in Northern Ireland over the lifetime of this Parliament.
  The New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds and the New Deal for the over 25s are specifically designed to assist the long term unemployed. The New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds, introduced in April 1998, offers young people who have been unemployed for 6 months or more a tailored programme to improve their employability and enhance their chances of getting a job.
  Northern Ireland is one of 29 areas throughout the United Kingdom currently piloting enhanced provision for those aged 25 and over who have been unemployed for 18 months or more. This pilot New Deal was introduced throughout Northern Ireland in November 1998.
  Between April 1998 and September 1999, 4874 young people found work through New Deal for 18-24 year olds. In addition, 1980 adults have found work following their participation in New Deal for the over 25s. Many others are improving their prospects for employment by participating in the other available options.
  The Work rack programme was introduced at the beginning of August 1999 to complement New Deal. Worktrack is the replacement programme for ACE and is targeted at long term unemployed adults who are ineligible for New Deal assistance. It will provide 1050 high quality temporary employment opportunities with training during the financial year 1999/00 and 2100 opportunities in 2000/01. Worktrack aims to prepare participants for sustainable employment at the earliest opportunity.
  New Deal has had a very positive impact in helping to tackle the problem of long term unemployment in Northern Ireland. However, we are not complacent and the Training and Employment Agency will continue to play its part by considering what other measures and interventions would help long term unemployed people back into employment.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Riverside Development, Comber
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when planning application No. X/98/0820 for the Riverside Residential Development in Comber was received by his Department; if the application allows for the future construction of the next stage of the Comber by-pass road scheme; what matters are outstanding before a planning determination can be made; and if he will make a statement about the time still required before issue of that planning decision. [94377]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. H. S. McKay. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  661
  Letter from H. S. McKay to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 22 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the application for planning rmission for the Riverside Residential Development in Comber.
  The Department received this application on 12 November 1998 and designated it as a major one under the Article 31 procedure of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 on 12 March 1999. The Roads Service is actively exploring the options that may be open to the developers to fund or part fund the next stage of the Comber By-Pass. An Environmental Statement in support of the application was submitted on 21 June 1999 and the on-going assessment of this Statement has identified a number of shortcomings that the agent has been asked to address. This information has not yet been received and is of importance because the proposal raises a number of conservation issues which require careful consideration since the site impinges upon the Strangford Lough Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjoins an Area of Special Scientific Interest, a proposed Special Protection Area, a Special Area of Conservation and a Ramsar Site. It is too early yet to say when a decision on the application can be made as it may be necessary to hold a public local inquiry into the proposal.
  I do hope this is helpful.

  Bowling Green, Cloughey
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) on what date the planning application for a bowling green at The Warren, Cloughey was received by his Department; how many local people have signed a petition in support of this bowling green; when a planning decision will be issued; and if he will make a statement; [94557]

  (2) when the planning application for a bowling green at The Warren, Cloughey, Co. Down was submitted; when an environmental and heritage report was requested; when this report will become available; how many persons have signed a petition in support of this project; when the planning decision will be issued; what is the opinion of Ards borough council; and if he will make a statement. [94558]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. H. S. McKay. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from H. S. McKay to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 22 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about an application for planning permission for a bowling green at The Warren, Cloughy.
  Ards Borough Council submitted this application on 29 March 1999 and a petition of 1,200 signatures was received in support of the proposal. The Environment and Heritage Service's comments were sought on 19 April and their response, recommending that planning permission be refused, was received on 3 September. The Council was consulted with a preliminary opinion to refuse planning permission on 14 September, at which time it deferred consideration of the proposal for a site meeting that was held on 1 October. The Planning Service now proposes convening a meeting with the Council and the Environment and Heritage Service to discuss possible options for progressing the application. It is not, therefore, possible at this stage to say when a decision will issue.
  I do hope this is helpful.

  Traffic, Comber
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the volume of traffic on the Newtownards road near the cemetery in Comber; if he 662
  will assess the benefits of the provision of a pedestrian crossing at this location; how many pupils are enrolled at Comber Primary and Comber High schools; and if he will make a statement; [94370]

  (2) what assessment he has made of traffic flow conditions at the junction of Darragh Road with the Newtownards Road in Comber; what plans he has to provide traffic lights at this junction; and if he will make a statement. [94369]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. C. James. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from C. James to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 21 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Questions about, inter alia, traffic flows in the vicinity of Newtownards Road, Comber.
  First, you asked about the volume of traffic on Newtownards Road near the cemetery in Comber, the benefits of a pedestrian crossing at this location and how many pupils are enrolled at Comber Primary and Comber High Schools.
  The last comprehensive survey of traffic volumes on Newtownards Road close to the cemetery was carried out in 1996. The survey recorded an annual average 24-hour flow of 12,480 vehicles with a peak hour flow of 1,080 vehicles. A more recent survey of peak hour traffic volumes was carried out on 27 September 1999, when the peak hour flow was found to be 1,250 vehicles. This would equate with an annual average 24-hour traffic flow of 14,500 vehicles.
  As regards the provision of a pedestrian crossing at this location, Roads Service carried out a survey of pedestrians and vehicles on Monday 27 September 1999. Our survey found that during each of the 4 busiest hours of the day the level of pedestrian traffic was significantly less than that required to warrant the provision of a pedestrian crossing. In the circumstances, Roads Service has no proposals to provide a pedestrian crossing at this location.
  I am advised by my colleagues in the Department of Education that enrolment figures for Comber Primary and Comber High Schools for the academic year 1998–99 were 389 and 448 respectively.
  Secondly, you asked what assessment has been made of traffic flow conditions at the junction of Darragh Road and Newtownards Road and what plans there are to provide traffic lights at this junction.
  The flow of traffic at this junction has been assessed in the past but, as it is some time since a full appraisal was carried out, we will undertake an appraisal taking account of the volume of traffic, the lengths of traffic queues and the delays experienced.
  As regards the provision of traffic lights, such facilities are only provided at junctions where there is significant congestion throughout the day. With the exception of the relatively short duration morning peak period, queues have not been observed at this junction during the course of the working day. Nevertheless, our appraisal of the junction will determine if there is a need for traffic lights at this location and I will write to you again when the results of our appraisal are known.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Planning Applications, Carryduff
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many planning applications for residential developments in the Carryduff area are presently being considered; and if he will make a statement; [94547]
  663
  (2) how many applications for housing developments of more than 50 units have been submitted for planning approval within the green belt area in Carryduff district; and if he will make a statement. [94548]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. H. S. McKay. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from H. S. McKay to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 22 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about proposed housing developments in the Carryduff area.
  The Department is currently considering six applications for residential developments in the Carryduff area. Each of these applications propose more than 50 units in green belt locations.
  I do hope this is helpful.

  Area Plans
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many qualified town planners are employed in the planning service currently; what was the level five years ago; when preparation of the Ards Area Plan will commence; when preparation of the North Down Area Plan will commence; and if he will make a statement on resources available to the Planning Service to review the Area Plan Programme. [94374]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. H. S. McKay. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from H. S. McKay to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 22 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about staffing levels and the resources available to the Planning Service for Area Plan work.
  For the purpose of the answer, "qualified town planners" are taken to mean those staff who possess either MRTPI membership or a post-graduate diploma in Planning, or a degree qualification in Planning. Based on these criteria, there are currently 137 "qualified" planners (excluding temporary staff) employed by the Planning Service. Regrettably, historical information to this level of detail is not available.
  Work started on the Ards Area Plan in January 1999. Work on the Belfast Metropolitan Plan, which will encompass the North Down Borough Council area, is currently scheduled in the Department's Area Plan Programme to commence in the 2000/01 financial year. This Programme is, however, reviewed annually and will be revisited in the forthcoming months when preparing the 2000/01 Business Plan.
  Progress with the review of the Area Plan Programme is determined by the resources allocated to this work in the context of the Agency's Corporate and Business Plans as approved by the Minister. The Plans cover the whole range of the Agency's functions and key performance targets, which include the drafting and adoption of specific Plans in this business year, set priorities. In principle, the resources allocated to the Agency are sufficient to deliver these targets although other factors can come into play and affect the outcome.
  I do hope this is helpful.

  Houston Road (Car Accidents)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the hedge at the Houston Road into 664
  the plant testing station was last cut; what record there is of car accidents at this location; and if he will make a statement. [94545]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. C. James. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from G. P. Fraser to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 25 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked our Chief Executive to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question about hedge cutting at the entrance to the Plant Testing Station at Houston Road, Castlereagh, Belfast and car accident records at this location. In the absence of our Chief Executive, I am replying.
  The cutting of roadside hedges is the responsibility of relevant landowners and, in this particular case, responsibility falls to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, which owns the Plant Testing Station. Colleagues from that Department have advised me that the hedges around the Plant Testing Station are cut annually and that they were last cut in November 1998.
  You also asked what record there is of car accidents at this location. The RUC has advised that its records indicate that there has been one "damage only" accident at the junction of Houston Road and Knockbracken Road during the last 12 months.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Scrabo Stone
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the location of the original Scrabo Stone from the former Kinnel Marsh and Kennedy's Bridges at Comber; if it will be saved for the construction of the next stage of the Comber Bypass; and if he will make a statement. [94368]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Road Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. C. James. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from C. James to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 21 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question about the location of the original Scrabo Stone from the former Kinnel Marsh and Kennedy Bridges near Comber.
  I should explain that there are 3 former bridges still existing on the line of the Department of the Environment's proposed Comber Bypass, namely Marsh River Bridge, Kennedy's Bridge and Cherryvalley Bridge. All of these bridges are of Scrabo Stone construction. Over the years, stone has been removed from these bridges by persons unknown and recently Roads Service utilised some stone from Cherryvalley Bridge for use on accommodation works at a nearby road improvement scheme.
  The Department's proposed Comber Bypass scheme requires the replacement of the Marsh River Bridge and the design carried out to date does not include the use of Scrabo Stone. Consideration could, however, be given to the possible use of the stone.
  At present, discussions are ongoing between the Department and a consortium of developers regarding a proposed housing development in the area which might involve the completion of the Comber Bypass earlier than is currently planned. The proposed development may require some minor alterations to the line of the proposed Bypass and possible replacement structures for Kennedy's Bridge and Cherryvalley Bridge. As yet, however, no final decisions have been made regarding this proposal and no detailed design has been undertaken.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Ministerial Meetings (United States)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of his predecessor's special advisers travelled to New York on 6 October 1998; and if he will list the meetings which they held with members and officials of the US Government during this visit, listing the dates and locations of each meeting and the names of the US Ministers and officials at each meeting. [93948]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Mr. Nigel Warner was the only special adviser to accompany my predecessor during her visit to New York between 7 and 9 October 1998. During the visit he did not hold any official meetings with any members or officials of the US Government.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the terms of Directive 85/337/EEC were applied to wind farms in Northern Ireland. [94787]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. H. S. McKay. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from H. S. McKay to Mr. William Ross, dated 25 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about wind farms in Northern Ireland.
  Directive 85/337/EEC was applied to wind farms with effect from 14 March 1999, with the coming into operation of the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999.
  I do hope this is helpful.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 July 1999,Official Report, column 706, for what reason he did not state the most recent date on which (a) he and (b) the Minister for Transport used a train in the course of their duties. [94530]

  Mr. Hill
  As the then Minister for Transport said in her answer, Ministers travel by public transport on a regular basis on official visits and journeys to their offices. My right hon. Friend and my noble Friend last travelled by train on official business on Monday 18 October.

  Driving (Drugs)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the impact that taking illegal drugs has on the driving ability of motorists; and if he will make a statement; [94511]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact that taking over the counter medicines has on the driving ability of motorists; and if he will make a statement; [94512]
  666
  (3) what initiatives his Department is taking to alert drivers to the hazards associated with drug abuse and driving; [94513]

  (4) what plans he has for advertising campaigns to raise the profile of drug abuse related to driving; [94514]

  (5) what discussions he has held with the pharmaceutical industry on driving under the influence of drugs. [94515]

  Mr. Hill
  Some medicinal and illegal drugs can impair driving ability and its is already an offence to drive while impaired through drugs. The Association of Chief Police Officers is researching suitable training for police to recognise the outward signs of drug taking and to assess driver impairment. The Department and the Home Office are supporting that and the development of roadside screening devices to further assist the police in enforcing the law effectively. However, the effect of drugs, both medicinal and illegal, on driving ability is a very complex issue and, in contrast to alcohol, it is very difficult to correlate directly the level of consumption with impairment of driving. Research is ongoing into the extent of the problem—an essential first step in formulating suitable and effective countermeasures. The Department is also participating in European Union research projects to develop roadside devices to screen for the presence of drugs and to detect impairment in a driver.

  The Department is considering how the risks of driving under the influence of drugs might be publicised. The acknowledged success of the Department's drink drive campaigns was accompanied by effective enforcement and good knowledge of the way in which alcohol impairs driving. That makes such campaigns effective overall because they are authoritative, well targeted and there is a real threat of getting caught. For drugs (both illegal and medicinal), we would need to target any such campaigns towards the precise nature and extent of the problem and would need to give positive advice informed by well based knowledge.

  I understand from the Medicines Control Agency that the current guidelines for pharmaceutical companies dictate that all medicines must comply with European Commission Directive 92/27/EEC on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets. All products have a Summary of Product Characteristics which explains how the medicine acts, how it should be used and any side effects that might be experienced, including a section on the effect of the medicine on the ability to drive. Prescribers are also provided with information on the effects of medicines on the ability to drive in the British National Formulary. This also lists standard pharmacy labels which pharmacists add when dispensing medicines that may affect a patient's ability to drive. Information for patients about medicines, including the effects on the ability to drive, is also provided to patients in Patient Information Leaflets. These should now be supplied with all medicines.

  The information included in the Summary of Product Characteristics, including the effects on the ability to drive, is based on data supplied by pharmaceutical company at the time a product licence is applied for. This may be updated as further information becomes available.
  667
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the number of traffic accidents which occurred within the UK as the result of illegal drug abuse from May 1997 to June 1999; [94448]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of traffic accidents which occurred within the UK as the result of the use of legal over the counter medicines from May 1997 to June 1999. [94449]

  Mr. Hill
  The road accident statistics do not include information on drug use. The Department is undertaking research into the incidence of drugs in road accident fatalities. However, the presence of drugs, whether legal or illegal, is not of itself evidence of impairment of driver ability or accident causation.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives he has launched to combat homelessness within(a) the UK and (b) Sefton since 1993. [94581]

  Mr. Mullin
  Since taking office, the Government have strengthened the legislation to give homeless people reasonable preference in the allocation of long-term social housing. My Department has also set up a sounding board with representatives from local and central Government and the voluntary sector to consider further proposals to give effect to our Manifesto pledge to increase the protection afforded to unintentionally homeless people in priority need. We have also set up a joint liaison committee, the Youth Homelessness Action Partnership, to look specifically at issues affecting homelessness among young people.

  One of the first priorities the Prime Minister set for the Social Exclusion Unit was to report on Rough Sleeping. They identified that rough sleepers' problems and needs span the responsibilities of several central Government Departments. In response to this, a new Ministerial Committee on Rough Sleeping (MCRS), chaired by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, has been established to ensure effective co-ordination of Government policy on this.

  The Government have also established the Rough Sleepers Unit, which has the tough target of reducing the number of people sleeping rough by two-thirds by 2002. It is directly responsible to the MCRS for progress against the target and has a budget of £145 million over three years. This money is provided from a range of departmental sources (including DETR, DoH, DSS and DfEE) and will be used as a flexible integrated budget to tackle the health, education, training and benefit, as well as housing, aspects of rough sleeping.

  We have also announced a £34 million funding over the next three years for over 250 projects outside London under the New Homelessness Action Programme. Sefton has received £44,034 to provide workers for two projects. Early in the New Year we will be inviting further bids for funding from voluntary organisations in the light of the forthcoming national strategy document on rough sleeping.
  668
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to reduce the number of homeless persons living(a) in Merseyside and (b) in Sefton. [94647]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have announced that £34 million will be available under the Homelessness Action Programme over the next three years to fund voluntary agencies to address the problem of homelessness outside London. Organisations in Merseyside have been allocated £458,696 to provide youth, outreach, project and field workers for five schemes. £44,034 of this is for two projects in Sefton. We will be inviting further bids under the programme following the launch of the new national strategy on rough sleeping, which we will be launching before the end of the year.

  Uninsured Drivers
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are(a) the proposed duration of the Motor Insurers' Bureau uninsured drivers' agreement and (b) its termination provisions. [94409]

  Mr. Hill
  There is no formal termination date in Agreement. Past agreements have continued until it was clear that there was a need to revise them. There are provisions for termination of the Agreement upon either party giving a year's notice to the other.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date the revised Motor Insurers' Bureau uninsured drivers' agreement was signed; and on what date it will come into effect. [94407]

  Mr. Hill
  The new Agreement was signed on 13 August 1999 and it came into effect on 1 October 1999.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions since the signing of the Motor Insurers' Bureau uninsured drivers' agreement what(a) meetings have been held with (i) the insurance industry and (ii) organisations representing victims of road accidents and (b) what representations have been made by (i) and (ii); and if he will make a statement. [94408]

  Mr. Hill
  Since the new Agreement was signed, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has met the Association of Personal Accident Solicitors and the Solicitors Indemnity Fund to discuss concerns they had expressed about the terms of the Agreement. I understand that the Motor Insurers' Bureau have also met Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and have arranged to meet the Motor Accident Solicitors Society. My Department stands ready to meet any of these representative organisations to discuss their concerns and, if it proves necessary, to amend the Agreement.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment of the problems of compliance with the revised Motor Insurers' Bureau uninsured drivers' agreement faced by accident victims or their representatives were made by his Department, prior to its signature; and if he will make a statement. [94406]
  669
  Mr. Hill
  Representations received over the last 10 years from applicants, their legal representatives and from solicitors' organisations all pointed to a lack of clarity about the 1998 Uninsured Drivers Agreement. In particular there were several complaints about the lack of clear procedures and the absence of defined time limits. These have been addressed in the new Agreement.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions prior to the signature of the revised Motor Insurers' Bureau uninsured motorists' agreement, what(a) meetings were held by his Department with (i) the Motor Insurers' Bureau, (ii) other representatives of the insurance industry, (iii) the Law Society and (iv) organisations representing road accident victims, (b) what representations were invited and received from the above and (c) what other consultation arrangements were made; and if he will make a statement. [94405]

  Mr. Hill
  Representations have been received over the 10 years since the last revision from many applicants, their legal representatives and from solicitors' organisations. Representations have also been received from the European Commission. All of these are taken into consideration in the review of the Agreements. Representations were not formally invited from any of these organisations. We have recently received correspondence from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met them, in September, to discuss their concerns about the new Uninsured Drivers Agreement.

  Minicabs
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue regulations under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 to require drivers of minicabs to carry the guide dogs of sight-impaired customers. [94692]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a matter which will be considered when we consult jointly with the Public Carriage Office on proposals for regulating private hire vehicle drivers in London.

  Pillion Passengers (Motor Cycles)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the minimum age for a child to ride as a pillion passenger on a motor cycle; and if he will make a statement. [94686]

  Mr. Hill
  There is no minimum age for a child to ride as a pillion passenger on a motor cycle. The decision remains with the rider, who is legally responsible for ensuring that the child is safely supported. Existing legislation places a number of controls on the carrying of pillion passengers.

  These legislative requirements, by their nature, restrict the carrying of children as pillion passengers unless that can be undertaken safely.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many children have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured in
  670
  road traffic accidents riding pillion on motor cycles in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [94685]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Child twmv1 pillion passengers killed or seriously injured: GB 1994–98

  Casualties

  Severity

  Year

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Total

  1994

  2

  54

  56

  1995

  0

  46

  46

  1996

  1

  51

  52

  1997

  3

  48

  51

  1998

  0

  34

  34

  1 Two wheeled motor vehicles; including motorcycles combinations, mopeds and motor scooters.

  Maritime Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement in respect of maritime pollution threats involving the "Pacific Pintail", the "Pacific Teal" and the Greenpeace ship. [94714]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department is not aware of any incident involving the named ships that created a risk of marine pollution. However, the ships were involved in incidents in July this year that resulted in a risk to safety. Greenpeace manoeuvred inflatable boats near the ships owned by Pacific Nuclear Transport Limited. The Greenpeace ship had positioned itself in the approach channel to Barrow. Its crew did not provide information on their intentions, despite several requests that they do so. Without any clear indication of Greenpeace's intentions, there was concern that their activities could result in injury or loss of life. My Department's Maritime and Coastguard Agency therefore issued a direction requiring the MN Greenpeace to leave specified areas of the UK's territorial sea. We cancelled the direction once there was no longer a risk to safety in the UK territorial sea.

  Plutonium Shipments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement in respect of safety issues arising from the plutonium shipment involving the "Pacific Teal" and "Pacific Pintail". [94715]

  Mr. Hill
  Mixed oxide fuel is transported in packages that have been approved as meeting the national regulations and international safety standards covering the transport of radioactive materials by sea.

  The "Pacific Pintail" and the "Pacific Teal" already meet the highest requirements of the International Maritime Organisation's "Code for the Safe Carriage of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel", "Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Flasks on board Ships" ("INF Code").

  Rail Safety Reports
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require
  671
  the Health and Safety Executive to make publicly available (a) reports on rail safety hitherto treated as confidential and (b) future reports on rail safety. [94701]

  Mr. Hill
  The results of HSE's investigations into rail safety are already made public. This has been achieved by publishing the findings eg of train accidents, research, passenger accidents and others in the Chief Inspector of Railway's Annual Report into Railway Safety. In the last year, HSE has also made public the result of its investigation into significant incidents as these are completed. Examples include findings following the derailment at Cadoxton and the accidents of Bexley and Winsford. Within the last year, HSE has also published the results of the investigation into the management of signals passed at danger.

  HSE intends to make public the results of all such investigations as soon as possible after the completion of the investigation. This is illustrated by the publication of the interim findings into the recent train accident at Ladbroke Grove.

  Radioactive Shipments (Irish Sea)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what controls exist to monitor the number of vessels in the Irish Sea carrying radioactive material; what requirements there are for the registration of such movements and the reporting of incidents which could endanger the public; and what was the average number of such vessels moving in the Irish Sea during the past 18 months. [94672]

  Mr. Hill
  UK legislation requires ship operators to provide my Department with information on dangerous and polluting cargoes, including radioactive material, carried by ships calling at UK ports. It also requires ship operators to report incidents to HM Coastguard. These requirements give effect to international rules adopted through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and to an EC directive. We cannot require ships that pass through UK waters without calling at a UK port to provide us with information except in accordance with IMO approved schemes. Any such requirement would conflict with the navigational rights and freedoms enjoyed by foreign ships according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, to which the UK is a party. Information on the number of ships passing through the Irish Sea without calling at a UK port is not available.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 370, concerning the agreement signed by London Transport Underground for the future supply of power, if, under the agreement, power for London Underground will cease to be generated in London; who the owners and managers of Power PH are; to what extent the agreement transfers the responsibility for supply and distribution of electric power to appliances and live rails; what access agreements to linesides, switching equipment and sub-stations have been made with the contractors; and what transfers of personnel there will be. [94813]
  672
  Mr. Hill
  The Power PFI contract transferred responsibility for the operation, maintenance, finance and renewal of London Underground's high voltage electrical supply network to SEEBOARD Powerlink (a consortium of companies consisting of SEEBOARD, BICC and ABB, owned in the following proportions: 80 per cent., 10 per cent., 10 per cent.). Under this contract, London Underground's power will be obtained from the National Grid. The day to day switching of electrical supplies to track and stations remains with London Underground.

  Access by the contractor to linesides, switching equipment and substations is in accordance with the same procedures and conditions imposed for London Underground staff and all contractors working on the railway.

  Under the terms of the Power PFI contract, the 315 London Underground staff responsible for the operation and maintenance of the generating stations at Lots Road and Greenwich, the power distribution substations and associated high voltage and control cable networks, transferred to SEEBOARD Powerlink on their existing terms and conditions of employment when the contract commenced on 16 August 1998.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many fires there have been on the London Underground in each of the last five years. [94793]

  Mr. Hill
  The numbers of confirmed fire reports for the last five years are as follows

  Rolling stock

  Trackside

  1994–95

  32

  244

  1995–96

  37

  347

  1996–97

  38

  286

  1997–98

  58

  327

  1998–99

  58

  258

  London Underground define a confirmed fire as any incident that activates a smoke alarm.

  These incidents may be as seemingly trivial as a smouldering cigarette end. London Underground advise that these confirmed fires were small in nature, with little or no combustible material available that would lead to the development of a large fire. All such incidents, however small, are treated very seriously.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 370, concerning revenue and costs of London Underground Limited, if he will provide a breakdown of the £248 million of other costs in 1997–98 into (a) main categories of expenditure and (b) each line or interchange expenditure; and to what purposes the gross margin of £265 million has been devoted. [94814]

  Mr. Hill
  (a) The breakdown of "other costs" is as follows:

  Other costs

  £ million

  Business rates

  21

  Operational materials and supplies

  18

  Train and station cleaning

  20

  673

  Other costs

  £ million

  Repair costs allocated from project work

  25

  Marketing

  4

  Insurance

  9

  EDP costs

  13

  Consultancy

  9

  Accommodation and telephone

  23

  Charge from LT for finance and HR services

  26

  PH contract costs

  31

  Costs of property rental collection

  7

  Other costs

  42

  Total

  248

  (b) A breakdown of these figures on a line by line basis is not available. Some of the costs above are incurred centrally rather than on a line by line basis.

  The gross margin of £265 million went towards total LT investment.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the next meeting on the biosafety protocol will be held; by what date his Department has to make its submission for inclusion in the EU position; and if he will make a statement. [94828]

  Mr. Meacher
  At the informal consultations on the biosafety protocol held by the President of the Extraordinary Conference of the Parties (Ex-COP), Minister Mayr, in Vienna in September, it was decided to resume the Ex-COP between 24-28 January in Montreal. The UK and the EU are considering the options arising from the informal consultations, and the EU position for the resumed negotiations will be established over the coming months. The UK is fully committed to an effective and workable Protocol which can be ratified by all countries active in biotechnology.

  Glyphosate
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from the EU concerning the effects of the chemical glyphosate on(a) the environment and (b) biodiversity; and if he will make a statement. [948191

  Mr. Meacher
  The EU has established a programme to review the safety of all pesticides which were authorised (by at least one Member State) for use in agriculture and horticulture on 25 July 1993. Glyphosate is included in the first round of this programme.

  The EU review process begins with an evaluation, including effects on the environment, wildlife and other non-target organisms, by a "rapporteur" Member State. Germany was appointed rapporteur for glyphosate and has delivered its assessment to the EU Commission, the UK and other Member States. This evaluation is currently subject to peer review by experts from all Member States.

  Transponders
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will report on progress made at a meeting of the IMO sub-committee 674
  on the safety of navigation held in September on the subject of the mandatory carriage requirement for transponders; and if he will make a statement. [94603]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 20 October 1999]The International Maritime Organisation' s (IMO) sub-committee on the safety of navigation (NVA 45) met from 20-24 September 1999 and developed a draft regulation for the phased introduction of a mandatory carriage requirement for ship identification transponders. The draft Regulation envisages new ships being fitted by 1 July 2002, with step-by-step application to existing ships between then and 2008. The draft will be further discussed at the 72" session of the IMO safety committee in May 2000.

  M60
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the M60 motorway from Denton to Middleton to open; and what assessment he has made of the prospects for opening sections of the motorway at an earlier date. [94831]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 21 October 1999]As this is an operational matter for the Highways Agency, I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Lawrie Haynes, to reply.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Andrew Bennett, dated 25 October 1999:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Keith Hill, has asked Lawrie Haynes, the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, to reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the timing for the opening of the M60 between Denton and Middleton. I am replying in Lawrie's absence from the office.
  The date for opening the whole of the Denton to Middleton section of the Manchester Outer Ring Road is Summer 2000. However, the Highways Agency is considering the possibility of opening some individual sections earlier. Whether it would be practical to do so is dependent upon the contractors' programmes for completion of the outstanding works. This will become clearer towards the end of the year. Traffic impact on the local road network is also a major consideration and the Agency is in discussion with the relevant local authorities about this.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Rail Safety
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the danger to rail travellers of the increased number of cases of broken rails since 1994–95; and what action he plans to take. [951731]

  Mr. Hill
  Broken rails result from a range of causes including rail age, increased traffic density and particular additional freight carriage. The general upward trend in the number of broken rails demonstrates that infrastructure maintenance, inspection and track replacement efforts must be increased. HSE's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) has recently ordered Railtrack to define an urgent action plan to improve track maintenance and inspection to significantly reduce the number of broken rails across the network. Extreme damage to rails could potentially lead to train derailment and HMRI take
  675
  a strong enforcement action where there could be a safety risk. For example, a prohibition was placed on the use of the Severn Tunnel earlier this year until suitable repairs were carried out.

  Bridge Tolls (Buses)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list

  Undertaking

  Car (£)

  Minibus (£)

  Percentage differential

  Large bus (£)

  Current tolls: Percentage differential

  Aldwark Bridge

  0.15

  0.30

  100

  0.80

  433

  Clifton Suspension Bridge

  0.20

  0.20

  0

  0.20

  0

  Dartford QEII Bridge

  1.00

  1.70

  70

  2.80

  180

  Dunham Bridge

  0.20

  0.20

  0

  0.40

  100

  Humber Bridge

  2.30

  3.30

  43

  12.50

  443

  Itchen Bridge

  0.60

  1.00

  67

  5.00

  733

  Rixton & Warburton Bridge

  0.10

  0.12

  20

  0.12

  20

  Severn Bridges (Westbound only)

  4.20

  8.40

  100

  12.50

  198

  Shrewsbury Bridge

  0.10

  0.10

  0

  0.10

  0

  Swinford Bridge

  0.05

  0.05

  0

  0.20

  300

  Tamar Bridge

  1.00

  2.50

  150

  5.00

  400

  Whitechurch Bridge

  0.08

  0.20

  150

  0.50

  525

  Whitney on Wye Bridge

  0.50

  0.50

  0

  1.00

  100

  Raddicio Rosso
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice his Department has given the European Commission on the Dutch Government's approval for raddicio rosso to be sold in the Netherlands without the approval of the EU. [94868]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 October 1999]Chicory (raddicio rosso) has been approved under Part C of Directive 90/220/EEC for growing in the European Union for the purposes of seed production only. It is not for general cultivation, nor can it enter the food or animal feed chain under this approval.

  The application was submitted to the UK and the other member states via the Dutch Competent Authority in 1995. The UK together with the other member states reviewed the application dossier. The UK Competent Authority raised no objection to the product being placed on the European market. The Community's decision was that the cultivation of this particular GM crop for the purposes of seed production posed a low risk to human health and the environment.

  Dog Identification
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has commissioned regarding the long-term effects of implanting microchips in animals for the purpose of identification; and if he will make a statement. [94890]

  Mr. Hill
  The Dog Identification Group, which my Department set up, is considering all the issues relating to dog identification including that of micro-chipping. No decisions will be taken until we have fully considered the report of the Group.
  676
  the current level of bridge tolls for buses, indicating the percentage differential with tolls for cars on the same journey. [94921]

  Mr. Hill
  The following list shows the current toll levels for cars and buses on toll bridges in England for which the Secretary of State has a statutory responsibility, as Highway Authority or for the determination of the level of tolls. The percentage differential between the toll level for cars and buses is shown:

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to bring forward legislation on dog identification; and if he will make a statement. [94891]

  Mr. Hill
  A Dog Identification Working Group has been set up by my Department to produce a report to reflect a consensus view on all the available options for dog identification. No decisions will be taken until we have fully considered the report.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to offer dog owners a choice in the method by which they identify their animals, pursuant to the report by the Dog Identification Group. [94888]

  Mr. Hill
  The Dog Identification Working Group will produce a report to reflect a consensus view on all the available options for dog identification. No decisions will be taken until we have fully considered the report.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the report of the Dog Identification Working Group. [94889]

  Mr. Hill
  The Dog Identification Group has been set up by my Department to report on the available options for dog identification. The report will be made public on its completion during the course of next year.

  St. Mary's Hospital, Stannington
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date he received the Planning Inspector's reports on the planning application for the site of St. Mary's Hospital, Stannington, Northumberland. [95104]
  677
  Mr. Raynsford
  The report by the Inspector who conducted the public inquiry into the called-in planning application for the site of St. Mary's Hospital, Northumberland reached Government officials on 5 February 1999.

  The hon. Member will know that the Secretary of State's decision to refuse the application was issued on 21 October.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of parish councils. [94937]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As stated in our White Paper "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People" (Cm 4014),"Parish councils will continue to play a key role in many of our towns and villages".

  In our forthcoming Rural White Paper we intend to address further how we see parish councils playing their part in rural local governance.

  Freemasonry
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Banbury concerning freemasonry and the Planning Inspectorate; [R] [94950]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the policy of the Chief Planning Inspector that freemasons will not be eligible to apply for employment with the Planning Inspectorate. [R] [94943]

  Mr. Prescott
  This policy was incorrect and has been withdrawn. However, all new appointees to the post of Planning Inspector shall have as a condition of appointment a requirement to declare membership of the freemasons (and any later membership to them).

  I expect to reply to the hon. Member this week.

  Banbury
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make an announcement on town council status for Banbury. [94941]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State has made a preliminary decision for the creation of a new parish of Banbury. Cherwell District Council was notified on 8 October.

  We intend to consult the District Council and other interested parties shortly on a draft Order. Subject to that consultation, the intention is to make the Order before the end of 1999 with the view to first elections in May 2000.

  Swanwick Air Traffic Control System
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the NATS part-privatisation on the implementation date of the Swanwick Air Traffic Control System. [95695]
  678
  Mr. Mullin
  The Public/Private Partnership for NATS will not have any impact on the target operational date for the Swanwick centre which is spring 2002. At present the development of the centre is proceeding well, and meeting its target milestones. It is likely that by the time the NATS PPP is established, the air traffic control system will be ready for operations, and training of controllers on the new system will be well underway.

  The introduction into operation of the Swanwick centre is an integral part of NATS' plans for the future control of air traffic in the UK. The NATS PPP will therefore be obliged to complete the centre and bring it into operation.

  Road Safety
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the issue of deaths caused by negligent or dangerous driving will form part of the proposed White Paper on Road Safety. [95111]

  Mr. Hill
  The forthcoming road safety strategy will cover a wide range of issues, including those related to negligent and dangerous driving. It will also set out new targets to reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries on Britain's roads.

  Rail Freight Terminals
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the rail freight terminals operating in each Government Office region. [95556]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack's "A Guide to Rail Freight", published in April 1999, says that there are around 1,000 active rail freight terminals connected to their network; a terminal can be any interface between rail freight services, other modes and/or storage facilities, and they vary enormously in size and scope from a simple siding through to a large distribution park.

  Railtrack's "A Guide to Freight Connections" (Third Edition), published in October 1998, contains at Appendix B1 a list of private siding connections and at Appendix B2 a list of freight operating company sites. Each entry includes its geographical location by Railtrack Zone.

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to support the establishment of new Rail Freight terminals adjacent to motorways. [95578]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government's freight grants scheme is designed to assist companies in moving goods from road to rail where payment is justified by the environmental benefits. Capital grants are available towards the cost of new or refurbished freight facilities, including terminals, wherever they might be located. The Highways Agency has a Memorandum of Understanding with Railtrack to facilitate effective co-operation and understanding between the two organisations, and one of the areas of mutual interest mentioned in the Memorandum is the development of opportunities for the transfer of freight from road to rail through the provision of interchange facilities with access directly or indirectly from the trunk road network, including motorways.

  Transport Safety Statistics
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many injuries(a) per million passenger journeys and (b) per million train journeys there have been in each of the last 10 years. [94777]

  Mr. Hill
  Information about the numbers of casualties per train journey is not available. Information about numbers of casualties per passenger journey and per passenger kilometre on all railway undertakings in Great Britain is as follows:

  Railway movement accidents1: passenger casualty rates

  Casualties2 per million passenger journeys

  Casualties2 per million passenger kilometres

  1989

  1.85

  0.076

  1990

  1.73

  0.072

  1991–92

  1.61

  0.068

  1992–93

  1.59

  0.066

  1993–94

  1.52

  0.064

  1994–95

  1.54

  0.069

  1995–96

  1.81

  0.080

  1996–972

  0.46

  0.019

  1997–98

  0.47

  0.020

  1998–99

  0.40

  0.018

  1 Train accidents, or accidents due to the movement of railway vehicles (eg passengers entering or alighting from trains). Accidents not connected with the movement of railway vehicles, and casualties connected with trespass and suicide, are excluded.

  2 Until 1996 all accidents to passengers were required to be reported however slight their injuries. Under the Accident Reporting Regulations 1995, which came into effect on 1 April 1996, non-fatal injuries are only reported if the passenger is taken to hospital. Figures since 1996–97 are therefore not comparable with those for earlier years.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the(a) Government's response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on "The Management of Nuclear Waste" (HL Paper 41) published on 24 March, (b) High Level Waste and Spent Fuel Disposal Research Strategy project, (c) 1998 UK Radioactive Waste Inventory and (d) report on the UK's intentions for implementing the OSPAR strategy with regard to radioactive substances. [95881]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today written to Lord Tombs, Chairman of the Committee, enclosing the Government response to the Select Committee report on "The Management of Nuclear Waste". Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Government's paramount concern is to protect the safety of both current and future generations. The Government agree with the Select Committee that widespread public consultation must come before a final decision is reached on the most appropriate option for managing radioactive waste. The Government note the Select Committee's conclusion that deep disposal is the only solution which is ultimately sustainable. We shall, however, want to study very carefully the results of the consensus building process, initiated by the consultation which we intend to launch early next year, before coming
  680
  to a final view. There are, in any case, questions to consider about when any underground repository might be needed and the period over which is should be possible to monitor and retrieve wastes placed in it. There is no need for an immediate decision at this stage.

  The Government response is the first stage of the process to identify, develop and implement the best possible management option for radioactive wastes—one which commands widespread public support. It sets out the Government's commitment to a comprehensive policy for long-lived radioactive wastes, developed in an open and transparent way on the basis of widespread consultation to ensure the maximum possible public acceptance. The next stage will be full consultation on the management options for radioactive waste. Subsequent steps will need to be considered in the light of the results from this consultation. There is no question at this stage of looking at the potential suitability of any particular sites. This would only be necessary if, in the light of consultation, underground disposal were the chosen option. In any case, this would be some years away.

  The Government have also accepted that it is possible that at least some plutonium may be declared a waste in the future. The response therefore also sets out our intention to consult with BNFL, British Energy and UKAEA on the likely future uses for the UK plutonium stockpile.

  I have today published a report which my Department commissioned from consultants Quantisci setting out a research and development strategy for disposing of certain radioactive materials. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The High Level Waste and Spent Fuel Disposal Research Strategy project has identified the scale and nature of the research and development that would be required, if deep geological disposal of high-level waste and spent fuel were to be pursued. The report will inform the forthcoming consultation paper on radioactive waste management.

  I have also today published the 1998 UK Radioactive Waste Inventory. Copies of the summary report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Inventory was jointly commissioned by Nirex and my Department. It describes all stocks of waste held in the UK at 1 April 1998, together with predictions of wastes arising into the future. There has been an increase of around 12 per cent. in the total volume of wastes in stock since the last inventory in 1994 due to the continued accumulation of intermediate and high level wastes in the absence of disposal facilities. However, the predictions of future arising have been revised downwards since the last report (17 per cent. for high level waste; 26 per cent. for intermediate and 2 per cent. for low level waste) due to developments in waste conditioning, better estimates of volume and some changes in the scale and nature of future operations.

  The UK is one of the few countries where such information is made publicly available. Organisations involved with the nuclear industry, and relevant non-governmental organisations, will receive a free copy on compact disk. The summary report will also be available on the internet at www.nirex.co.uk.
  681
  A report on the UK's intentions for implementing the OSPAR strategy with regard to radioactive substances has been sent to the OSPAR secretariat today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. Copies have also been sent to nuclear operators and relevant non-governmental organisations.

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came; and which of these twinnings related to the (i) environment, (ii) transport and (iii) regional policy aspects of his Department. [93993]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many requests there have been to her Department for placement of her officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of her officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [93992]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

  Information Technology
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action the Government are taking to improve its handling of major IT projects. [95754]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We have recently begun a major study into the handling of Government IT projects. It will consider best practice from within Government, the private sector and overseas to produce recommendations to improve performance in this area in the future. The work of the study team will be closely integrated with that on delivering the Corporate IT Strategy announced in the Modernising Government White Paper.

  The study will be undertaken by officials in the Cabinet Office's Central IT Unit. It will be completed by next May. I will chair a steering committee that will oversee the study, bringing together senior figures from across Government and the private sector.

  Horizontal Questions Working Group
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list those proposals made by her representative to the Horizontal Questions Working Group indicating the discussions on them. [95309]
  682
  Marjorie Mowlam
  Officials from my Department have made no proposals to the Horizontal Questions Working Group over the past 12 months.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by her Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94855]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  This Government are committed to the equal representation of women and men in public appointments. A plan of action has been drawn up, which includes individual departmental plans for increasing the participation of women in public life. Details of individual departments' are given in "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments, 1999–2000", published by the Cabinet Office in May 1999. Copies are in the Libraries of the House and on the internet. The plans contain specific goals and objectives for increasing the representation of women on the boards of public bodies, and are updated annually in the light of progress made.

  Michael John Smith
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) why undertakings contained in the letter of 7 January 1998 from the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission to Michael John Smith (prison number PR 3345) were not fulfilled; [94569]

  (2) when Michael John Smith (prison number PR 3345) will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 10 January 1997 to the Secretary of the Security Commission; and what was the reason for the delay. [94568]

  Dr. Mowlam
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been to the membership of the Animal Procedures Committee. [95863]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am pleased to be able to say that Mr. Robert McCracken, a barrister, has joined the Committee with effect from 1 September 1999. I am sorry to have to announce the departure from the Committee of Professor Colin Johnston on grounds of ill health.

  Millennium Celebrations (Security)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional measures he plans to ensure public order and security on the night of 31 December. [95148]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Maintenance of public order is primarily a matter for chief officers of police. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has established a millennium co-ordinating committee to ensure the readiness of forces and continuity of service over the millennium period. I understand that all forces have millennium planning teams in place to ensure
  683
  business continuity and contingency planning for this period. Arrangements are in place for mutual aid between forces should this become essential.

  The infrastructure preparedness, supply chains and business continuity plans of police forces in England and Wales have been independently assessed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary using a process based on Action 2000 methodology. All forces have been graded as blue (no identified risks of material disruption) and have millennium operating regimes in place.

  A police information centre will operate at Scotland Yard on 31 December, reporting to the President of ACPO. In addition, the Home Office's own millennium operating regime will ensure that Ministers are fully appraised of developments on the night.

  Millennium Dome (Policing)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regular police officers will be on duty at the Millennium Dome during normal opening hours. [95121]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There will be no police officers routinely on duty at the Millennium Dome, as security duties at the Dome site will be undertaken by the appointed Company, Group 4.

  The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis tells me that a total of 89 additional officers will be seconded to the Greenwich Borough Operational Command Unit to undertake high visibility patrol, traffic patrol and crime investigation duties in anticipation of the increased numbers of people visiting the Dome and Greenwich. The secondment of these officers will last for the duration of the National Millennium Exhibition.

  Thames Valley Police
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funds he intends to make available to the Thames Valley Police during the coming financial year; and what impact he estimates such funding will have on recruitment policy for the Thames Valley Police. [94938]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Last year the Government announced that the police service in England and Wales would receive an additional £1.24 billion over three years from 1999–2000. Our plans allow for police expenditure to increase by around 2.8 per cent. in 2000–01. No final decisions have been taken about the allocation of funding to individual forces for the coming financial year. We expect to announce provisional allocations towards the end of the year.

  Police recruitment is not centrally managed from the Home Office. It is a matter for individual chief constables. The Thames Valley Police will be able to bid for a share of the crime fighting fund which the Government have set up to provide for 5,000 extra recruits over three years.

  Freemasons (Police)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he expects police authorities to hold concerning the membership of 684
  freemasonry among police officers; on what basis such information will be compiled; and to whom it will be available. [R] [94942]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police authorities will hold no such information. Chief Constables in England and Wales are in the process of establishing voluntary, internal, registers of freemasonry membership in their forces. At this stage, while arrangements for its publication remain to be determined, the information disclosed will be used for internal management purposes and to provide statistical information about the extent of freemasonry membership in the police service.

  Refugees (Housing)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms he intends to be used to rehouse refugees throughout the United Kingdom; what consultations he or his Department have had with local authorities; and if there will be extra funding for local authorities to assist with the housing and other costs of accepting refugees. [94951]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department has been in extensive consultation with the Local Government Association, the Association of Local Government and a variety of local authorities about the new support arrangements for asylum seekers in Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Bill which are due to come into effect in April 2000, and the statutory interim arrangements in Schedule 8 of the Bill which are due to come into effect shortly after Royal Assent.

  For the statutory interim arrangements, the Government have invited local government to devise a voluntary dispersal scheme which will enable asylum seekers to be dispersed to cluster areas around the country so that no single local authority bears a disproportionate burden. The statutory interim arrangements will underpin this scheme. The statutory interim arrangements also include provisions which will enable dispersal to take place if there is no voluntary scheme in operation.

  From April 2000, the new support arrangements will enable the Department to provide support in cluster areas around the country and to disperse to those cluster areas asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute and who claim the full support package.

  For the period of the statutory interim arrangements, local authorities will be able to claim up to £150 per week for single adults and up to £220 per week for families who are being supported. When the new support arrangements are implemented, the Home Office will bear the costs of the provision of support (including accommodation, vouchers, cash, interpreter services and travel).

  Dangerous Driving
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide a more severe penalty for those convicted of causing death by negligent driving. [95109]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is no offence of causing death by negligent driving. Grossly negligent driving which results in a death could be charged as manslaughter, which attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
  685
  The Road Traffic Act 1988 contains two offences of causing death. Causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs both attract a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The Government have no current plans to increase these penalties.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the charge of careless driving to a charge that recognises the culpability of the driver. [95108]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have no current plans to change the definition of the offence of "careless driving" under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Research is, however, currently being conducted into the way in which cases involving "bad" driving proceed through the criminal justice system. The results of that research will help to establish whether any changes in the law are desirable.

  Royal Parks (Demonstrations)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the enforcement of byelaws against demonstrating in the royal parks. [95649]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The enforcement of the byelaws is a matter for the Metropolitan Police and for the Royal Parks Police.

  Crime and Disorder Act 1998
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many reparation orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have been granted by the courts to date in each of the five pilot areas; how many of those orders have been breached; and if he will make a statement; [94957]

  (2) how many applications he has received from local authorities for local child curfews under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; [94961]

  (3) how many parenting orders have been granted to date by the courts under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in each of the nine pilot areas; how many of those orders have been breached; and if he will make a statement; [94955]

  (4) how many child safety orders have been granted by the courts under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in each of the nine pilot areas; [94958]

  (5) how many action plan orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have to date been made by the courts in each of the four pilot areas; how many of these orders have been breached; how many have been revoked; and if he will make a statement. [94960]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  By 30 September 1999, the latest date for which this information is readily available, the following orders had been made in the pilot areas: 122 Parenting Orders, 829 Reparation Orders, one Child Safety Order and 490 Action Plan Orders. Applying for a local child curfew is an option for local authorities to consider in light of the wider crime and disorder strategies they are developing under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. No applications have yet been received.
  686
  We do not currently have breach figures, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as they are available.

  The youth justice pilots are designed to allow us to assess the operation and costs and savings of the new youth justice measures. They will inform decisions about full implementation. Subject to the evaluation, we intend to implement the new court orders in 2000–2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been made by the courts to date under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [94954]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of Orders made is not held centrally but we are aware of six Orders made since 1 April 1999.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sex Offender Orders have been made by the courts to date under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [94956]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the numbers of Sex Offender Orders made is not currently held centrally.

  We are, however, aware of 14 such orders having been granted.

  Chinese Presidential Visit (Policing)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what meetings took place between his Department and the Metropolitan Police about the public order implications of the state visit by the President of China; [95646]

  (2) what representations his Department made to the Metropolitan Police about the public order implications of the state visit of the President of China. [95648]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No such meetings or representations took place.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the backlog of(a) immigration and asylum cases and (b) nationality cases in the Integrated Casework Directorate of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each month since 30 June. [94972]

  Mrs. Roche
  The backlog of immigration and asylum cases, and, separately, nationality cases at the end of July, August and September is set out:

  Immigration and asylum

  Month

  Number of cases

  July

  104,464

  August

  123,454

  September

  149,013

  Nationality

  Month

  Number of cases

  July

  97,900

  August

  99,500

  September

  97,900

  687
  We have recruited 340 staff and are planning to recruit another 250 to fill vacancies and expand the Integrated Casework Directorate in order to keep pace with the intake of new cases and eliminate backlogs.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average daily number(a) of telephone callers to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, (b) of calls made to that directorate and (c) of calls answered by the Telephone Caller Unit, in (i) July, (ii) August and (iii) September. [94965]

  Mrs. Roche

  The figures relating to telephone calls to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are provided each month by British Telecom and are actuals rather than estimates. Daily averages, by month, are set out in the table:

  Number of callers

  Number of calls

  Calls answered

  July

  4,307

  51,925

  1,795

  August

  4,133

  53,352

  1,867

  September

  4,741

  37,503

  3,668

  Since July a number of measures have been introduced to improve the service offered by the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau (INEB). Significant numbers of new staff are now available to answer calls, a support team undertakes follow-up work generated by calls, and there have been improvements in training staff in call handling techniques and the mentoring of new and existing staff. In recent weeks the service provided by INEB has improved substantially with around 4,000 calls a day being answered (75 per cent. of incoming calls). Further changes are being considered to improve performance.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are now held in the Central Work in Progress Store of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and how many of those cases have been outstanding for more than(a) six months, (b) one year and (c) two years. [94968]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are 83,796 cases held in the Work in Progress Store of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. This is a reduction of over 26,000 cases since July. Of the cases held in the Work in Progress Store, 12,654 have been outstanding for more than six months, 32,206 have been outstanding for more than one year, and 38,936 have been outstanding for more than two years. A number of measures have been taken to tackle the backlog, including the creation of the After Entry Clearance Team, which has had a major impact on the backlog of the after entry case backlog.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily number of personal callers to each public inquiry office of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each month since 30 June. [94963]

  Mrs. Roche
  The average daily number of callers to each public inquiry office in July, August and September is set out in the table:
  688

  July

  August

  September

  Public Caller Unit Croydon

  887

  882

  903

  Asylum Screening Unit Croydon

  248

  309

  327

  Midlands Public Enquiry Office

  141

  133

  190

  Liverpool Public Enquiry Office

  60

  46

  51

  Glasgow Public Enquiry Office

  51

  52

  55

  Belfast Public Enquiry Office

  33

  30

  26

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of letters to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public are currently replied to within the target times set by Ministers. [94969]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) defines and monitors public correspondence as set out in the Six Whitehall Standards. The Standards specifically exclude applications and casework related correspondence, that is the majority of correspondence received in IND.

  The latest position is that 12 per cent. of letters from hon. Members and 89 per cent. of letters from members of the public to which the Standard applies, met it.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current backlog of cases at the Liverpool Office of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and how many of these cases have been outstanding for over(a) six months, (b) 12 months and (c) two years. [94966]

  Mrs. Roche
  At 30 September 1999, the current estimated backlog of cases in the Liverpool Office stands at 97,900. 72,500 cases have been outstanding for six months; 46,900 have been outstanding for 12 months and 3,500 for two years.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the earliest date of unopened travel documents applications held by the Travel Documents Case Management Unit of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [94970]

  Mrs. Roche
  The earliest date is 28 July 1999.

  In the past few months, the number of staff allocated to travel documents work has doubled and is set to increase still further in the next few weeks. This combined with streamlined working practices, has resulted in dramatic increases in output from averages of 120 per week during August to well over 700 last week.

  In addition, all applications received since 6 September have been opened within 24 hours of arrival in the section, and the majority processed within a matter of days.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average waiting time for nationality cases in(a) July, (b) August and (c) September. [94964]

  Mrs. Roche
  The average waiting time for nationality cases in July, August and September are listed in the table:

  Months

  Month

  Naturalisation

  Registration

  Overall

  (a) July 1999

  20.3

  5.0

  17.6

  (b) August 1999

  20.3

  7.2

  18.5

  (c) September 1999

  20.6

  8.4

  19.1

  689
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his plans now are for the implementation of the integrated information technology system in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [949711

  Mrs. Roche
  As was made clear in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 26 July 1999,Official Report, column 63, from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), the system is currently being tested and that process is not expected to be completed before December. Plans for implementation will be prepared in the light of the information obtained during testing as to the business benefits conferred by the different components of the system.

  UK Passport Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the date when he approved the Passport Agency's business plan for 19992000 and its corporate plan for 1999–2002; and if he will now place copies of both plans in the Library. [94962]

  Mrs. Roche
  The UK Passport Agency's Corporate and Business Plans for 1999–2002 are under active consideration by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and will be published shortly.

  Publication of the Agency's Plans has been deferred to enable them fully to reflect the lessons learnt from this year's operational problems.

  The Plans will be finalised in the light of the National Audit Office report which will be published on Wednesday 27 October.

  Immigration Act 1971 (Detention Powers)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently detained solely under Immigration Act 1971 powers in each place used for such detention. [94967]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest available information, relating to the snapshot of all persons detained solely under Immigration Act 1971 powers, by location, as at 30 September 1999, is given in the table:

  Persons recorded as being in detention' in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at 30 September 1999, by place of detention

  Location

  Total detainees

  Immigration detention centres2

  Campsfield House

  174

  Dover Harbour

  27

  Harmondsworth

  90

  Harwich

  2

  Heathrow's Queens building

  15

  Longport

  5

  Manchester Airport

  7

  Tinsley House

  142

  Other immigration centres

  1

  Prison establishments

  Aberdeen

  8

  Bedford

  3

  Belmarsh

  10

  Birmingham

  2

  Blakenhurst

  5

  Brixton

  3

  690

  Persons recorded as being in detention1 in the united kingdom solely under immigration Act powers as at 30 September 1999,by place of detention

  Location

  Total detainees

  Canterbury

  15

  Dorchester

  2

  Durham

  2

  Elmley

  5

  Feltham

  5

  Gloucester

  2

  Haslar

  157

  High Down

  16

  Holloway

  16

  Holme House

  2

  Lancaster Farms

  2

  Leeds

  5

  Liverpool

  4

  Longriggend

  18

  Manchester

  7

  Norwich

  2

  Pentonville

  10

  Preston

  2

  Rochester

  191

  Swansea

  2

  Wandsworth

  5

  Winchester

  3

  Woodhill

  2

  Wormwood Scrubs

  7

  Other prison establishments

  9

  Total

  985

  1 Figures exclude persons detained in police cells

  2 Figures include the use of police cells at Dover Harbour

  Asylum Seekers (Dependants)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of dependants of applicants for asylum who are currently resident in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [95650]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest published information regarding the number of dependants of applicants for asylum in the United Kingdom is given in Table 7.1 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom, 1998", issue 10/99. This shows that there were a total of 12,470 dependants in 1998.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have to date been made by the courts in each of the three pilot areas; how many of those orders have been breached; how many have been revoked; and if he will make a statement. [94959]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is given in the table:

  Area

  Orders made

  Orders revoked

  Orders breached

  Croydon

  29

  9

  14

  Gloucestershire

  72

  27

  41

  Liverpool

  44

  8

  22

  Total

  145

  44

  77

  691
  In all cases, the orders revoked have also been the subject of breach and are included in both figures.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken by his Department to reply to letters from members of the public. [95652]

  Mr. Straw
  On the basis of information available, the average time taken by the Home Office to reply to letters from the public between 1 March 1999 and 30 August 1999 was 16 working days.

  Hunting
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations his Department has received since 30 June on the subject of hunting with dogs; and how many of those representations(a) favoured and (b) opposed a statutory ban on hunting. [95651]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No systematic record is kept, but it is estimated that well in excess of 100,000 representations have been received since 30 June 1999. We estimate that the representations are evenly split between those who support a statutory ban on hunting with dogs and those who are opposed to such a ban.

  Rural Crime
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures he is taking to combat crime in rural areas; and if he will make a statement; [95261]

  (2) what proportion of his Department's planned expenditure on crime and disorder reduction strategies will be targeted on rural areas; and if he will make a statement; [95258]

  (3) what recent representations he has received about the level of crime in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [95262]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The primary responsibility for tackling crime falls to police forces in conjunction with the local crime and reduction partnerships, established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The policing plans and the strategies developed by the partnerships will deal explicitly with rural crime where that is a significant local issue. Some parts of the £400 million Crime Reduction Programme are likely to be diverted to crime in rural areas. There is no other Home Office provision dedicated exclusively to rural crime.

  On 20 October, I met a delegation from 14 rural police authorities in England and Wales to discuss crime and the costs of policing in rural areas. My Department has also received petitions from residents of Norfolk and neighbouring counties about the subject.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to 692
  the inclusion in the forthcoming Rural White Paper of proposals to help tackle rural crime. [95259]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The White Paper is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Home Office officials have been taking part in an inter-Departmental group which considers issues which might be covered in the White Paper. These include rural crime.

  Rural Police Forces
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the special funding needs of rural police forces; and if he will make a statement. [95257]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The needs of rural police forces are already recognised in the current funding formula. We are considering the findings of an independent research report on the costs of policing in rural areas.

  Rural police forces will be able to bid for a share of the new Crime Fighting Fund which the Government have set up to provide for 5,000 extra recruits over the next three years.

  Police Station Closures
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown by police force area of the number of police stations closed in each of the past two years. [95260]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not collected centrally for England and Wales and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the levels of spending on fire services 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. [94013]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Fire service spending per head figures for the years 1992–93 until 1997–98, the latest year for which full information is available centrally, were placed in the Library in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 503, by the former Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). In 1998–99 spending per head on the fire service in Staffordshire County Council was £24.

  Wildlife
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful wildlife protection prosecutions have been launched by Merseyside Police since 1992. [94654]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Merseyside Police Force's computerised records indicate the following number of successful prosecutions since January 1994 of persons charged with a wildlife offence:
  693

  Year in which person was charged

  Number of persons convicted

  1994

  1

  1995

  0

  1996

  0

  1997

  0

  1998

  3

  1999 (to date)

  1

  Earlier computerised information is not available

  Electronic Communications
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what departmental guidance is currently given, and what administrative rules apply, in relation to the accessing of e-mails and other forms of electronic communications by the security and intelligence services and other law enforcement agencies; and if he will make a statement. [94578]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Any communication, including e-mails and the intemet, when it is being transmitted by means of a public telecommunication system, may be intercepted in pursuance of a warrant issued in accordance with the provisions of the Interception Of Communications Act 1985. Appropriate procedures to process such warrants have been laid down.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93691]

  Mr. Straw
  The spending on official publications since May 1997 by the Home Office, apart from the Prison Service; which includes the costs incurred by the Department in publishing, preparation, production and purchase of copies for official use; was approximately £4.6 million in 1997–98, £4.3 million in 1998–99 and £2.5 million to date in 1999–2000. The figures exclude the cost of publications produced for internal use. 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.

  Unfortunately, there is no central record of expenditure incurred on official publications at Prison Service outstations.

  Spending on Official Publications since May 1997

  £

  Home Office Directorate/Agency

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Police Policy

  313,745

  377,533

  45,906

  Organised and International Crime

  3,669

  115,105

  1,743

  Criminal Policy

  1,677,530

  1,734,000

  43,140

  Research Development and Statistics

  486,000

  438,000

  60,100

  Immigration and Nationality

  16,003

  22,650

  5,998

  Constitutional and Community Policy

  8,329

  8,330

  2,776

  Fire and Emergency Planning

  46,290

  67,424

  32,204

  Planning and Finance

  770

  770

  257

  Other Central Services

  13,163

  69,913

  58,121

  694

  Spending on official publications since May 1997

  £

  Home Office Directorate/Agency

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Corporate Resources and Development

  4

  804

  399

  Communication

  1,962,993

  1,411,475

  2,256,901

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  37,222

  64,571

  12,435

  Fire Service College

  7,034

  4,012

  1,737

  Forensic Science Service

  28,000

  25,000

  0

  Total

  4,600,752

  4,339,587

  2,521,717

  Sexual Harassment (Prison Service)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 July 1999,Official Report, columns 524–25, what assessment the Prison Service has made of those sexual harassment cases notified to HM Prison Service headquarters since 1998 that have not been settled either by negotiation or by tribunal decision. [93658]

  Mr. Boateng
  No central assessment of these cases has been made. Complaints are dealt with locally in accordance with the Prison Service's procedure for handling complaints of harassment or discrimination. The Prison Service's equal opportunities team in headquarters keeps statistical records and offers advice on cases as necessary.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the scheduled date for the coming into force of the powers of the Criminal Records Bureau to monitor the record of adults working with children; and what representations he has received with regard to an earlier starting date for this scheme and for the provision of information free of charge to potential employers in the voluntary sector. [94671]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The timetable for implementation of the Criminal Records Bureau is under review. I shall make an announcement shortly. We have received some representations calling for the Bureau to be brought into operation as early as possible, and that is my intention. The Government have considered very carefully the many representations that we have received arguing for charges to be waived for checks carried out by the Bureau in the case of volunteers. This presents substantial problems of principle and would inevitably increase costs either for the public purse or for other applicants for certificates. But the concerns which have been expressed have increased our determination that the cost of certificates from the Bureau should be kept as low as possible. The cost of certificates has been previously estimated at between £5 and £10 depending on type of certificate.

DEFENCE

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence of the anti-personnel mines stored by the MoD how many and what percentage of the total were destroyed in each year since 1991. [94663]
  695
  Mr. Spellar
  The UK no longer stores any operational anti-personnel mines. The last of the Army's operational stocks of APMs were destroyed on 22 February this year. The destruction programme for the last of the RAF's operational stocks of APMs—the HB 876 sub-munition for the JP233 weapon system—was completed on 19 October 1999. Available figures for anti-personnel mines destroyed by the UK are shown in the table.

  Designation

  Year

  Quantity

  Total destroyed (%)

  C3 Elsie

  1995–96

  374,257

  64

  1996–97

  106,263

  18

  1998–99

  99,788

  17

  1Retained

  1,056

  Less than 1

  581,364

  100

  Mine and Discharger

  1995–96

  41,472

  3

  Barrel Assembly

  1995–97

  596,664

  39

  (Ranger)

  1998–99

  876,960

  58

  1Retained

  2,088

  —

  1,517,184

  100

  Mine A/Tk L27A1

  1995–96

  4

  Less than 1

  1997–97

  4,870

  100

  4,874

  100

  Mine A/P HE M86

  1993–94

  204

  100

  JP233

  1997–98

  6

  0.4

  1998–99

  1,385

  99.6

  1,391

  100

  1As permitted under Article 3 of the Ottawa Convention, the UK will continue to retain the minimum necessary numbers of live APMs for training and testing in de-mining techniques. Other, inert, training APMs are not included in these figures.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what target date his Department has set to destroy all the anti-personnel mines it currently holds. [94664]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am pleased to announce that the last operational UK anti-personnel mines—the HB 876 sub-munition to the RAF's JP 233 weapon system—were destroyed on 19 October. We have completed the UK's destruction programme over three years ahead of the timeframe laid down in the Ottawa Convention. The destruction programme was accelerated to demonstrate to the world the UK's clear and unequivocal commitment to the Ottawa Convention. As provided for in Article 3 of the Ottawa Convention, the UK will continue to hold the minimum necessary numbers of anti-personnel mines for the development of and training in mine detection, mine clearance, or mine destruction techniques.

  Royal Tournament
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review his decision not to continue the Royal Tournament's field gun display; and if he will make a statement. [94067]

  Mr. Hoon
  The decision to end the field gun competition runs parallel with the decision to end the Royal Tournament. In part this is because the event cannot easily be replicated in a suitable public venue outside Earl's Court, but also because it accounted for more than half the personnel resources used at the Tournament. It is recognised that the field gun competition is an event with 696
  much audience loyalty, and is held in special regard by Service personnel, particularly those who have participated in the past. It has also been a tremendous spectacle for over 90 years, and it was fitting that the final run should take place in the centenary year of the action it commemorated.

  The event was, however, no longer fully representative of the Royal Navy or its contemporary activities. Consequently, the Royal Navy is keen to look to the future and concentrate on supporting events that more accurately reflect the training and operational activities of the Service in the next millennium.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds the Royal Tournament is to be ended; and if he will make a statement. [94144]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Royal Tournament has made a major contribution over the years to British life and to the Service charities. I therefore pay tribute to the organisers and participants who have given such great pleasure to so many.

  The Royal Tournament had been under scrutiny for some time. In part this was because the event had lost money in recent years—for example, it lost £400,000 last year—and this made the viability of the event questionable, particularly given its charitable status. More fundamentally, however, the format of the event could send only a limited message about the role and operational capabilities of the Armed Forces in the modern world. Moreover, the audience had reduced in recent years and as a result the Tournament neither informed the public nor attracted potential recruits to the extent we would have wished. Despite failing to meet our needs, it still placed a very considerable demand on our personnel, a minimum of 30,000 man-days per annum. This was hard to justify in the light of operational commitments and overstretch. Such considerations led the Services themselves to conclude that the Royal Tournament should end in order to help reduce commitments.

  We have thought very carefully as to how we might bring about necessary change while preserving the best of the old Tournament. Next year a one-off event, the Royal Military Tattoo 2000, will be mounted against the spectacular backdrop of Horse Guards Parade. The Tattoo, which has the theme "Defence of the Realm: past, present and future", will involve 1,200 men and women from the Services, 75 per cent. of whom will be musicians. It will be a dramatic 90-minute show, recounting with pride 1,000 years of military history, whilst also celebrating the present and looking to the future. The Tattoo will combine imaginative staging, state-of-the-art technology, pageantry, son et lumiere, lasers, fireworks and, I understand, the largest video screen to be seen in Europe. It will be held during the period 10-15 July 2000 and the planning team is working hard to ensure that the event is a great success.

  A military Tattoo will continue to be held in London from 2001 onwards. Again using the spectacular backdrop of Horse Guards Parade, the Tattoo will build on the traditional pageantry that has been such a popular element of the Royal Tournament over the years and a special feature of London in Summer. A military festival will also be held outside London at varying locations that will allow the Armed Forces to showcase their equipment and

  697
  to demonstrate their capability in an exciting and modern way. The festival will be based on existing and successful Service events starting in 2001 with the Royal Navy's International Festival of the Sea at Portsmouth. It will last for a whole day, enabling spectators to see a wide range of military activities, view the latest military equipment, meet personnel and participate in interactive displays in a way that is not possible with the existing Royal Tournament format.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings officials from the Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit have held with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs since 1 January, indicating the date and location of each meeting and the names of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs officials at each meeting. [93940]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the period 1 January 1999 to 15 October 1999, officials from the MOD's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit met US Department of Veterans Affairs officials on the dates and at the locations shown in the table:

  Location

  21 January

  Washington DC

  26 February

  Washington DC

  2-4 March

  Washington DC

  14 May

  Washington DC

  4-8 and 14 October

  Washington DC and Baltimore MD

  I am withholding the names of the US Department of Veterans Affairs officials who attended the meetings above in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (which relates to international relations) and Exemption 12 (which relates to privacy of an individual).

  In addition to the above, a member of the Gulf Veterans Illnesses Unit (GVIU) based in Washington DC maintains continuous dialogue with United States Department of Veterans Affairs colleagues.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the formal title of the agreement announced on 28 April by his Department between Britain and the United States of America to share information on Gulf veterans' illnesses research; what progress has so far been made under the agreement; how many working groups and committees will operate under this agreement; on what dates each of these working groups and committees so far have met; on what dates in 1999 each of these working groups and committees are scheduled to meet; which United States Government Departments and organisations are taking part in this agreement; and which other United Kingdom Departments and organisations will take part in the agreement; [93930]

  (2) how many agreements on the subject of Gulf veterans' illnesses have existed between Britain and United States of America since 1 May 1997; what are the names of each of these agreements; when each agreement was signed; and what is the purpose of each agreement. [94009]
  698
  Mr. Spellar
  The agreement announced on 28 April is to be formalised by extending the scope of the UK-US Master Information Exchange Memorandum of Understanding (MIEM). The new agreement is an Information Exchange Annex entitled: "UK-US Master Information Exchange Memorandum of Understanding Annex Concerning Persian Gulf Veterans Health Research". It is not envisaged that the agreement will lead to the formation of new working groups or committees. Work has been and will continue to he taken forward by arrangements already in place. The main participants will be the UK Ministry of Defence, the US Department of Defense, the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Department of Health and Human Services. Non-governmental research institutes, academic departments, other organisations and individuals will be involved as appropriate.

  Prior to this agreement there were no formal agreements between the US and UK governments on Gulf veterans' illnesses. However, there has been a close history of co-operation between the two governments on Gulf veterans' illnesses matters.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings officials from the Ministry of Defence's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit have held with the United States Department of Defense since 1 January, indicating the date and location of each meeting and the names of the United States Department of Defense officials at each meeting. [93941]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the period 1 January 1999 to 15 October 1999, officials from the MOD's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit met US Department of Defense officials on the dates and at the locations shown in the table:

  Date(s)

  Location

  21 January

  Washington DC

  26 February

  Washington DC

  2-4 March

  Washington DC

  29-30 March

  London

  14 May

  Washington DC

  4-14 October

  Washington DC and San Diego CA

  I am withholding the names of the US Department of Defense officials who attended the meetings above in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (which relates to international relations) and Exemption 12 (which relates to privacy of an individual).

  In addition to the above, a member of the Gulf Veterans Illnesses Unit (GVIU) based in Washington DC maintains continuous dialogue with United States Department of Defense colleagues.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many United States(a) Government committees, (b) boards and (c) working groups relating to the issue of Gulf veterans' illnesses his Department's representatives have sat since 1 May 1997; and if he will list the official titles of each of these committees, boards and working groups and the United States Departments to which each committee, board and working group belongs. [93988]
  699
  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Title of US Government committee, board or working group

  US Department representation

  Persian Gulf Veterans Co-ordinating Board (PGVCB) Research Working Group, PGVCB Clinical Working Group and PGVCB Benefits Working Group

  PGVCB is an inter-departmental board comprising Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Health and Human Service

  The Center for Disease Control Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Conference Planning Committee

  Department of Health and Human Services

  Planning Committee meeting for the Military Medicine Conference on Post-conflict Illnesses

  Department of Defense

  Planning Committee Meeting for the Principal Investigators' conference

  PGVCB is an inter-departmental board Conference comprising Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Health and Human Services

  The Armed Forces Epidemiology Board

  Department of Defense Board

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which dates the Minister of State for the Armed Forces visited the United States of America this year to investigate Gulf veterans' illnesses research; how many meetings he held with members and officials of the United States Government during this visit; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting and the names and Departments of the United States members and officials at each meeting. [93990]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 26 February 1999, my predecessor as Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) attended a meeting on Gulf veterans' illnesses with the Senior Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs who was assisted by senior briefing officials from various US Departments. The meeting was held in the Old Executive Office Building, Washington DC. My predecessor also met the Deputy Secretary of Defense on 1 March.

  I am withholding the names of the US officials who attended the meetings above in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (which relates to international relations) and Exemption 12 (which relates to privacy of an individual).

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the co-operation between the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme of his Department and the US Department of Defense's Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Programme; how many meetings the two units have held since 1 January; and if he will indicate the dates and locations of each meeting. [93989]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department's Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme was established in July 1993 to examine UK Gulf veterans who were concerned that their health had been adversely affected by service 700
  in the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. Although since 1 January officials from the Medical Assessment Programme have attended conferences at which representatives from the Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Programme were present, there have been no formal meetings between representatives of the two organisations. The Head of the MOD's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit attended a meeting at the Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Programme, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington DC on 7 October 1999.

  Air Force Board
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Air Force Board has met since 16 July 1998; and if he will place in the Library a list of items discussed at each of the meetings. [93885]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  There have been two meetings of the Air Force Board since 16 July 1998. The first of these took place on 3 March 1999. The agenda consisted of a presentation by the Chief of the Air Staff on the RAF in 1999 and the key challenges facing the Service, and managing a forecast shortfall in pilots. The second meeting of the Air Force Board was held on 14 July 1999 and the only item on the Board's agenda was the officer branch structure review.

  Procurement Board
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Procurement Board has met since 25 January; and if he will place in the Library a list of items discussed at each of the meetings. [93858]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The last meeting of the Procurement Policy Board was on 25 January. With the formation of the Defence Procurement Agency on 1 April the Board was dissolved. There is no direct successor body to the Procurement Policy Board. Future arrangements are under consideration within the framework of Smart Procurement.

  Defence Research Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Defence Research Committee has met since 16 November 1998; and if he will place in the Library a list of items discussed at each of the meetings. [93883]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Since 16 November 1998, the Defence Research Committee has met on one occasion, on 14 April 1999, and discussed Consultation with National Defence Industries Council, Strategy for Applied Research, Corporate Research Guidance, Long Term Costing 99 and Critical Defence Technologies.

  Chiefs of Staff
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Chiefs of Staff have met since 23 February; and if he will place in the Library a list of items discussed at each of the meetings. [93884]

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

  Admiralty Board
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Admiralty Board has met since 1 July 1998; and if he will place in the Library a list of items discussed at each of the meetings. [93861]

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

  Defence Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Defence Council has met since 20 July 1998; and if he will place in the Library a list of items discussed at each of the meetings. [93886]

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

  Equipment Approvals Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Equipment Approvals Committee has met since 1 January; and if he will place in the Library a list of items discussed at each of the meetings. [93859]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Since 1 January the Equipment Approvals Committee has met in formal session on 17 March, 17 May, 26 May and 14 June. The projects discussed were the Type 45 Destroyer, Eurofighter, the Airborne Stand-Off Radar System (ASTOR) and the Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM).

  Army Board
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Army Board has met since 24 July 1998; and if he will place in the Library a list of items discussed at each of the meetings. [93860]

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

  Kosovo
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 June 1999,Official Report, column 303, if he is now able to estimate the cost to the Exchequer of peacekeeping in Kosovo over the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [94799]

  Mr. Hoon
  Further to my predecessor's reply of 21 June, I am not yet able to provide an estimate of the future costs. I shall however write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Overseas Forces
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and strength of British forces overseas; and if he will make a statement. [94785]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 October 1999]The number of service personnel deployed overseas as at 1 October 1999 is 43,500. Their geographical location is as follows:702

  Number

  Overseas Commands:

  Germany

  25,305

  Cyprus

  3,208

  Falkland Islands

  approximate 1,650

  Gibraltar

  443

  Overseas Operations:

  The Gulf

  1,412

  Bosnia and Croatia

  4,103

  Kosovo

  15,000

  East Timor

  approximate 330

  UN:

  Cyprus

  318

  Kuwait

  11

  Sierra Leone

  15

  Georgia

  7

  East Timor

  2

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  6

  Short Term Training Teams:

  Antarctica2

  3

  Baltic States

  4

  Jamaica

  1

  Sierra Leone

  15

  Namibia

  6

  Oman

  2

  Romania

  3

  Loan Service Personnel:

  Antarctica2

  3

  Antigua

  6

  Australia

  1

  Barbados

  1

  Bahrain

  1

  Bangladesh

  2

  Bermuda

  3

  British Virgin Islands

  2

  Brunei

  57

  Baltic States

  4

  Czech Republic

  1

  Estonia

  1

  Ethiopia

  1

  Germany

  22

  Ghana

  4

  Italy

  1

  Kenya

  1

  Kuwait

  53

  Lithuania

  1

  Malaysia

  4

  New Zealand

  1

  Oman

  89

  Romania

  2

  Saudi Arabia

  64

  Sierra Leone

  1

  Singapore

  1

  Slovakia

  1

  South Africa

  16

  Sri Lanka

  1

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  2

  United Arab Emirates

  4

  USA

  1

  Zimbabwe

  10

  Other Overseas Detachments:

  Belize

  82

  Brunei

  957

  Canada

  213

  Colombia

  2

  Kenya

  35

  1 Including FYROM, Greece, Albania and Italy

  2 Attached to the British Antarctic Survey

  Indonesia (Training)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Indonesian military and police personnel are currently receiving training or education in the UK at military training establishments and non-military educational establishments; to which establishments they are attached; and what is the nature and cost of the training or education. [95336]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently no Indonesian military personnel receiving training or education in the UK at military training establishments or at HMG's expense in non-military educational establishments. Following agreement at the EU General Affairs Council on 13 September to suspend bilateral military co-operation with Indonesia, no members of the Indonesian military will be allowed to begin studying in the UK at HMG expense or at an HMG-administered Training establishment. Although not the responsibility of this Department, we are aware of two officers who are studying privately in the UK. Such studies are not inconsistent with the EU's Common Position. Information on the location of these establishments has been withheld under Exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  One Indonesian police officer is studying at a UK University under the FCO funded Chevening Scheme at a cost of around £16,000. This supports enhancing the democratic accountability of the Indonesia National Police following their separation from the Armed Force on April 1. Again, the location of this establishment has been withheld under Exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Indonesian military and police personnel are currently receiving training in Indonesia under UK government schemes and (b) UK personnel are involved in each case; and what is the nature and cost of the training. [95337]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently no Indonesian military or police personnel receiving training in Indonesia under UK government schemes.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in each of the past two years RAF flights serving the Falkland Islands have been delayed by mechanical or other failures; and if he will make a statement. [95315]

  Mr. Spellar
  Between the beginning of September 1999 and the middle of October 1999, there have been 22 legs flown to and from the Falkland Islands (11 outward and 11 return). Of these, five were delayed for serviceability or aircraft availability reasons. This information has only been held centrally since September 1999, following the introduction of a new computer system. Information for flights before then is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will invite tenders from commercial airlines to provide planes to serve the garrison on the Falklands; and if he will make a statement. [95314]
  704
  Mr. Spellar
  There are no plans to contract out the airbridge service to and from the Falkland Islands. The Ministry of Defence will of course look at any unsolicited proposals from commercial airlines, to determine best value for money. The examination of previous unsolicited proposals did, however, conclude that, taking into account the operational requirement to retain the Royal Air Force Tristars, the use of military aircraft was the most cost-effective solution.

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the US Government regarding the US Senate's refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [95243]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have made clear to the US Government our deep disappointment with the US Senate's vote against US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. We welcome the US Government's expression of strong continuing support for the Treaty. We will continue to work with the US Government and all other ratifiers and signatories for the Treaty's entry into force as soon as possible.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the new security fence, including cameras, recently erected at RAF Menwith Hill; and what proportion of the costs was met by his Department. [95744]

  Mr. Spellar
  The construction of the new security fence at RAF Menwith Hill is being funded by the US Government. The UK contribution is limited to some administrative costs relating to professional fees and management of the works programme to which some £24,000 has been allocated to date. The total cost of the project is a matter for the US authorities.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Articles of the(a) Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty and (b) Outer Space Treaty, which govern the use of RAF Menwith Hill (i) as part of the National Missile Defense for the USA and (ii) as part of the Space Based Infra Red System (SBIRS). [95747]

  Mr. Spellar
  The United Kingdom is not party to the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. Questions on its interpretation should be addressed to the USA and Russia. Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty requires that the moon and other celestial bodies should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes; prohibits placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit, on the moon or on other celestial bodies; and prohibits placing military facilities, conducting military manoeuvres, or the testing of any type of weapons on the moon and other celestial bodies. It imposes no limitations on other military activities in outer space.

  Service Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish a consultation document following the comprehensive review of arrangements for compensating service personnel or their dependants killed or injured while on service. [95732]
  705
  Mr. Spellar
  We hope to make an announcement later this year.

  Thiepval Barracks
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what other uses he envisages for the land which will become available inside Thiepval Barracks in Lisburn following the planned demolition of married quarters. [95102]

  Mr. Spellar
  We aim to use some of the land to build a new Garrison Church, to replace the old church which was damaged in the bombing of Tiepval Barracks in 1996, and also to provide improved security arrangements for vehicle parking within the Barracks. The remaining land will provide much-needed flexibility in planning the future layout and utility of the barracks.

  Army Retention Study
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Adjutant-General's Army Retention Study will be completed; when the findings will be made public; and if he will make a statement. [95524]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army's Retention Study is a six-month strategic review to examine the effectiveness of present policies, which includes undertaking field research, and making recommendations for improvements. The work is being carried out by the Hay Management Group and the Institute for Employment Studies, who will report their findings to the Adjutant-General on 30 November 1999. The Retention Study was commissioned to inform the Army's personnel management policies and there are currently no plans to publish the findings externally.

  Service Families Task Force
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the initiatives that have come directly from the Service Families Task Force; and if he will make a statement. [95523]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Service Families Task Force works across Government to tackle the problems caused by the mobile lifestyle of Service personnel and their families. It works with other Departments to address problems identified by the Service Families Associations. It has achieved some impressive results. These include: making it easier for Service spouses to claim Jobseeker's Allowance in the UK; the new DfEE Code of Practice on Schools Admission taking account of the particular needs of Service families; Service representation on Schools Admission Forums in areas where there are large populations of Service children; extra money for pre-five education for Service children in Northern Ireland; and 24 schemes in areas with large numbers of Service families to encourage dentists to take on more NHS patients. Work on other issues is continuing.

  The Service Families Task Force is an example of the importance the Government attach to the needs of Service families. A full account of our family friendly policies is contained in our leaflet "A Special Message to Service Families From MOD Ministers", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  706
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the participating bodies on the Service Families Task Force; when the Task Force will next meet; if he will publish the agenda for the next meeting; and if he will make a statement. [95552]

  Mr. Spellar
  I chair the Service Families Task Force. It brings together Ministers from across Government, including from the Department for Education and Employment, Department of Health, Department of Social Services, Scottish Office, and Northern Ireland Office, and separately, the chairs of the Service Family Associations—the Association of Royal Naval and Royal Marines Families, the Army Families Federation and Airwaves. It operates at three levels: a Ministerial Group; a Families Forum; and a Working Group of officials. The Ministerial Group last met on 21 September 1999 and will meet again in the new year. The Families Forum is due to meet on 15 November 1999, and will discuss a range of issues of interest to Service families. The Working Group meets as necessary to deal with issues as they arise.

  The Service Families Task Force works across Government to ensure that the particular circumstances of Service families are taken into account in developing and implementing new policies. It is achieving good results.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy on no first use of British nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement. [95735]

  Mr. Hoon
  In conducting the Strategic Defence Review, the Government concluded that a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons would be incompatible with our and NATO's doctrine of deterrence, and that it would not further nuclear disarmament objectives.

  Service Children (Schools Admissions)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Department for Education and Employment guidance on schools admissions policy concerning the position of service children was issued and in what form; how it is to be implemented and enforced; and if he will make a statement. [95525]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  DfEE guidance on School admissions policy was issued in February 1999 in the "Code of Practice—School Admissions". The guidance came into force on 1 April 1999. It is the responsibility of local education authorities to implement the guidance and for DfEE to enforce it. The Service Children's Education Agency is working closely with those LEAs with large populations of Service children, to ensure that they are treated equitably.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Visits
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the President of the Council if she will introduce a scheme for hon. Members to visit the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly, in links with visits to the European Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [93924]
  707
  Mrs. Beckett
  All hon. Members are already able to claim reimbursement for expenditure incurred visiting any part of the United Kingdom on parliamentary business under the extended travel scheme. It is the Government's stated hope that there will be links created at all levels between Members at Westminster and the devolved legislatures. However, access to the premises of the devolved legislatures is a matter for the bodies concerned.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the President of the Council if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by her Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94846]

  Mrs. Beckett
  It is made clear to all bodies making recommendations for appointments or reappointments that they should consider whether women are properly represented on the bodies concerned. Of the 149 appointments made by Her Majesty in Council, by the Privy Council or by me as President, 55 (37 per cent.) are currently held by women. This compares with the position five years ago when, of 141 such appointees, 43 (30 per cent.) were women.

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council how many requests there have been to her Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [93999]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Pastoral Measure (Whitby)
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the conclusions of Pastoral Measure 1983 Whitby St. John Proposed Pastoral Scheme published on 21 September (Ref. PR43/401), setting out how the views of the Whitby Anglican Community have been taken into account by the Commissioners and detailing the method of appeal to the Commissioners against this decision. [95100]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The draft scheme under the Pastoral Measure 1983 proposing the closure of the church of St. John, Whitby was, as with all such schemes, served on, inter alia, the relevant incumbent, team vicar, pcc, archdeacon and rural dean. It was also published in the Whitby Gazette and Middlesbrough Evening Gazette and displayed on the door of the churches of St. Mary, Whitby; St. John, Whitby; and St. Hilda, Whitby. It was open to anyone to make representations and the statement of 21 September 1999 to which my hon.708
  Friend refers sets out who made representations in favour of the scheme and who made representations against. My hon. Friend will have noted that there were views for and against among Whitby churchgoers. An earlier identical draft scheme (which had to be withdrawn when procedural flaws in the diocesan consultations came to light) was the subject of a visit to Whitby by a Sub-Committee of the Commissioners' Pastoral Committee. On that occasion, the Sub-Committee met the incumbent, the Whitby pcc and the St. John's congregation.

  All views were most carefully taken into account but ultimately the Commissioners concluded that the case for declaring St. John's redundant had not been made as. in their view, it was required as a chapel of ease in the centre of Whitby.

  The Commissioners' Pastoral Committee provided, in effect, a place of appeal against the proposal by the diocese of York to declare this church redundant. The Pastoral Measure 1983 provides no procedure for appeal against a decision by the Commissioners not to proceed with a draft scheme but the diocese is free to promote fresh proposals for pastoral re-organisation in Whitby.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money annually has been spent by her Department on humanitarian demining since 1991. [94665]

  Clare Short
  My Department's bilateral disbursements on humanitarian mine action are:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1991–92

  0.360

  1992–93

  1.769

  1993–94

  3.152

  1994–95

  5.969

  1995–96

  4.844

  1996–97

  4.369

  1997–98

  4.656

  1998–99

  5.824

  1999–20001

  12.400

  1 Commitments to date including Kosovo

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has allocated to assist the victims of mines and on mine awareness in each year since 1991. [94640]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not set aside resources from its Humanitarian Mine Action budget specifically for land mine survivors. Instead, health care and community-based rehabilitation assistance is provided through DFID' s bilateral development co-operation programmes or institutional programme support. The financial records do not disaggregate assistance to land mine survivors from other categories of special needs.
  709
  Community based mine awareness activities are usually integrated into mine survey and clearance projects, and are not recorded as a separate disbursement. In addition, disbursements on discrete mine awareness projects are:

  Financial year

  £

  1992–93

  6,451

  1995–96

  15,230

  1996–97

  70,000

  1999–20001

  1,400,000

  1 Committed to date

  Ministerial Visit (Balkans)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her most recent visit to the Balkans. [95643]

  Clare Short
  I visited Kosovo on 24–25 August to assess need and plan the shift of the Department for International Development's (DFID) assistance from an emergency to a longer-term programme. The overall message that I received was one of cautious optimism. We found there had been steady progress in rehabilitation, although much remained to be done. We emphasised to UNMIK and the EC the importance of moving quickly and enabling the Kosovars to take on a bigger role in the reconstruction effort. We continue to work with the international community and the local population to help achieve this. Our operations are now in transition to a longer-term programme of assistance. My officials will visit the region early next month to take this process forward.

TREASURY

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the European Commission's periodic surveys on the progress and impact of the Prince programme on public awareness of the euro. [95303]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I understand that, to date, the European Commission have not carried out any periodic surveys on public awareness of the euro under the Prince Programme.

  Winter Mortality
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the excess monthly winter mortality over each of the last five years. [94948]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tim Boswell, dated 25 October 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on excess monthly winter mortality.
  710
  Information on excess deaths in winter months is shown below.

  Excess winter deaths, England and Wales, 1993–94 to 1997–98

  Year

  Excess winter deaths

  1993–94

  25,900

  1994–95

  27,300

  1995–96

  40,190

  1996–97

  47,690

  1997–98

  22,900

  Excess winter deaths are defined as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average of the number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).

  Cash Management
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the timing of the transfer of cash management from the Bank of England to the Debt Management Office. [95866]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 6 May 1997 that the functions of debt management and cash management would be transferred from the Bank of England to the Treasury. The UK Debt Management Office (DMO) was established on 1 April 1998 and took over debt management from that date. The Government's debt management plans for 1999–2000 which were published in the Debt Management Report in March 1999 anticipated that cash management would be transferred from the Bank to the DMO during 1999–2000. This transfer, when complete, will separate the Bank's monetary policy operations from the DMO' s debt and cash management operations. This will avoid any perceptions of conflicts of interest between the two operations, and further deliver the Government's policy of predictability and transparency in debt management.

  The transfer of cash management from the Bank to the DMO during 1999–2000 will be effected on a phased basis. The phasing is designed to avoid placing undue requirements on the markets in the period before and immediately after the change to the Year 2000 date.

  From 15 November, the DMO will become accountable for the new Debt Management Account, which will take over from the Gilt-Edged Official Operations Account as the Treasury account for debt (and later) cash management operations. During January 2000, the DMO will start to issue Treasury bills from the Debt Management Account. During February, the DMO intends to undertake a limited range of bilateral transactions with counterparties. From the end of March 2000, full responsibility for managing the government's daily cash position will be transferred from the Bank to the DMO.

  In order to enable the DMO to start the phased introduction of these cash management operations from 15 November, I have today laid before Parliament revised Treasury Bill regulations SI 1999–2907 and made a Commencement Order SI 1999–2908 (C.76) under paragraph 3 of Schedule 26 of the Finance Act 1998. Taken together, these statutory instruments will enable the Debt Management Office to begin accounting for its debt

  711
  and cash management operations through the new Debt Management Account, which will be subject to NAO audit. The Gilt-edged Official Operations Account is currently used to bring debt management operations to account. The Commencement Order will also provide for the transfer of the debt assets of the Gilt-edged Official Operations Account to the Debt Management Account.

  The Executive Agency Framework Document for the DMO has also been revised to take account of the transfer of the cash management function to the DMO. Copies of the revised Framework Document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's intention with regard to a tax on pesticides. [94940]

  Mr. Timms
  No decision has been taken on whether to introduce a tax on the use of pesticides.

  Research commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on a possible tax or charge on pesticides was published on 24 March focusing on various design options for a charge scheme or tax, and attempting to evaluate the potential impact. Views were invited on the issues raised in the research and this consultation exercise closed on 24 June. The Government are considering the findings of the research project and the views expressed in the consultation exercise in deciding how best to proceed.

WALES

  British Fluoridation Society
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money the British Fluoridation Society received in grant aid from the Welsh Office in each of the last five years. [94718]

  Mr. Hanson
  Over the last five years, the British Fluoridation Society has received the following in grant aid from the Welsh Office:

  £

  1994–95

  3,200

  1995–96

  3,200

  1996–97

  4,000

  1997–98

  4,000

  1998–99

  4,000

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the method of sale to be used by the Forestry Commission when selling its forests. [95223]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Forestry matters in Wales are a matter for the Forestry Commission which reports directly to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Welsh Office Responsibilities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details of the responsibilities within the Welsh Office undertaken(a) by himself and (b) by his Under Secretary. [94776]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Ministerial colleague and I take a close interest in all matters which come before my Department. The new role of my office lends itself to such an approach. More broadly, however, I deal with constitutional matters, finance and economic policy issues, while my colleague deals with a wide range of social policy issues. We will both take a close interest in legislative matters which come before Parliament.

SCOTLAND

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [93972]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 429–30.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Civil Service staff there are in his offices in(a) London, (b) Edinburgh and (c) Glasgow. [94056]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of staff in my office is under review. At present there are 28 staff of the Scotland Office and five staff of the Advocate General based in London. The figures for Edinburgh are 17 and 20 respectively. There are no staff based in Glasgow. In addition, I have three special advisers, one of whom is part-time and unpaid.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 30 June 1999,Official Report, column 193, on Special Advisers, how many times his Department's Special Adviser held meetings with members and officials of the US Government during the visit of 15 to 19 March; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting and the names of the US ministers and officials at each meeting. [93964]

  Dr. Reid
  My predecessor's Special Adviser did not hold meetings with members or officials of the US Government.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings the then Secretary of State for Scotland held with members and officials of the United
  713
  States Government during his visits to the United States on 2 to 28 September 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. [93954]

  Dr. Reid
  The visit took place from 20 to 28 September. No meetings were held with members or officials of the US Government.

  Local Councillors (Gender Profiles)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the percentages of councillors in each local authority who are(a) men and (b) women. [95169]

  Dr. Reid
  The information in the table is derived from the Directory of Scottish Local Government, which is produced jointly by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Local Government Information Unit. It represents the positions at the end of July 1999.

  Council

  Total number of councillors

  Men

  (%)

  Women

  (%)

  Aberdeen City

  43

  30

  70

  13

  30

  Aberdeenshire

  68

  45

  66

  23

  34

  Angus

  29

  22

  76

  7

  24

  Argyll and Bute

  36

  30

  83

  6

  17

  Clackmannanshire

  18

  14

  78

  4

  22

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  31

  27

  87

  4

  13

  Dumfries and Galloway

  47

  37

  79

  10

  21

  Dundee City

  29

  23

  79

  6

  21

  East Ayrshire

  32

  26

  81

  6

  19

  East Dunbartonshire

  24

  16

  67

  8

  33

  East Lothian

  23

  19

  83

  4

  17

  East Renfrewshire

  20

  17

  85

  3

  15

  City of Edinburgh

  58

  44

  76

  14

  24

  Falkirk

  32

  27

  84

  5

  16

  Fife

  78

  50

  64

  28

  36

  Glasgow City

  79

  57

  72

  22

  28

  Highland

  80

  64

  80

  16

  20

  lnverclyde

  20

  18

  90

  2

  10

  Midlothian

  18

  15

  83

  3

  17

  Moray

  26

  21

  81

  5

  19

  North Ayrshire

  30

  24

  80

  6

  20

  North Lanarkshire

  70

  64

  91

  6

  9

  Orkney Islands

  21

  19

  90

  2

  10

  Perth and Kinross

  41

  32

  78

  9

  22

  Renfrewshire

  40

  28

  70

  12

  30

  Scottish Borders

  34

  30

  88

  4

  12

  Shetland Islands

  22

  17

  77

  5

  23

  South Ayrshire

  30

  20

  67

  10

  33

  South Lanarkshire

  67

  48

  72

  19

  28

  Stirling

  22

  15

  68

  7

  32

  West Dunbartonshire

  22

  17

  77

  5

  23

  West Lothian

  32

  26

  81

  6

  19

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [94000]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EU Surplus Food Scheme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he undertook to publicise the EU surplus food scheme; and what categories of the scheme were available in the United Kingdom. [92827]

  Ms Quin
  My hon. Friend the previous Minister of State issued a News Release announcing details of the scheme for 1998 and invited interested organisations to apply to be designated to distribute canned stewed steak to eligible recipients. The scheme involved only intervention beef.

  Forest Land
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy relating to consultation by(a) the Forestry Commission and (b) Forest Enterprise with (i) local authorities and (ii) the public prior to the sale of Forestry Commission forest land. [95222]

  Mr. Morley
  The subject of this question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply to my hon. Friend direct.

  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 25 October 1999:
  I refer to your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asking what the Forestry Commission's policy is in relation to consultation on the sale of forest land. I have been asked to reply.The Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise notify the Local Authority of all sales of forest land as part of our Continued Public Access policy. This is to inform the Local Authority that we are considering sale of forest land and that we may be in a position to offer the opportunity to enter into an agreement to protect access after sale.We do not, at the moment, notify forest land sales directly to the public. However we are in the process of reviewing our policy on community participation and involvement and are considering ways in which sales might be notified to local people. Of course when land is offered for sale on the open market it is advertised widely by our selling agents.

PRIME MINISTER

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of the banning of fox hunting. [94620]

  The Prime Minister
  We believe that hunting with hounds should be the subject of a free vote, as we said in our manifesto. Right hon. and hon. Members had an opportunity to vote on the issue last year when the House considered the Private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). The Bill's progress was frustrated by its opponents and did not become law.

  Ascension Airbase
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made on discussions between the UK and USA Governments about enabling commercial aircraft to use the airbase on Ascension. [95316]

  The Prime Minister
  In December 1998 the UK passed a draft treaty to allow certain types of civil flights into Ascension to the US Authorities for consideration.

  During the visit of my noble Friend Baroness Scotland to the United States on 4-5 October 1999, the US Government confirmed in principle that the airfield should be opened to certain types of civil flights on a limited basis.

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

  Prime Minister's Office
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes have been made to the running and organisation of the Government Department which directly serves the Prime Minister since the summer adjournment began; and what further reorganisation or changes in structure he contemplates. [94575]

  The Prime Minister
  In addition to the staff in my office in 10 Downing street, the Cabinet Office provides support to me as chairman of the Cabinet and Minister for the Civil Service. There have been no changes to the organisation or running of the Cabinet Office since the summer adjournment. Changes in the future will be made as and when necessary.

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the benefits of commissioning an independent and authoritative body to prepare and publish the Government's annual report. [93717]

  The Prime Minister
  Both the 1997–98 and 1998–99 Annual Reports drew on publicly available facts and figures, all of which were provided by Departments. As a Government report it would not be appropriate for the Annual Report to be produced by an independent body. The National Audit Office provides independent 716
  information, advice and assurance to Parliament and the public about all aspects of the financial operations of Government Departments.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations the Government have received from other EU countries with regard to reviewing asylum procedures for applicants from eastern Europe. [95412]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings have taken place between him or his office and Balfour Beatty on the matter of the Ilisu Dam. [95099]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  European Police College
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the purpose of the European Police College; and what will be studied there. [95078]

  The Prime Minister
  Tackling Europe's organised crime problem effectively means that we have to ensure that police officers are properly trained and encouraged to co-operate with forces in other countries. We see the role of the European Police College, which will start off as a network of existing national training institutes, as fulfilling these functions by supporting the establishment of a common approach to tackling transnational organised crime, and by drawing together work already being carried out by individual Member States on training police officers to tackle organised crime effectively. We envisage that, over time, those trained by the college will form a Europe-wide body of expertise about European policing and cross border operations. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, together with colleagues in other Member States, will take forward the work on establishing the College.

  Secretary of State for Scotland
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the executive functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland. [95975]

  The Prime Minister
  As a consequence of the new constitutional arrangements under the Scotland Act 1998, I have approved a reallocation of certain functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland to other Ministers of the Crown with appropriate functional responsibilities. Copies of an Order which was made by Her Majesty in Council on 12 October and which transfer certain of these functions have been laid before Parliament.

  In addition to the transfer effected by this Order, it is proposed that certain other statutory executive functions of the Secretary of State that are currently exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but which could be exercised by any other Secretary of State, should also be transferred. No legislation is required to give effect to these transfers which will be carried out by administrative arrangement. One of these is the transfer to the Home Secretary of the Secretary of State for Scotland's functions in relation to the issuing of warrants for the

  717
  interception of communications or interference with property for national security purposes where the person or property named on the warrant is, or is reasonably believed to be, located in Scotland at the time the warrant is issued.

  I have placed a paper in the Libraries of both Houses that briefly describes the content of the Transfer of Functions Order and lists the other executive functions that are to transfer.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that relevant Departments work together to tackle problems related to domestic violence. [95521]

  The Prime Minister
  In June the Government published their integrated approach to tackling violence against women "Living with Fear".

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking forward this work, together with that in relation to domestic violence generally. A unit within the Home Office is responsible for ensuring that there is a coherent, consistent and properly co-ordinated approach across Government in the development and implementation of policy on tackling violence against women. Co-ordination at Ministerial level is through the Cabinet sub-Committee on Women's issues.

  Drugs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to ascertain details of precursor chemicals exported from the UK to South America suitable for use in the processing of drugs; and what action his Department is taking. [95546]

  The Prime Minister
  Exports to South American and other countries of precursor chemicals which might be used in the illicit manufacture of drugs are controlled and monitored by the UK in accordance with the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988 and the relevant EU Regulation implementing these controls in the European Union.

  The chemicals which are included in such controls are listed therein and subject to regular review by the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 261, what is the timetable for the action he proposes to take to counter the lack of traceability of drug money; and if he will make a statement on the range of measures he proposes to take. [95548]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government strongly support action to combat money laundering and so attack the crime on which it thrives.

  At the European Council meeting at Tampere we agreed a range of special concrete actions against money laundering, listed in the Presidency Conclusions. They cover a wide range of initiatives to facilitate unproved asset tracing. The United Kingdom will be pressing for the conclusions to be converted into action by the Council and Commission as quickly as possible.
  718
  The United Kingdom has taken a leading role in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the leading international anti-money laundering body. In accordance with its recommendations, United Kingdom legislation already bans the use of anonymous bank accounts, as they may be used to conceal criminal proceeds. Law enforcement authorities in all member states must have the ability, as they do in the United Kingdom, to trace the proceeds of drug trafficking and other crimes, subject to judicial oversight but regardless of banking secrecy.

  At the domestic level, the Government are examining how to strengthen existing legislation and arrangements for the investigation, restraint and seizure of criminal proceeds. I have approved a study by the Performance and Innovation Unit of the role that following the money trail and seizing criminal assets can play in the fight against crime, and of how to maximise the effectiveness of these tools. The study will report early next year.

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [93991]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

SOCIAL SECURITY

  New Deal (Lone Parents)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents in Chelmsford local authority area have been contacted by the new deal for lone parents programme; and how many have received a job. [93762]

  Angela Eagle
  We do not have separate figures for Chelmsford. The figures that are available cover the whole of Essex; 9,000 invitations to participate in the voluntary programme have been issued and 440 lone parents have so far found jobs.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to help the poorest pensioners. [93764]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Minimum Income Guarantee introduced in April provides a significant increase in incomes to the poorest pensioners. They will also start to receive their £100 Winter Fuel Payments in week commencing 8 November; this will ensure that no pensioner will have to worry about turning up their heating this winter.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the percentage of the total population which is of pensionable
  719
  age; what was the percentage 10 years ago; and what forecast he has made of the percentage in 10 years' time. [93765]

  Mr. Rooker
  The percentage of the UK population over State Pension age is estimated at 18 per cent., broadly the same as ten years ago. Over the next ten years it is projected to rise to 19 per cent.

  Source:
  Office for National Statistics: Previous figures Government Actuaries Department: Current and future figures.

  Industrial Injury Benefits
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for reforming industrial injury benefits. [93766]

  Mr. Bayley
  We continue to see a case for reforming the industrial injuries scheme so that it reflects better the needs of today's labour market and improves incentives for prevention and rehabilitation. Initial discussions with key stakeholders confirmed our belief that there is scope for reform. However, much work remains to be done to decide the best way forward. Against the background of the current major programme of reform to other parts of the Social Security system the work cannot be completed quickly.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the timetable for the implementation of his proposed changes to the Child Support Agency. [93767]

  Angela Eagle
  The proposals for a new Child Support service set out in the White Paper represent a major change from the current arrangements. We will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government by rushing the new scheme into effect before we are ready.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposed changes to the Child Support Agency. [93776]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security set out our plans to reform the Child Support system in a White Paper published on 1 July. These will address the failures of the current scheme and put children's rights at the heart of the Child Support system.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on delays in payments by Benefits Agency offices. [93768]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefits Agency is meeting most of its targets for the payment of benefits. In the recent past, some delays in paying benefits have been caused by complications arising from the introduction of the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2). The majority of problems have now been resolved. Regrettably claims for Widows Benefit are still affected and the contingency arrangements in place take longer than normal to process.

  Fraud
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve co-ordination between the Benefits Agency and local authorities in combating fraud. [93769]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are committed to reducing fraud and error in the benefits system. One key part of our strategy is to develop stronger links between the Benefits Agency (BA) and local authorities (LAs). Most recently, following testing of the electronic transfer of information between the BA and LA in Lewisham, we started to extend this facility to other LAs. Fourteen LAs are now piloting the system which we aim to roll out nationally from next April. In Lewisham, the evaluation indicated significant reductions in processing times and overpayments. We have also introduced a national liaison service level agreement (SLA) and a specific fraud SLA, both of which are mandatory on BA and strongly endorsed by the LA Associations.

  £6 million has been allocated to BA Area Directors to fund joint working initiatives which identify an activity or programme that enhances the liaison between the BA and the LA and through that liaison will combat fraud and error in the benefit system.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed his target for the reduction of benefit fraud for the year 1999–2000. [93774]

  Mr. Rooker
  As published in the Public Service Agreement, for the first time we have set a single outcome target to reduce fraud and error in the two major benefits by 30 per cent. by March 2007, with at least a 10 per cent. reduction by March 2002.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many calls have been received by the Benefit Fraud Hotline in each month since it was established. [93642]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is as follows:

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline calls answered from 5 August 1996

  Calls answered

  Calendar month

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  January

  —

  17,981

  17,206

  13,925

  February

  —

  27,075

  15,780

  13,798

  March

  —

  27,073

  15,345

  16,901

  April

  —

  18,563

  19,007

  11,996

  May

  —

  19,272

  13,149

  11,303

  June

  —

  16,272

  13,692

  13,415

  July

  —

  18,808

  15,512

  10,491

  August

  35,179

  14,755

  11,104

  10,336

  September

  26,736

  16,236

  13,694

  12,971

  October

  28,257

  13,202

  12,805

  —

  November

  21,805

  11,770

  14,285

  —

  December

  11,989

  10,829

  12,160

  —

  Note:

  Approximately 2 per cent. of all calls ring off before the call is answered.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the places in which and dates on which Searchlight on Fraud investigations have taken place since they were started. [93641]
  721
  Mr. Rooker
  The Spotlight On Fraud campaign commenced on 1 April 1996. Certain areas of the country were subject to intensive counter fraud activity over a short period. The campaign consisted of three phases:

  Phase 1: 1 April 1996 to 15 August 1996

  Nottingham

  Glasgow

  Westminster

  Leeds

  Birmingham

  Bristol

  Lancaster and Barrow

  Isle of Wight

  Plymouth

  Cardiff

  Great Yarmouth

  Brighton

  Medway Towns

  Edinburgh

  Haringey and Enfield

  Croydon

  Rhyl

  Darlington

  Redcar and East Cleveland

  Phase 2: 4 November 1996 to 29 November 1996

  Wigan and Leigh

  Warrington

  Sheffield

  Newport

  Luton

  Leicester

  Lea Roding

  Inverness

  Hull

  Exeter

  Coventry

  Coatbridge

  Clydebank and Dumbarton

  Canterbury and Thanet

  Phase 3: 3 February 1997 to 28 February 1997

  Wolverhampton

  Westminster

  West Kent

  Peterborough

  Nottingham

  Newcastle

  Kirklees

  Kirkaldy

  Darlington

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department is taking to help people move from welfare into work. [93770]

  Angela Eagle
  In the last two years we have launched an ambitious series of welfare-to-work reforms. We have invested almost £4 billion in New Deals, representing an unprecedented assault on worklessness. We are on target to meet our manifesto commitment to help 250,000 young people move from welfare into work, with 135,000 young people into jobs by the end of July. Our reforms are putting work at the heart of the benefit system.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the timetable for the introduction of the stakeholder pension. [93772]

  Mr. Rooker
  We aim to enable the first stakeholder pension schemes to be set up from April 2001. We will be announcing decisions, following our consultations, around the end of the year, and our final proposals will be set out in draft regulations for further consultation. Stakeholder pension regulations should then be laid by around April 2000, thereby giving a clear year for industry to develop schemes for the market.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he has made with developing his proposals for stakeholder pensions. [93783]

  Mr. Rooker
  Between 2 June and 16 September, we issued six consultation documents on Minimum Standards, Employer Access, Clearing Arrangements, Advice, Governance and the Tax Regime.

  We have also held discussions with the Stakeholder Pensions Advisory Group and the Core Group.

  We will be announcing decisions around the end of the year before issuing draft regulations for consultation.

  SERPS
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to compensate people who have been misinformed about the inheritance rules for SERPS; [93773]

  (2) what estimate he has made of (a) the net costs of, (b) the gross costs of and (c) how many people would benefit from delaying the changes to the amount of SERPS payable to widows and widowers from (1) 2000 until 2010 and (2) 2000 until 2005 in (i) 2000 and (ii) every subsequent year until 2020; and how the (x) gross and (y) net costs of such a delay are calculated. [95256]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Estimated gross costs of delaying the changes to SERPS inheritance provisions and average numbers of widows and widowers who could be affected at any one time in each year

  Gross costs (£ million)

  Delay until 2010 Potential numbers affected (thousand)

  2000–01

  60

  100

  2001–02

  160

  300

  2002–03

  280

  490

  2003–04

  390

  670

  2004–05

  510

  830

  2005–06

  630

  990

  2006–07

  750

  1,140

  2007–08

  870

  1,270

  2008–09

  990

  1,400

  2009–10

  1,110

  1,520

  2010–11

  1,160

  1,540

  2011–12

  1,120

  1,450

  2012–13

  1,080

  1,370

  2013–14

  1,040

  1,280

  2014–15

  1,000

  1,210

  723

  Estimated gross costs of delaying the changes to SERPS inheritance provisions and average numbers of widows and widowers who could be affected at any one time in each year

  Gross costs (£ million)

  Delay until 2010 Potential numbers affected (thousand)

  2015–16

  960

  1,130

  2016–17

  920

  1,060

  2017–18

  880

  990

  2018–19

  830

  920

  2019–20

  790

  860

  2020–21

  750

  860

  Gross costs (£ million)

  Delay until 2005 Potential numbers affected (thousand)

  2000–01

  60

  100

  2001–02

  160

  300

  2002–03

  280

  490

  2003–04

  390

  670

  2004–05

  510

  830

  2005–06

  560

  890

  2006–07

  550

  840

  2007–08

  530

  790

  2008–09

  510

  750

  2009–10

  500

  700

  2010–11

  480

  660

  2011–12

  460

  620

  2012–13

  450

  580

  2013–14

  430

  550

  2014–15

  410

  510

  2015–16

  390

  470

  2016–17

  370

  440

  2017–18

  360

  410

  2018–19

  340

  380

  2019–20

  320

  350

  2020–21

  300

  330

  Notes:

  1. Gross costs and potential numbers affected are supplied by the Government Actuary's Department. An explanation of the method for calculating gross costs of Additional Pension is given in the Government Actuary's Department publication 'National Insurance Fund: Long Term Financial Estimates', Appendix D (paragraphs 14.39 to 14.45), available in the House of Commons Library.

  2. Precise estimates of net costs are not available.

  3. Estimates of numbers affected assume that all widows and widowers have some SERPS entitlement although in reality there will be some who do not. Cases where the widower is over State pension age but the deceased partner is under State pension age are included in the estimates. These will both tend to overestimate the numbers affected.

  4. Gross costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million, and are in 1999–2000 price terms. Potential numbers affected are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  5. Estimates assume average earnings growth from 1999 onwards of 1.5 per cent. per year above prices. The State Second Pension and Welfare Reform Bill changes are not taken into account in these figures.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when he intends to announce his decision as to what action he will take to remedy the problem of the changes to the inheritance of SERPS by spouses; and what provision has been made in the(a) CSR and (b) Contingency Fund to meet any extra costs; [95180]
  724
  (2) what assessment he has made of (a) the administration costs and (b) the setting-up time of a scheme to compensate those misled about the halving of the amount of SERPS payable to widows and widowers; and if he will make a statement; [95178]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the ability of those misled about the halving of the amount of SERPS payable to widows and widowers to prove they were misinformed; and if he will make a statement. [95181]

  Mr. Rooker
  We will make an announcement about SERPS inheritance provisions shortly.

  Annual Uprating
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he takes before making his annual assessment on uprating benefit and pension levels. [93775]

  Mr. Rooker
  The annual review of benefits is subject to the same decision-making processes as many other policy considerations. We will make an announcement on the uprating in due course in the normal way.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors he uses to measure child poverty. [93779]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 486.

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the measures in his welfare reform programme which will assist disabled people to take up work. [93780]

  Angela Eagle
  Together with my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment we have introduced New Deal for Disabled People to help disabled people move into or remain in work; piloting a voluntary personal adviser service in 12 areas throughout Great Britain, for claimants of incapacity benefits; and funding 24 innovative schemes to test different approaches.

  The first four ONE pilots were successfully launched in June and a further 8 pilots will start in November. In these pilot areas, where appropriate, people of working age who claim benefits will be given a Personal Adviser who will be able to access information and the opportunities for employment, training and rehabilitation, and will help them plan a route back to independence.

  In October 1998, we introduced a new 52-week linking rule for incapacity benefits and abolished the 16 hour limit for voluntary work. We have increased the therapeutic earnings limit from April 99 and are piloting further measures to help disabled people who wish to work. We are replacing the All Work Test with the Personal Capability Assessment which will focus on what people can do, not just their incapacities. From October 1999 the

  725
  Disabled Persons' Tax Credit will replace Disability Working Allowance which will ensure that disabled people are better off in work than out of work.

  Widows Benefits
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposals for the future of widows' benefits. [93781]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 353.

  Parental Costs
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to assist parents with the costs of bringing up children. [93782]

  Angela Eagle
  We recognise the additional costs that families with children have to bear. As part of our strategy to increase opportunity for all, we are determined to improve family prosperity, reduce child poverty, and ensure that the tax and benefit system properly acknowledges the costs of bringing up children.

  Measures already announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last two Budgets, including the largest-ever uprating of Child Benefit, and the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, will ensure that families with children will gain an average of £750 per year the 20 per cent. of poorest households will gain the most, an average of £1,080 per year.

  Total growth in spending on families with children will amount to an extra £5 billion a year in real terms, by the end of this Parliament.

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [94006]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) today.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that all pensioners receive pension increases which are linked to increases in national prosperity. [93777]

  Mr. Rooker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is required by law to review the rate of Retirement Pension and other benefits each year. He will announce the outcome later this year in the usual way.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate, using his PENSIM model, the mean net incomes in 2025 of(a) single pensioners and (b) married pensioners on the basis of (i) unchanged
  726
  policies, (ii) his proposed phased replacement of SERPS with the second state pension and (iii) the phasing out of SERPS coupled with the introduction of an age addition to the basic pension for those aged 80 years or over, set at three quarters of the gap between the basic pension and the minimum income guarantee, assuming in each case the continuation of earnings indexation of the minimum income guarantee; and if he will provide separate estimates for each quintile group of each distribution. [94695]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the tables:

  Net income of single pensioners by quintile in 2025

  £ per week

  Mean

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Unchanged policies

  168.00

  85.20

  119.70

  139.00

  172.70

  323.50

  After the State Second Pension

  169.70

  86.50

  121.10

  140.30

  174.70

  325.70

  After the suggested age addition to the Basic State Pension and phasing out of SERPS

  172.00

  92.30

  124.50

  144.40

  177.10

  321.50

  Net income of married pensioners by quintile in 2025

  £ per week

  Mean

  Quintile I

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Unchanged policies

  346.70

  169.50

  221.00

  275.30

  356.90

  710.50

  After the State Second Pension

  351.40

  172.40

  226.00

  280.30

  362.10

  716.00

  After the suggested age addition to the Basic State Pension and phasing out of SERPS

  342.20

  171.80

  224.20

  271.30

  347.40

  695.60

  Notes:

  1. In order to model option (iii), it is necessary to make further critical assumptions about the current regime for contracting out of SERPS. If this were to cease at the same time that SERPS stops accruing, there would be a significant effect on private pension provision although highly dependent on the behavioural response of individuals and employers. Alternatively, if contracted out rebates continued to be available, there would be a large incentive for those who had previously been in SERPS to take advantage of the rebates, at significant extra cost to the public finances. Again this would depend on behavioural responses, unless private second pensions were made compulsory. The estimates in the table are based on assumptions which avoid the need to model behavioural responses ie those who are already contracted out continue to receive their rebates, whereas those in SERPS have no replacement second pension once SERPS accruals cease. This is not a sustainable set of assumptions in policy terms, but does provide a basis for answering the question as set out.

  2. The estimates have been arrived at using the DSS's PENSIM model. PENSIM is a dynamic microsimulation model which projects future pensioners' incomes on the basis of past labour market and pensions information. Because the model is dependent on the assumptions used and the cohort sampled to generate the work and pensions histories, it is primarily a tool to compare policy options rather than to project the future course of pensioners' incomes with accuracy. Results so far into the future, even of a comparative nature, must be treated as broad brush.

  3. The quintiles have been derived by dividing each income distribution in to five equal sized groups in ascending order of income size. The first quintile contains the fifth of the distribution with lowest incomes while the fifth quintile contains the fifth with highest incomes.

  727

  4. The income figures given are on a benefit unit basis. Therefore, the income of couples is that of both members of the couple combined.

  5. Figures are expressed in 1999 prices rounded to the nearest ten pence.

  6. Earnings indexation of the minimum income guarantee is assumed. The earnings assumption in the PENSIM model is 1.5 per cent. per year above inflation.

  7. The State Second Pension is assumed to be introduced in 2002.

  8. The suggested age addition to the Basic State Pension refers to three quarters of the gap between the full basic state pension and the maximum minimum income guarantee of a single person aged 80. It is assumed to be introduced in the year 2000. Under this option, the year 2000 also marks the end of all new SERPS accruals. Existing SERPS entitlements continue to be paid.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to seek an amendment to the law to require a stakeholder pension to be taken out in the form of an annuity by a specified age; and if he will make a statement; [94930]

  (2) what plans he has to seek an amendment to the law to prevent any pension scheme from requiring a person to take out a pension in the form of an annuity by a specified age; and if he will make a statement. [94929]

  Mr. Rooker
  Only pension schemes which are not themselves able to pay a pension require their members to take pension benefits in the form of an annuity, so as to guarantee a pension income throughout retirement. We propose that this should also apply to stakeholder pensions. We will consider whether there is a case for changing the present age 75 limit for annuity purchase as part of the review of personal pension income withdrawal being undertaken by the Inland Revenue.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on incapacity benefit. [93771]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have received a number of representations about our proposals to modernise the rules for the Incapacity Benefit. We believe the proposals are right in principle. We have made it clear that we will consider concerns when we finalise the details.

  Race Awareness (Tribunals)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on race awareness training for chairmen of appeal tribunals. [93778]

  Angela Eagle
  The President of appeal tribunals is responsible for arranging the training of chairmen and members of appeal tribunals. The President intends to arrange for the chairmen and members to be trained in equal opportunities in the next financial year and that the training will include racial and disability awareness issues. The President will write to my hon. Friend setting out his plans for the training.

  ONE Service Pilots
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress to date of the ONE service pilots. [93752]
  728
  Angela Eagle
  The first four ONE pilots were launched as planned in June. They are making good progress in helping people plan ways to become independent, while dealing promptly and accurately with claims to benefit.

  A further eight pilots will start on the 29 November. Four will test out the use of Call Centre technology in providing the ONE Service. The other four are led by the Private and Voluntary Sector—they will enable us to test what innovations that they can bring to client services.

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [93976]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer from my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 19 October 1999,Official Report, columns 429-30.

  This Department has made three announcements since 27 July as follows:

  As my hon. Friend, the then Minister of State announced, in response to a Parliamentary Question on 9 June 1999, Official Report, column 340, a series of Consultation Documents would be published on pension reform, the last of which were published on 2 August and 16 September. Copies of the Reports were sent to the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee and copies were placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and House of Lords. These were announced publicly by way of a Press Release.

  On 21 September we announced the publication of the first annual report on poverty and social exclusion entitled: "Opportunity for All". Copies were placed in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries. All MPs were sent a copy of the summary document under cover of a letter and copies were also made available to all key organisations. The Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee also received a copy.

  On 26 August we received the CSA Independent Chief Examiner's Report. It was published in the normal way as soon as it was received. Copies of this report were placed in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries.

  Andrew Mehdi
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what date the Benefits Agency received from the Independent Tribunal Service notice of the tribunal's decision of 5 August in the claim for disability living allowance by Mr. Andrew Mehdi (references D/04/048/1998/01876 and NH 01 71 23 B); and when he expects the Benefits Agency to implement the judgment of the tribunal; [94952]
  729
  (2) on what date the Independent Tribunals Service sent to the Benefits Agency notice of the judgment of the tribunal in the claim for disability living allowance by Mr. Andrew Mehdi (references NH 01 71 23 B and D/04/048/1998/01876). [94953]

  Angela Eagle
  The Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) first issued the judgment on 6 August which regrettably was not received. Despite investigation, ITS and the Benefits Agency have been unable to identify where the problem occurred.

  A further copy was received at the Disability Benefits Unit (DBU) in Blackpool by fax on 19 October, following DBU's request to ITS dated 12 October. The decision was implemented and payment of all arrears and an order book for continuing payments were issued on 20 October.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the real-terms increase in spending on benefits for disabled people by May 2002; and how this figure is derived. [95438]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Social Security Departmental Report 1999 (Cm 4214) includes details of Social Security expenditure for the financial years 1993–94 to 2001–02. Table 10 of the report sets out benefit expenditure by Departmental Objectives in real terms (1998–99 prices). The individual benefits which comprise Objective 3 (Support for disabled people) are prescribed in the table.

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to assist disabled children. [93746]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are committed to maintaining Disability Living Allowance, the main disability benefit for children, as a national, universal benefit. We are making specific improvements to help children with severe disabilities: a clause within the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, which is currently before Parliament, extends entitlement to the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to 3 and 4 year olds. This will help an additional 8,000 children from April 2001.

  From April 2001 the new Disability Income Guarantee will provide extra help within Income Support premiums for families with severely disabled children getting the highest rate of the care component of Disability Living Allowance.

  Occupational Pension Funds
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the Pensions Act 1995 to require occupational pension funds to nominate a pensioner as a member trustee. [95660]

  Mr. Rooker
  We believe that member trustees add value to pension schemes, and want to increase their coverage.

  The consultation document, "Strengthening the Pensions Framework", which was issued in December 1998, made a number of proposals on member-nominated trustees, including a proposal that large mature schemes should be required to reserve a place on the trustee board
  730
  for a pensioner member. Responses showed widespread support for the principle of member trustees, but concern about some of the practical implications.

  We have been working closely with the pensions industry and other representative bodies to develop revised proposals. A further consultation document was issued on 7 October 1999.

  Our priority is to ensure that schemes have member-nominated trustees, and that members have a fair say in determining the arrangements for appointing them.

  The revised proposals do not require schemes to have a pensioner trustee, but they do ensure that pensioners are given a fair say in the procedures.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of pensioners aged(a) 60 to 64, (b) 65 to 69, (c) 70 to 74, (d) 75 to 79 and (e) 80 years or above who are entitled to Income Support but do not take up their entitlement; and if he will provide separate estimates for (i) single male pensioners, (ii) single female pensioners and (iii) married pensioners. [94696]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated average numbers not taking up entitlement to Income Support—Great Britain, 1997–98

  Category

  Total number of ENR's

  Pensioner Couples Aged 60-64

  50,000

  Pensioner Couples Aged 65-69

  30,000

  Pensioner Couples Aged 70-741

  30,000

  Pensioner Couples Aged 75-791

  20,000

  Pensioner Couples Aged 80 and Over1

  20,000

  All Pensioner Couples

  150.000

  Single Males Aged 60-641

  20,000

  Single Males Aged 65-691

  20,000

  Single Males Aged 70-741

  20,000

  Single Males Aged 75-791

  20,000

  Single Males Aged 80 and Over

  40,000

  All Single Male Pensioners

  110,000

  Single Females Aged 60-641

  20,000

  Single Females Aged 65-69

  40,000

  Single Females Aged 70-74

  60,000

  Single Females Aged 75-79

  100,000

  Single Females Aged 80 and Over

  230,000

  All Single Female Pensioners

  450,000

  All Pensioners

  720,000

  1 These figures are based on small sample sizes and are to be treated with particular caution.

  Notes:

  1. ENR's = Entitled non-recipients.

  2. These estimates are based on the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey. Reliable precise estimates are not available. Estimates by age band comparable with the aggregate estimates published in September could be provided only at disproportionate costs. The table provides a breakdown, by age band, of raw estimates with no attempt to correct for data imperfections. The available evidence suggests pensioner couples estimates are biased upwards relative to the estimates for single pensioners. The nature and extent of biases in the raw estimates may also vary by age band.

  3. The figures for the number of entitled non-recipients are rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  4. The age of a couple has been defined by the age of the older partner.

  5. The figure for the total number of ENR's does not comply with the sum of the component amounts. This is due to rounding of the figures.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the procedural changes set out in Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June, OJ L184 of 17 July. [94143]

  Mr. Vaz
  Council Decision 1999/468/EC reforms the procedures for monitoring the exercise of implementing the powers delegated to the Commission by the Council and the European Parliament (the 'comitology' system). The Government welcome the changes that the Decision makes.

  It improves the comitology system in three ways. Firstly, it increases democratic control over the process by giving an enhanced scrutiny role to the European Parliament. Secondly, it simplifies the system by reducing the number of committee types from five to three.

  Thirdly, it takes an important step towards making the comitology system more transparent. For example, the Commission will for the first time be required to publish a complete list of comitology committees.

  Overall, the changes should improve the efficiency, accountability and transparency of the comitology process.

  EC Staff Contracts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library the model contract of employment for European Communities staff working at the Commission. [94140]

  Mr. Vaz
  Only staff employed on a temporary basis have individual contracts. The terms and conditions of permanent staff are set out in Community Staff Regulations. A copy of the latest version of these Regulations will be placed in the Library as soon as we have received it from the Commission.

  Rambouillet Agreements
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the proposals made by the Yugoslav Parliament in answer to the draft agreements made at Rambouillet; and what the differences were from the agreement reached on 3 June. [94127]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Rambouillet Agreements on Kosovo were presented to the FRY/Serbian delegation and the Kosovo Albanian delegation on 22 February, after two and a half weeks of intensive negotiation. Both sides agreed to attend a second round of talks to discuss implementation of the agreements. However, on the first day of the second round of talks, in Paris on 15 March, the FRY/Serbian delegation presented their own proposals for a Kosovo agreement. The Contact Group (the Governments of the UK, US, France, Germany, Italy and Russia) took the unanimous view that only technical adjustments to the draft agreements presented at Rambouillet could be considered. The proposals presented by Belgrade amounted to an extensive and unacceptable revision of the draft agreements presented at Rambouillet.
  732
  The proposals presented by the FRY/Serbian delegation and subsequently endorsed by the Serb Parliament were published recently in "The Crisis in Kosovo 1989–1999, International Documents and Analysis, Vol 1", as was the text of the Rambouillet Agreements signed by the Kosovo Albanian delegation on 18 March.

  On 3 June, President Milosevic and the Serbian Parliament accepted an agreement, presented by the EU and Russian special envoys, which specified the principles for a resolution of the crisis in Kosovo, notably: the end of violence and repression; withdrawal of all FRY/Serbian forces; deployment of international civil and security presences in Kosovo; and return of refugees and displaced persons. The agreement also called for a political process, taking full account of the Rambouillet accords, to provide substantial self-government for Kosovo.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for Cyprus of the recent rapprochement between Greece and Turkey after the earthquakes in their countries. [94415]

  Mr. Vaz
  We warmly welcome the recent improvement in relations between Greece and Turkey. We hope that it will contribute positively to international efforts, which the UK fully supports, to launch negotiations for a comprehensive Cyprus settlement under UN auspices this autumn.

  Burma
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to implementing sanctions against Burma under the provisions of Article 73g (2) of the EC Treaty of Rome; and if he will make a statement. [94605]

  Mr. Battle
  Article 60 (2) [ex Article 73g (2)] of the EC Treaty is not a power to implement sanctions but an exception to the rule that all restrictions on movement of capital and on payments between member states and member states and third countries (Article 56) should be prohibited: Article 60 (2) permits such measures in certain circumstances. There is limited power to implement unilateral sanctions under domestic legislation. There is an application for Judicial Review relating to the scope and meaning of Article 60 pending before the High Court. We are considering its position with regard to that application.

  Honorary British Consuls
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which cities of(a) the EU and (b) applicant countries for EU membership his Department uses honorary British consuls. [94613]
  733
  Mr. Hain
  Honorary British Consuls are situated in EU member states in:

  France: Biarritz, Calais, Perpignan. Nates, Toulouse, Amiens, Boulogne-sur-Mer, Dunkirk, Nice, Montpellier,Cherbourg, St Malo-Dinard, Saumur.

  Germany: Bremen, Nurenberg, Hanover, Kiel.

  Belgium: Antwerp, Liege.

  Italy: Genoa, Venice, Bari, Cagliari, Turin, Trieste, Catania, Messina, Brindisi, Palermo.

  Spain: Vig, Santander, Menorca.

  Finland: Jyvaskyla, Kotka, Kuopio, Aland Islands, Oulu, Pori, Tampere, Turku, Vaasa.

  Austria: Bregenz, Salzburg, Graz.

  Sweden: Gothenburg, Sundsvall, Malmo.

  Portugal: Portimao.

  Greece: Kos, Patras, Rhodes, Salonika, Syros, Zakynthos.

  Honorary British Consuls are situated in EU applicant countries in:

  Poland: Kotowice, Poznan, Gdansk, Szczecin, Wroclaw.

  Hungary: Pecs.

  Rumania: Constanta.

  Bulgaria: Varna.

  Turkey: Antalya, Bodrum, Iskenderun, Izmir, Marmaris, Mersin.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many honorary British consuls there are world-wide; and if he will make a statement. [94611]

  Mr. Hain
  At present there are 248 Honorary British Consuls world-wide. They are prominent members of their local communities, who undertake their role in a voluntary capacity. They provide support and advice to the head of the British diplomatic mission in the host country, and act as a first port of call for British nationals in their district in need of consular assistance. Our Honorary Consuls constitute an important resource for the delivery of our consular services world-wide.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will issue a minimum of two flags to each honorary British consul to facilitate their cleaning; and if he will ensure their regular replacement consistent with maintaining them in good condition. [94612]

  Mr. Hain
  Honorary British Consuls are issued with a set of Union flags sufficient for the Consuls' needs, including spares. Guidance is also provided on the flying of the flags, and on how to requisition replacements. But if my hon. Friend has a particular post or problem in mind, I would be happy to respond to his concern.

  Belarus
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking in respect of human rights violations in Belarus; and if he will make a statement. [94615]

  Mr. Vaz
  We raised our concerns about the human rights situation in Belarus most recently when First Deputy Foreign Minister Martynov met senior officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 8 October. The British Embassy in Minsk also has frequent contacts with human rights organisations and has supported projects designed to promote human rights in Belarus. The UK has also played a leading role in shaping EU policy towards Belarus, which stresses the need for improved human 734
  rights performance. The EU has called on the Belarusian authorities to investigate the recent disappearance of Viktor Gonchar, Deputy Chairman of the 13th Supreme Soviet, and all other cases in which politically active figures have disappeared. We also fully support the activities of the Advisory and Monitoring Group of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, whose mandate includes promoting compliance with other OSCE commitments, including in the human rights field.

  EU Treaty
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the President of the Commission of the European Union to appoint an advisory body on steps to be taken to prepare for a further union treaty; what consultations he has had with the President; and what United Kingdom appointment has been made to it. [94362]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Commission is not preparing next year's Inter-Governmental Conference, but it will present a formal IGC Opinion for member states to consider. Romano Prodi asked a Group under Jean-Luc Dehaene to feed ideas in to that Opinion. The Group published its Report on 18 October. Lord Simon sat on the Group, but he did so in a personal capacity, not as a representative of the United Kingdom. It is up to the Commission how it reacts to the recommendations in the Group's Report. I have had no contact with Mr. Prodi about this.

  MOD Electronic Test Facility
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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 Government Departments. [93857]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 484.

  Consular Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for direct computer access by his Department's Consular Division in London to consular records on cases abroad; and if he will make a statement. [94803]

  Mr. Hain
  Modernisation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's communications technology continues to evolve. At present there is direct e-mail access to almost all consular posts overseas, and delivery to the remainder is planned. There are no existing plans for direct access by the Consular Division to the consular data bases of overseas posts. The concept is under consideration, but it carries with it substantial resource and technical strategy implications.

  Foreign Policy Centre
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role and activities of the Foreign Policy Centre
  735
  since its launch, with particular reference to its input into departmental policy; and what (a) financial and (b) other support his Department has provided. [95326]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Foreign Policy Centre is an independent organisation and has received no money from the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office welcomes ideas from outside organisations on all areas of its work. It is established practice for Foreign Office Officials and Ministers to have contact with policy institutes and NGOs, to consider their views when developing policy and to contribute to the debates initiated by them. Policy institutes and NGOs can also influence policy through their contributions to a wider public debate. The nature of these contacts means that it is not possible to assess the influence of one particular policy institute in isolation from other institutes and NGOs.

  Africa
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) agenda and (b) conclusions of the Franco-British meetings with African delegations held in New York on 22 September; to what extent (i) EMU, (ii) European politics and (iii) security policy was discussed; and what future meetings are planned. [95220]

  Mr. Hain
  The following press release was issued after the meeting in New York on 22 September:"At the invitation of Britain and France, Foreign Ministers Robin Cook and Hubert Vedrine had a meeting in New York this morning with Amara Essy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cote d'Ivoire; Jean Ping, the Minister for External Affairs, Cooperation and Francophonie for Gabon; Alhaji Sule Lamido, the Minister for Foreign Affairs for Nigeria; and Adhi Bonaya Godana, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kenya.
  This meeting represents a further significant step forward in the efforts of Britain and France to develop, with African partners, joint strategies for cooperations on the continent.
  The meeting focused on the current crises affecting the African continent and on how all concerned could join together to help resolve them.
  It was agreed that Africans and Europeans must work more closely together to address the challenges facing the continent. Participants underlined the importance of vigorous joint action to end conflict, tackle poverty, debt and AIDS, promote good governance, and boost trade and investment.
  All welcomed the opportunity for discussion and agreed on the usefulness of further harmonising the African and European perspectives. The Ministers agreed that further discussions between UK, French and African Permanent Representatives in New York would enable the dialogue to be continued and deepened. They further agreed that their countries would work together whenever possible on issues of mutual interest before the Security Council."

  French and British officials are working on the practicalities of another meeting.

  Libya
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards maintenance of an EU arms embargo against Libya. [95250]

  Mr. Hain
  Libya has taken a number of important steps towards reintegration with the international community, not least of which was the handing over for trial of the two Libyans accused of involvement in the Lockerbie bombing. In recognition of these developments, the UN 736
  has suspended its sanctions against Libya. The EU, with UK support, has lifted most of its own sanctions, but decided, for now, to retain the arms embargo. EU member states will review this decision regularly.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Sierra Leone Contact Group meeting on 27 and 28 July. [95300]

  Mr. Hain
  The third Sierra Leone Contact Group meeting on 28 July continued Britain's leading role in encouraging international support for the people of Sierra Leone. Participants welcomed the signature of the Lome Peace Agreement, and committed themselves to work towards lasting peace in Sierra Leone. Following a presentation by President Kabbah, the meeting agreed priorities for the future, and an action plan for the Government of Sierra Leone, the rebels and the international community. Welcome progress has since been made on a number of the priorities identified.

  At the meeting, Britain announced further help for building lasting peace and democracy in Sierra Leone.

  Copies of the Contact Group Concluding Statement are being placed in the House of Commons Library; it is also available on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk).

  Tunisia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received an invitation to send independent observers to Tunisia to scrutinise the presidential and legislative elections arranged for 24 October. [95096]

  Mr. Hain
  No but we would of course consider one.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed with the Tunisian Government the question of democracy and human rights in that country. [95095]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not yet met his Tunisian counterpart or any senior member of the Tunisian Government. He hopes to do so in the near future. I last met the Tunisian Ambassador on 6 September. We had a wide-ranging discussion, including the human rights situation in Tunisia. I hope to visit Tunis before too long.

  Tanzania
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Tanzanian Government about Hutu militia operating from its territory. [95226]

  Mr. Hain
  I discussed the security situation in the Burundi/Tanzania border area with the Tanzanian Foreign and Defence Ministers during my visit to Tanzania (14-15 October). The Government of Tanzania deny providing support of any kind to Hutu militia groups, and are making efforts to improve security in the border region in western Tanzania where the refugee camps are located.

  Colombia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the proposals contained in the Plan Colombia. [95287]

  Mr. Battle
  Plan Colombia was presented at UNGA by President Pastrana. It is intended to highlight the Colombian Government's future strategy. The key proposals are:

  i) an economic strategy, using fiscal and financial austerity measures to re-establish Colombia's position in international markets;

  ii) a drugs strategy, aiming to reduce cultivation and distribution by half over six years. The strategy is to have full regard for human rights;

  iii) strategy for democracy and social development, focusing on human rights, reduction of judicial impunity, forced displacement of communities, alternative crops to drug cultivation, the environment and training of local leaders;

  iv) the peace strategy, with recognition of the role of civil society and the need for an effective presence of the army and police in all parts of Colombia;

  v) the role of the international community, which could participate in the peace process as mediator and verifier. The international community should also condemn terrorist acts and human rights violations.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the Colombian peace process. [95286]

  Mr. Battle
  We support the Colombian Government's efforts to bring peace and stability to Colombia. We hope that the latest round of peace talks, which are due to start again on 24 October, will lead Colombia towards a lasting solution to its internal conflict.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received from Southern Sudan regarding the activities of the Arab militia. [95239]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to receive reports from UN agencies and other NGOs working in the field of military activity conducted by a variety of militia groups in southern Sudan.

  During October, both the Government of Sudan and the SPLA made further ceasefire commitments. We shall continue to promote the cause of peace in Sudan.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with peace talks to end the civil war in Sudan. [95238]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government have continued to devote considerable effort to the peace process in the Sudan and has been an active member of the IGAD Partners Forum (IPF). On 20 October, the IPF agreed on the terms of reference and budget for their proposal for a permanent peace Secretariat in Nairobi. This will have as its objective a sustained and accelerated negotiation and a Special Envoy has already been appointed. We will contribute financially to the running of the Secretariat and will remain in close contact with the Special Envoy and all the parties in order to support the peace process in any way we can. I met the special envoy two weeks ago in Nairobi to discuss progress.
  738
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received from Southern Sudan regarding progress with the oil pipeline due to be operational in July. [95240]

  Mr. Hain
  The oil pipeline was formally opened on 30 August by President Bashir. On 19 September, an explosion east of Atbara damaged the pipeline but I understand that it was quickly repaired.

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions the UK has initiated consultations on an export licence which has been denied by another member state under the consultation arrangements specified in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports; what were the outcomes of these consultations; on how many occasions other member states have initiated consultations on export licences which have been denied by the United Kingdom; and what were the outcomes of these consultations. [95644]

  Mr. Hain
  Operative Provision 4 of the EU Code of Conduct states:"Member states will keep … consultations [under the Code] confidential".

  We interpret this as including the outcomes of such consultations.

  The first annual report on the operation of the Code of Conduct, which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, records that between June 1998, when the Code was adopted, and September 1999, the UK was involved in seven bilateral discussions concerning denials issued either by the UK or by other member states. Several of these discussions focused on whether a proposed export was essentially identical to that covered by a denial notification, although in some cases there was also a substantive exchange of views on the proposed export. We would not therefore characterise all of these discussions as formal consultations under the Code of Conduct.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which UK officials are participating in the implementation of the EU code of Conduct on Arms Exports; what progress was made at the review meeting on 21 September in Brussels; and if he will make a statement. [95690]

  Mr. Hain
  The EU Code of Conduct establishes criteria which are to be applied to export licence applications covering all goods on the UK Military List, and dual-use goods where there are grounds for believing that the end-user will be the armed forces or internal security forces. Licences to export arms and other goods whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by the Trade and Industry Secretary acting through the Export Control Organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry, which circulates all relevant applications to other Departments with an interest, as determined by those Departments in line with their policy responsibilities, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of International Development. All of the above Departments therefore have a role in implementing the Code of Conduct.
  739
  Lead responsibility for policy issues relating to the Code of Conduct rests with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which consults other interested Departments as necessary, including those listed above.

  The meeting of the CFSP Working Group on Conventional Arms Exports (COARM) on 21 September agreed the text of the first annual report on the operation of the Code of Conduct since its adoption on 8 June 1998. The report summarises member states' experiences of the Code, and gives a detailed account of practical steps taken to support the operation of the Code and priorities for future action. A meeting of the Council of Ministers on 11 October took note of the report and decided to publish it in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [93995]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are aware of the following attachments from Central, East European and CIS States to UK Government Departments this year:

  Czech Republic
  One official from the Ministry of the Interior's Refugee Department on a two-week work placement at Heathrow Airport. Three officials from the Environmental Inspectorate on a study visit to Heathrow, looking at protection of endangered species. Two Government human rights officials on a two-week work placement at the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Estonia
  The Head of the European Union Department was attached to the European Union Department (External) (EUDE) in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) from 12-23 April.

  Hungary
  The Head of the EU Political Relations Department was attached to the Common Foreign and Security Policy Department (CFSPD) in the FCO for one week in September.

  Latvia
  The Head of the EU Policy Division was attached to EUD(E) in the FCO from 7-18 June. The Acting Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Policy Planning Group will undertake a short secondment to CFSPD in the FCO in November/December.

  Lithuania
  One official attached to CFSPD in the FCO from 15-26 February.

  Poland
  One environmental official currently on a five-month secondment to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR).

  Romania
  One official attached to the FCO for three days in Spring I999.

  Russia
  One official from the Ministry of the Economy attached to the DETR for four weeks in April/May. Two officials attached to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for 3-4 weeks (all organised by the Civil Service College as part of the EU TACIS programme).
  740
  Slovakia
  One official attached to CFSPD in the FCO for 2-3 weeks in May.

  Slovenia
  Two officials attached to the FCO, one from 19-23 April and one from 6-17 September. One official on a one-month fact-finding mission to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in early summer.
  We are not aware of any requests for attachments that were not accepted.

  South Eastern Europe Table
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) UK and (b) other representatives on the South Eastern Europe Regional Table and Working Tables on (i) democratisation and human rights, (ii) economic reconstruction and (iii) security issues; what timetable and action plans have been devised for meetings of these groups; who will be the chairs of the individual tables; and if he will make a statement. [95691]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK's representatives at the first Stability Pact Working Table meetings were as follows:

  (i) Democratisation and Human Rights—Our delegation was led by the Head of the Foreign Office Information Department (to present the UK's proposal for a Media Charter) with support from Eastern Adriatic Department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There were also delegates from the Department for International Development and our delegation to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna.

  (ii) Economic Reconstruction—Our delegation was led by a representative from Economic Policy Department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There were also representatives from the Foreign Office Eastern Adriatic Department and from the Department for International Development.

  (iii) Security Issues—Representatives from the Foreign Office's Eastern Adriatic Department and, for the Justice and Home Affairs Sub-Table, from Human Rights Policy Department within the FCO.

  Attendance at Working Table meetings is flexible and appropriate experts will be called upon as necessary.

  Other representatives at the three Working Tables are from Foreign Ministries and other government experts from full Participants, Facilitators and Observers to the Stability Pact.

  The Work Plan for the Pact was agreed at the first Regional Table meeting on 16 September. All three Working Tables met in the first half of October. They are all due to meet again end January/early February 2000.

  The Chairs of the individual Tables are:
  Democracy and Human Rights—Max van der Stoel (OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities)
  Economic Reconstruction—Fabrizio Saccomanni (Director General for International Affairs, Central Bank of Italy)
  Security Issues—Jan Eliasson (State Secretary, Foreign Ministry of Sweden)

  The United Kingdom remains committed to the Stability Pact as a force for co-operation, change and peace in the region. We look forward to concrete progress following the Working Table meetings, but impetus must come from the countries of the region.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many have been arrested in Kosovo for crimes against Serbian civilians since NATO liberated Kosovo. [94933]

  Mr. Vaz
  Specific figures for those arrested for crimes against Serbian civilians since NATO liberated Kosovo are not currently available from UNMIK.

  I can disclose that 200 individuals are currently in prison for committing various crimes. The ethnic breakdown of those individuals is: 1 Montenegrin, 1 Macedonian, 1 Bosniac, 4 Roma, 36 Serbs and 157 Albanians.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent murder of a UN official in Kosovo; and if any arrests have been made over the crime. [94934]

  Mr. Vaz
  We wholeheartedly condemn the recent murder of UN worker Valentin Krumov. There can be no excuse or justification for such acts of violence. The death of a UN employee just starting his work to contribute to the reconstruction of Kosovo is particularly tragic.

  We join our international colleagues in calling for swift action to bring those responsible to justice. The forces of law and order in Kosovo under the direction of the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) have launched an investigation which is on-going. I can therefore give no further details at this stage.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps NATO has taken to make clear that Serbs have a settled future in Kosovo; and if steps will be taken to encourage Serbian civilians to stay there; [94936]

  (2) what action is being taken by NATO in Kosovo to protect the lives of civilian Serbs. [94935]

  Mr. Vaz
  The NATO-led international force in Kosovo, KFOR, has from the beginning of its deployment tried to persuade Serb citizens in Kosovo to remain in the province. KFOR troops, as part of their routine duties, maintain close contact with Serb citizens in Kosovo in order to help deter any violence against them, and so encourage them to remain.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Spending
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the levels of spending on education 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. [94014]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A table has been placed in the Library giving information by each county in England from 1996 onwards.

  Accurate information per head of population is not available for each of the years requested. Information has, therefore, been provided on the basis of expenditure per pupil.

  Key Stages 2 and 3
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many schools made representations to him in favour of revising the dates announced in June 1998 for the year 2000 statutory test dates for Key Stages 2 and 3; [94910]

  (2) what date he decided to alter the dates announced in June 1998 for the year 2000 statutory tests for Key Stages 2 and 3; and on what date the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority issued Circular 040/99. [94911]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since the original test dates were published, a number of schools and some Local Education Authorities have made representations to the Department for Education and Employment and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in favour of revising the test dates for Key Stage 2 and 3 in 2000. David Hart, General Secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, supported the decision to move the test dates, recognising that the Government were responding positively to the genuine concerns of his members.

  The decision to put back both the Key Stage 2 and 3 test dates by one week in the year 2000, was made on 14 July. Schools were notified by Circular 040/99 issued by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on 16 July which reached schools by 20 July.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many schools have been granted a timetable variation in respect of the year 2000 statutory test dates for(a) Key Stage 2 and (b) Key Stage 3; which alternative weeks have been offered to those schools; and how many schools have been offered which alternative weeks; [94909]

  (2) how many schools have applied for a timetable variation for the year 2000 statutory test dates for (a) Key Stage 2 and (b) Key Stage 3 which were announced in circular 040/99 in July; and how many of those applications have been agreed by the Qualifications Curriculum Authority. [94912]

  Jacqui Smith
  This is a matter for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  New Deal
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the amount spent per head of the population in Lancashire on the New Deal since its introduction. [94188]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: Almost £6.75 million has been spent in the county of Lancashire, for the New Deal for Young People, aged 18-24, and the New Deal for those aged 25 plus, between April 1998 and 31 August 1999.

  A total of 6,896 people entered into the New Deal for Young People and 2,232 people entered into the New Deal for those aged 25 plus to the end of July 1999 and on 31 July 1999.
  743
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if people who leave the New Deal without a job are listed as long-term unemployed if they were listed as long-term unemployed before they entered the New Deal. [94189]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: New Deal exists to get long-term unemployed people off benefit and into work. New Deal for Young People has been successful in doing this for 135,000 young people. In those cases where a young person reaches the end of their New Deal option and has still not obtained a job, they will enter a follow-through period and start a new claim to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) whilst engaging in intensive job search activity with the assistance of their personal adviser. In these specific cases, unemployment duration is calculated from the date they returned to JSA.

  Participants in the New Deal for Long-Term Unemployed People aged 25 plus who remain on JSA throughout will remain classed as long-term unemployed on leaving New Deal. If a jobseeker has an interruption to their claim, such as a period in subsidised employment or on Work-Based Learning for Adults, then their unemployment duration is calculated from the date they returned to JSA.

  National Training Organisations
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of(a) the costs of setting up and (b) the annual running costs of the United Kingdom network of national training organisations; and what proportion of these costs will be carried within public funds. [94823]

  Mr. Wicks
  Since 1997 the Department has spent £151,854 on the independent panel assessing bids from organisations seeking to become national training organisations (NTOs). The Department does not hold complete information on the running costs of NTOs, most of which are met by employers, and is therefore unable to calculate the proportion of these costs carried within public funds.

  Mathematics and Science Teachers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his reply of 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 180, on mathematics and science teachers, when he plans to write to the hon. Member for Hertsmere. [94918]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The package of measures announced in October 1998 will affect teachers in the year 1999–2000. Information relating to returning teachers in 1999–2000 will not be published until the latter part of 2001. Copies of the relevant publications will be laid in the House of Commons Library.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the educational impact of class sizes of 41 or more. [94924]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Evidence from Ofsted and others has shown that it is at Key Stage 1 that class size is most important, and that is why we have pledged to 744
  reduce the size of infant classes. Limiting the size of classes to 40 would have very little impact, whereas our pledge will ensure that all children benefit from infant classes of 30 or below. We are well on course to meet our pledge by September 2001 at the latest. More generally, the average size of classes taught by one teacher in all schools in England went down between January 1998 and January 1999, from 24.9 to 24.8.

  Youth Service
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to publish a Green Paper on the Youth Service. [95077]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have recently carried out a broad consultation exercise, announced in the Social Exclusion Unit's report "Bridging the Gap", about the establishment of a new service to provide support to young people. The key aim of this service will be to create a comprehensive support structure for all young people in the 13-19 age group. It will build mainly on what is currently undertaken by the Careers Service, parts of the Youth Service and a range of other specialist agencies. We will consider the role the Youth Service will play within the new structure in the light of the consultation responses.

  English SATs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the qualifying marks for Level 4 of the Key Stage 2 English SATs in the last three years. [95101]

  Jacqui Smith
  The qualifying marks for Level 4 of the Key Stage 2 English SATs in the last three years were 1999–48 marks, 1998–51 marks and 1997–52 marks.

  The level thresholds are the number of marks needed to achieve a specific level in the National Curriculum tests at Key Stages 2 and 3. The level setting procedures are the final stage of the test development process. The level-setting exercise is in two stages and draws on statistical data, from pre-testing and from a sample of live tests, and expert judgments made by test developers, teachers and markers concerning the difficulty of the test and the quality of pupils answers.

  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is responsible for setting and maintaining the standards in the tests, and the level thresholds are designed to ensure that standards remain constant from year to year. For this reason the thresholds do not normally remain the same each year but change in response to the relative difficulty of the tests. They have changed in every year since the tests started in 1995.

  In view of debate over the level thresholds this year, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment established an independent panel, with cross-party representation nominated by the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Liberal Democrats' education spokesman.

  The independent panel reported their findings in July. The panel was convinced that the concerns about the arrangements for setting, and maintaining the standards of the tests were without foundation. It was their view that the current method of setting standards for the National

  745
  Curriculum tests appears to be the most rigorous standard-setting procedure in use in any educational tests anywhere in the country and that our system of national tests is well in advance of many, if not all, of our international counterparts.

  Student Drop-out Rates
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students dropped out of their courses of higher education in each of the past five years; what proportion this represents of the student population; and what is the variation in the drop-out rate between institutions. [94946]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available information is full-time and sandwich first degree non-completion rates for the UK, and is published in the Departmental Annual Report. It is as follows:

  UK1full-time and sandwich first degree non-completion rates

  Percentage

  Non-completion2

  1993–94

  17-18

  1994–95

  17-18

  1995–96

  18-19

  1The institutional coverage of the non-completion rates is restricted to the former UFC-funded universities in the UK and former polytechnics in England.

  2"Non-completion" covers all those leaving degree courses because of exam failure, ill health, personal and other reasons. It includes those switching to a lower level course but it excludes students transferring between degree courses or subjects.

  Ranges are given because the introduction of a new data source in 1994–95 made it difficult to measure non-completion, under existing definitions, accurately. For the same reason, it has not yet been possible to calculate accurate non-completion rates for later years than 1995–96. "Non-completion" covers those who leave full-time and sandwich first degree courses for various reasons, including exam failure, but students who failed their final examinations are not separately identified. The Department is currently working with the higher education funding bodies in the UK to calculate sector-level non-completion rates which will be extended to cover all UK higher education institutions, and which take into account the wider variety of patterns of attendance of students, including changing courses or institutions, repeating years or leaving higher education for a year or more before continuing their studies.

  In addition, information on student progression for individual higher education institutions in the UK is due to appear in the Higher Education Funding Council for England's "Higher Education Performance Indicators" later in the year.

  New Qualifications
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what response he has sent to proposals from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for a new qualification framework at degree level. [94944]

  Mr. Wicks
  The independent Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education published a consultative paper on Higher Education Qualifications Frameworks on 746
  18 October, requesting responses by 20 December. The Department has received copies of the paper and will be considering whether to comment.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about creating a national register of school playing fields. [95186]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has received representations from both the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) and the Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR) about creating a national register of playing fields, including school playing fields. Sport England, with the support of the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport, the NPFA and the CCPR, have been working with local authorities on a suitable model for a register which can be used by local authorities to undertake assessments of all playing field need and provision in their area, including school playing fields.

  Literacy Hour
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many members of the People's Panel responded to the recent research on the Literacy Hour; how many of those were parents with primary school-age children; and if he will publish the questions asked on the Literacy Hour. [95103]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  1,003 responded to the question on the literacy hour, of which 160 had children aged 5-10 in the household.

  Fuller results are published on the internet (www.servicefirst.gov.uk).

  Student Mentors
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students will be recruited as student mentors; what will be their terms and conditions of employment; if it will be subject to the consent of the higher education institutions in which they are enrolled; and if such appointments will be subject to competitive selection procedures, prior or in-course training and independent evaluation of performance. [94947]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A pilot project of student mentoring is to be trialled in secondary schools in a number of Education Action Zones. About 600 students from six volunteer universities will be working as mentors, contracted on an annual basis to provide up to 120 hours of mentoring per year. They will be supervised and supported by their universities. There will be a rigorous selection process for mentors, including one-to-one interviews and accredited training. The project will be subject to independent evaluation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials
  747
  from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries (a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [93996]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given today by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

  Paddington Train Crash
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor intends to exercise his powers under section 71 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 in relation to the Paddington train crash. [95107]

  Jane Kennedy
  Section 71 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 is not yet in force. The Lord Chancellor is considering when the section should be implemented and whether it will apply to the inquiry chaired by Lord Cullen into the Paddington train crash.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by his Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94842]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

HEALTH

  Insulin Injectors and Pens
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when pen needles for diabetics' insulin injectors will become available on the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [94425]

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what decision he has reached about his proposal to prevent pre-filled insulin injection pen systems being available on prescription for diabetics; [95105]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the amount that would be saved by the NHS if pre-filled insulin injection pen systems were no longer available to diabetics on prescription; and if he will publish a cost-benefit analysis of the proposal. [95106]

  Mr. Denham
  We have consulted on proposals which would include allowing insulin pen needles to be prescribed by general practitioners on the National Health Service. We have received representations from most of the organisations consulted. We are considering them, and are seeking clarification on certain points before we make our final decisions.

  PFIs (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private finance initiatives are currently in operation within the Health Service in Lancashire. [94185]
  748
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: There are four schemes at various stages of preparation. They are at Bay Community National Health Service Trust; Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust (two schemes); and Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Community NHS Trust.

  Single-sex Wards
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made in achieving single-sex wards in psychiatric units to the extent that there are no male patients anywhere in women-only wards; [94355]

  (2) if all new psychiatric in-patient units are being constructed on the basis of the segregation of the sexes. [94356]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Executive has a clear objective to work towards the elimination of mixed sex accommodation in 95 per cent. of health authority areas by the year 2002. The NHS Executive has set three national objectives:to ensure that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place
  to secure good standards of privacy and dignity;
  to fully achieve the current Patient's Charter standard for segregated washing and toilet facilities across the NHS;
  to provide safe facilities for patients in hospital who are mentally ill, which safeguards their privacy and dignity.

  For the third objective, the latest progress report indicates that 56 per cent. of health authorities expect to achieve this by the end of 1999. 97 per cent. of health authorities expect to meet it by 2002.

  We will shortly publish new guidance for mental health units to reinforce earlier guidance designed to ensure the privacy, safety and dignity of patients. This guidance will also help to ensure that new NHS buildings will be constructed on the basis of having segregated accommodation for male and female patients.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define single-sex wards in relation to(a) sleeping, (b) washing, (c) eating and (d) socialising facilities. [94357]

  Mr. Denham
  Single-sex accommodation in hospitals is defined by compliance with the Government's national objectives to secure good standards of privacy and dignity for patients, to ensure that washing and toilet facilities are segregated and to provide safe facilities for the mentally ill.

  Skin Cancer Campaign
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of schools in each health authority agreed to participate in the Health Education Authority's skin cancer campaign, Sun Know How. [94059]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Health Education Authority (HEA) has produced sun safety guidelines for schools including a good practice guide on the use of sunscreens. Although the authority does not at present hold statistics on the percentage of schools in each health authority that participated in the Sun Know How campaign, representatives of around 80 per cent. of health and local authorities receive comprehensive support, including training, resources and policy advice.
  749
  In 1999, the HEA supported the first ever Sun Care for Schools campaign which aims to raise awareness of sun protection and make reduced price sunscreen available to schools. To date, 110 local education authorities in England support the campaign, with over 3,000 schools taking part, reaching over six million school children.

  Emergency Contraception
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to general practitioners regarding prescribing of emergency contraception prospectively. [93877]

  Yvette Cooper
  There is no guidance to general practitioners dealing exclusively with the advance prescribing of hormonal emergency contraception. This is a matter for clinical judgment. The responsibility for deciding what treatment is best for the patient rests with the doctors concerned, in consultation with the patient and informed by the patient's history.

  Health Development Agency
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the proposed Health Development Agency will be established. [93872]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are currently considering options for establishing a new Health Development Agency and succeed the Health Education Authority. However, we anticipate that the Health Development Agency will be launched early in the New Year, subject to parliamentary approval.

  Benzodiazepine
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish respite care and detoxification units for people who are addicted to benzodiazepine drugs. [93727]

  Yvette Cooper
  Decisions about the commissioning of drug treatment services are made locally by health and local authorities on the basis of local need. Assessment of the need for specialist services, such as particular services for users of benzodiazepines, should inform these commissioning decisions.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government routinely record the occupation of people in whom infection with bovine tuberculosis is identified. [94536]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the occupation of individuals notified with tuberculosis in England and Wales is sought on the standard notification form. This information is used locally.

  Reports of M. Bovis infections are collated by the Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre as part of a scheme called in the UK Mycobacterial Resistance Network (Mycobnet). On receipt of a report of M. bovis infection, a questionnaire is sent to the local consultant in communicable disease control inquiring, among other things, about whether the individual had an agricultural occupation (including working on a farm) or other animal contact.
  750
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of human tuberculosis and bovine tuberculosis were confirmed in humans in 1997 and 1998. [94535]

  Yvette Cooper
  A total of 5,859 cases of tuberculosis were notified in England and Wales in 1997 and 6,087 in 1998. 3,229 and 3,456 respectively were microbiologically confirmed. Of these confirmed cases, 29 cases in 1997 were due to M. bovis infection and 32 cases in 1998.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include in the code of conduct for the General Social Care Council a requirement to establish and publish plans for monitoring the extent of(a) violence and (b) stress experienced by social workers, and to recommend to Government what action is necessary to minimise such pressures on social workers. [94721]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are determined to reduce substantially the incidence of violence towards everyone working in social care. We have set up a task force to produce a National Action Plan by November 2000 with recommendations and timescales for action to reduce violence against social care staff and to promote the safety and welfare of social care workers. We will also ensure that in drawing up its code of practice for employers the General Social Care Council includes practical references to dealing with violence.

  Oxfordshire Health Reorganisation
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make an announcement on the proposals by Oxfordshire health authority for reorganisation of community health facilities in Oxfordshire and the Bicester community hospital. [94939]

  Mr. Denham
  We fully recognise the concerns of the local community on such an important issue.

  We are carefully considering all options before reaching a final decision on the future arrangements for community hospitals in Oxfordshire and the future of Bicester Community Hospital.

  Latex Allergy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage greater awareness of allergy to latex among(a) health professionals and (b) the general public; and what research in' this area he is supporting. [94949]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department is aware of the problems associated with latex allergy for patients and healthcare workers in the National Health Service. The NHS Executive has recently issued guidance to all NHS trusts and health authorities on reducing the risk of allergic reaction to latex. This follows recommendations made to the Health Service in 1996 (Medical Devices Agency DB9601) which was re-issued with further advice in 1998 (Medical Devices Agency SN9825). The Department is an active participant in the European Commission Working Group which is investigating issues surrounding the use of medical devices made of latex and is also funding a study into the prevention of occupational skin disease in the workplace.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to fund further clinical trails of beta interferon if NICE were to recommend them. [95157]

  Mr. Denham
  Each case will be considered on its merits, but the presumption will be that research which is reasonably required to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of products for use in the NHS should be funded by the relevant company. Under certain circumstances, some funding from the public sector may be appropriate, for example where there is no clear sponsoring company for an intervention to be appraised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The Department will make sure that, under such circumstances, any research falling to the public purse is taken forward by the appropriate body.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the responses to the consultation on the paper, "Faster access to modern treatment", on(a) the composition of the NICE appraisal group and (b) the format of NICE guidance. [95182]

  Mr. Denham
  Some 75 respondents to the discussion paper "Faster access to modern treatment" commented on aspects of the composition of the appraisal group and 25 on the format of the guidance. We are unable to list individual respondents since the invitation to comment did not seek permission for the detailed nature of the responses to be made public.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the groups that represent the interests of the disabled that are on the advisory body of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [R] [95705]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Partners' Council of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has representatives from the following eight organisations:

  Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales

  Carers National Association

  Long Term Medical Conditions Alliance

  Patients Association

  Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  Association of Welsh Community Health Councils

  The Relatives Association

  National Consumer Council.

  A further four members of the Partners' Council are patient representatives, chosen for their experience and expertise as either patients or carers. The Institute's board of directors has two non-executive members who have special interest in the needs of carers.

  Child Migrants
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to review the eligibility criteria for former child migrants as to their entitlement to support for(a) air fares and (b) living allowance; [95155]

  (2) what plans he has to allow former child migrants whose nearest living relatives are cousins to qualify for support to return to the United Kingdom. [95156]
  752
  Mr. Hutton
  The eligibility criteria for access to the Support Fund are kept under regular review. Demand is currently running at a level which suggests that the Fund will be fully subscribed with the current criteria, which are designed to give priority to reuniting close family members.

  Extending the scheme to others (including those wishing to meet cousins) would substantially enlarge its scope and would mean that there might be insufficient funding available to help this priority group. We do not therefore at present have any plans to amend the criteria.

  Demand on the Fund will however continue to be closely monitored and should it appear that the Fund will not be fully subscribed, we will consider whether revised criteria might be appropriate.

  Residential Accommodation (Elderly People)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his proposals for reforming the funding of residential accommodation for the elderly. [93758]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Royal Commission on Long-Term Care was asked to examine the options for funding long-term care, including residential care for elderly people. We are carefully considering the Royal Commission's proposals, the divergences of view within the Royal Commission and the comments that have been made by various organisations and individuals. We will make an announcement in due course.

  Foster Care Standards
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will be taking to ensure that independent fostering agencies are inspected against the recently introduced National Standards in Foster Care in order to ensure the safety and protection of vulnerable children likely to be placed with such agencies. [95528]

  Mr. Hutton
  As we announced in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services", independent fostering agencies (IFAs) will be brought into the regulatory framework and will have to be registered and inspected by the new Commissions for Care Standards (CCSs). This will of course be subject to the introduction of appropriate legislation. The National Standards for Foster Care will be used as a basis for developing new regulatory standards for the CCSs. As an interim measure the Department is planning to introduce a voluntary accreditation scheme for IFAs.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to those health professionals that are sponsored or paid by commercial organisations in relation to declaring an interest when recommending products. [R] [95702]

  Mr. Denham
  Guidance on standards of business conduct for National Health Service staff including when to declare an interest when recommending products is set out in Health Service Guidance (93)5. More recently, Executive Letter (96)12 was issued on 16 February 1996 again reminding National Health Service employers of the importance of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.
  753
  Copies of these documents are available in the Library. The National Health Service Executive is currently consulting on new guidelines.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what amount of money is currently held in the National Lottery distribution fund which has not been allocated to Lottery distributors. [95142]

  Kate Hoey
  None. All of the money held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund is allocated to Lottery distributors.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list those parties which have applied for the new licence to operate the National Lottery; [95141]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress towards appointing a contractor to operate the new licence to run the National Lottery. [95139]

  Kate Hoey
  Responsibility for appointing the operator for the new National Lottery licence rests with the Lottery regulator, the National Lottery Commission. The Commission issued a draft Invitation to Apply for the new licence and a draft licence on 30 September 1999 and invited comments from potential bidders. The Commission aims to issue the final Invitation to Apply and a revised draft licence by the end of November 1999. Bidders will be asked to submit Letters of Intent by 7 January 2000. The deadline for applications is noon on 29 February 2000.

  No applications have yet been received for the new licence.

  British Library
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the appointment of a chief executive at the British Library. [95146]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The British Library Board intends to appoint a new Chief Executive next year and will shortly be issuing an advertisement for the post. My Department will be closely involved in the appointment.

  Tourism
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received regarding proposals to introduce a rating system for visitor attractions; and if he will make a statement. [95143]

  Janet Anderson
  I have received representations from the Historic Houses Association regarding its concerns about a scheme in the West Country and rumours of a national scheme.
  754
  The Government are concerned to maintain and improve standards of quality in visitor attractions but there are no plans to introduce a national rating system for visitor attractions.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of visits to UK tourist attractions in each year since 1991; and what his estimate is for 1999. [95205]

  Janet Anderson
  The number of visits to UK attractions since 1991 is estimated as follows:

  millions

  Year

  Number of visits

  1991

  333

  1992

  357

  1993

  367

  1994

  387

  1995

  392

  1996

  402

  1997

  409

  1998

  408

  Source:

  Sightseeing in the UK, English Tourism Council

  Data for 1999 are not yet available.

  Statistics for different years are not always comparable, because the number of attractions whose figures have been included has varied over the years, reflecting survey developments and the growth in the number of attractions.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the balance of payments surplus or deficit on tourism(a) in each year since 1995 and (b) for 1999. [95204]

  Janet Anderson
  Data from the International Passenger Survey show the following balance of payments for tourism in the period from 1995 to August 1999:

  £ millions

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance

  1995

  11,763

  15,386

  -3,623

  1996

  12,290

  16,223

  -3,933

  1997

  12,244

  16,931

  -4,687

  1998

  12,671

  19,489

  -6,818

  19991

  8,625

  14,290

  -5,665

  1 First 8 months

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the DETR regarding the impact on tourism of the dualling of the remainder of the A30 in Cornwall. [95194]

  Janet Anderson
  When I visited Cornwall in August, the dualling of the A30 between Bodmin and India Queens was raised with me on a number of occasions. I know that this road improvement is regarded as crucial to the development of tourism in the county, where we are investing heavily through Objective 1, Assisted Area grants and in a major Millennium project. I raised the matter with Lord Whitty at DETR on my return.

  Lord Whitty informed me that the Highways Agency has recently awarded a new commission appointing consultants for the scheme which will enable development work to start straight away. It is hoped that a public

  755
  consultation will take place later this year and that a solution which will benefit tourism in Cornwall will follow.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had about tourism courses in(a) higher education and (b) further education. [95202]

  Janet Anderson
  We have regular discussions with other Government Departments, tourism and hospitality bodies and relevant National Training Organisations, (in particular the Travel, Tourism Services and Events National Training Organisation and the Hospitality Training Foundation, the National Training Organisation for the hospitality industry) about the provision of tourism-related courses in both higher and further education.

  National Arts Day
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will support plans to create a National Arts Day. [95131]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We are prepared to consider lending support to any practical and worthwhile project that would make a real contribution to our goal of bringing the benefits of the arts to the greatest number of people.

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the reasons for recent trends in the number of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom. [95140]

  Janet Anderson
  Since 1996, the number of visits from EU residents has been fairly constant; there has been a notable decline in visits from Asia and the Pacific, while the number of visits from the USA has risen sharply.

  A number of factors underlie this mixed picture, for example, the strengthening of sterling against currencies of other EU members, and weakening consumer confidence in a number of EU countries; the financial crises in Asia; and the strong growth of the US economy, combined with increased airline capacity and lower air fares.

  Art Exports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he plans to review the rules governing the export of works of art. [95127]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We have no plans to review the export system.

  School Sport
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the DfEE about the state of sport and physical education participation in schools, with particular reference to Ofsted inspections. [95209]

  Kate Hoey
  DCMS Ministers meet and have regular contact with their colleagues at DfEE to discuss a range of education issues, including PE and sport in schools.756
  This topic is of particular importance at present, as we prepare our sports strategy paper. I recently met Chris Woodhead of Ofsted to discuss school inspections.

  Millennium Commission (Projects)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on progress towards completion of the major capital projects funded by the Millennium Commission. [95119]

  Janet Anderson
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reply to the hon. Member in his capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of his reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Regional Regeneration
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he has taken to ensure that Government regional offices involve(a) sport, (b) the Arts and (c) tourism in their plans for regeneration. [95197]

  Janet Anderson
  Our strategy document "Tomorrow's Tourism" and the Policy Action Team's report to the Social Exclusion Unit, "Arts&Sport", clearly illustrate how fundamental tourism, the arts and sport are to a successful regeneration programme.

  Recently, my Department established a senior official in each of the Government Offices in the regions. They will champion the role, effectiveness and importance of these sectors for each region's regeneration strategy in one course of discussion on their Single Programme Documents, the framework by which EU Structural Funds are delivered, and the next Round (6) of the Single Regeneration Budget.

  EU Agenda 2000
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of how much EU Agenda 2000 funding has been spent on(a) the arts and (b) sport (i) in cash terms and (ii) as a total of the Agenda 2000 money spent in England. [95196]

  Janet Anderson
  The European Commission has yet to approve the Single Programme Documents, the framework by which EU Structural Funds are delivered, for each of the country's nine regions. Consequently, it is too early to estimate a breakdown of EU Agenda 2000 funding on the arts. In terms of EU Structural Funds, sport is an ineligible activity.

  Analogue Radio Frequencies
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the timetable for the switch-off of analogue radio frequencies. [95125]

  Janet Anderson
  Digital radio broadcasting is at an early stage of development in the UK. It is premature to set a timetable for the switch-over of analogue services to digital at this time. However, I look forward to the launch of the first national commercial digital radio services in November and to the future growth of commercial and BBC digital radio services.

  Radio Authority
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his future plans for the Radio Authority. [95152]

  Janet Anderson
  We intend to set up a new dedicated unit in my Department to consider the future regulation of broadcasting, building on the interim measures set out in "Regulating Communications: the Way Ahead", which was published by my Department and the DTI in June.

  Local Radio Licences
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list all applications for local radio licences which are currently under consideration by the Radio Authority, stating when each was lodged. [95151]

  Janet Anderson
  Independent radio licences are currently under consideration by the Radio Authority as follows:

  Ten applications for new analogue licences:

  three for Bridgend (received 22 June);

  three for Newbury (received 27 July);

  two for Burnley (received 7 September);

  two for Hertford (received 5 October);

  Seven applications for re-advertised licences:

  two for Guernsey (received 12 October);

  two for Jersey (received 12 October);

  two for Alton/Haslemere (received 19 October);

  one for Barnstaple under the 'special application' procedure (received 27 July).

  Two applications for local digital radio multiplex licences:

  one for Cardiff/Newport (received 14 September);

  one for Wolverhampton (received 12 October).

  British Museum
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the difference in cost between the stone in the specification originally detailed for the restoration of the south portico of the British Museum and that finally purchased; and if he will make a statement. [94446]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: I am advised by the British Museum that the stone is an oolitic limestone and therefore meets the original contract specification. I am also advised that the price of stone varies according to its size and the quantity needed, and that the price differential between Anstrude and Portland Stone is in the range of 10 to 20 per cent.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reasons it was necessary to purchase an alternative to the Portland stone specified for the restoration of the south portico of the British Museum; and if he will make a statement. [94614]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I am advised by the British Museum that in line with European procurement regulations, the contract called for an oolitic limestone (Portland Stone from the basebed or similar). The rebuilding of the south portico is an exceptional example of architectural reconstruction, demanding some 60 massive blocks for the columns and pilasters. The contractor advised the Museum that stone of the required 758
  quality and size could not be procured in sufficient quantity from Portland. Another oolitic limestone, Anstrude Roche Claire, was therefore selected.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment was made of the visual properties and resistance to weathering and atmospheric pollution of alternative stone to Portland stone; prior to varying the specifications of the restoration of the south portico of the British Museum; and if he will make a statement. [94444]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: I am advised by the British Museum that there has been no variation to the specification, and the stone is fully compliant with the contract. The visual properties of the stone were assessed and approved by the Museum, its professional team and project monitors. The technical characteristics have been assessed by an independent body, and the Museum commissioned its own report. The courtyard will be under a new roof, so none of the new stone, neither the 900 tonnes of Portland Stone that is being used on the project, nor the Anstrude Roche Claire, will be subject to the same weathering as the original.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the stone used in the restoration of the south portico of the British Museum has the same visual properties and resistance to weathering and atmospheric pollution as Portland stone; and if he will make a statement. [94443]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: I am advised by the British Museum that there are minor differences in the visual properties and resistance to weathering and atmospheric pollution of the French Limestone. However, English Heritage has accepted that the stone is adequate. The stone will be in a covered courtyard, and therefore protected against the weathering effects of wind, rain and atmospheric pollution.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he was informed of the need to use alternative stone to that in the specification in the restoration of the south portico of the British Museum; and if he will make a statement. [94442]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The stonework in question is being carried out on the South Portico of the Museum's inner courtyard. This portico was demolished in the 1870s and is being completely rebuilt. I am advised by the British Museum that the specification was for "oolitic limestone" (Portland Stone from the basebed or similar). The stone that is being used for the main body of the portico is Anstrude Roche Claire. This is an oolitic limestone of the Jurassic period, as is Portland Stone. It therefore complies fully with the specification and is not an alternative. The Museum has been working closely with the Heritage bodies throughout and notified them about the selection of Anstrude Roche Claire in June. English Heritage has accepted that the Anstrude Roche Claire is adequate. We inquired about the choice of stone in August.

  Culture Consortiums
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects the Culture Consortiums to be fully functional. [95198]
  759
  Janet Anderson
  We announced the appointment of the Chairs of the Regional Cultural Consortiums on 8 October 1999. They are:

  Consortiums

  Appointees

  East of England

  Graham Creelman

  East Midlands

  Venu Dhupa

  North East

  George Gill

  North West

  Felicity Goodey

  South East

  Sir David Watson

  South West

  Adrian Vinken

  West Midlands

  Baroness Christine Crawley

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Chris Heinitz

  The Chairs are now considering the appointment of members to the Consortiums. We expect that all the Consortiums will have held their first meetings before the end of the year. In London, under the GLA Bill currently before Parliament, instead of a Consortium, the Mayor will be responsible for appointing a Cultural Strategy Group for London to advise him or her.

  Sports Cabinet
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Sports Cabinet has met this year. [95192]

  Kate Hoey
  The Sports Cabinet met on 10 March and 6 October. Officials from this Department maintain regular contact with their colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on those issues of most strategic priority for UK Sport.

  Sports Institute Headquarters
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he had with representatives of Sheffield City Council about the decision to remove the headquarters site of the UK Sports Institute to London. [95207]

  Kate Hoey
  No specific discussions have been held with representatives of Sheffield City Council, though representatives of Phoenix Sports Limited (the company formed by members of the Sheffield Consortium) have met with Ministers from time to time to discuss general developments related to the proposals for the UK Sports Institute Network Centre Sheffield. Officers of the United Kingdom Sports Council (UK Sport) and the English Sports Council (Sport England) attended the Board Meeting of Phoenix Sports Limited on 7 October 1999. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has since agreed to meet representatives of Sheffield at a suitable time soon.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria were used to determine that the headquarters of the UK Sports Institute should be in London; and(a) by whom and (b) when this decision was made. [95206]

  Kate Hoey
  It was originally envisaged that the UK Sports Institute headquarters would consist of around 200 staff providing a range of sports medicine and physiological services. In the light of discussions with the world of sport, and other developments both nationally and internationally, this view has been revised. With the 760
  new focus on a decentralisation of services to the network centres to better meet the requirements of athletes and coaches—and the need for a much smaller team at the centre—the UK Sports Council (UK Sport) considered it sensible to review how the central service functions could now best be delivered.

  A full options analysis has been undertaken by PMP Consultancy on behalf of UK Sport. The criteria and relative weighting used to evaluate the qualitative aspects of the various options have been developed from the work undertaken by Dr. Roger Jackson, an internationally recognised expert in his field from the University of Calgary commissioned by UK Sport earlier this year to review and verify the role and functions of the UK Sports Institute headquarters/central services, and from the factors that will enable the Institute to do its job effectively. Seventeen different criteria were used covering (i) the impact on partnerships with key stakeholders; (ii) accessibility; (iii) resources; (iv) links with network centres; and (v) strategic role. The preferred option provided the greatest value for money in terms of qualitative benefit per £1 million of expenditure.

  A summary of the options analysis was included in a paper about the UK Sports Institute prepared by my Department for consideration by the Sports Cabinet on 6 October. It was announced in a press statement on 7 October 1999 that the Sports Cabinet had agreed UK Sports' proposal that a headquarters is no longer required and what is now needed is co-ordination, support and administration from a body with a dedicated UK wide sports performance focus and responsibility. The preferred option meets these objects.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the DfEE and the DSS about the effects of the benefits system on volunteers in(a) the Arts and (b) sport. [95193]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department recently published a report by Policy Action Team 10 (PAT 10), on how to maximise the impact on poor neighbourhoods of Government spending and policies on arts, sport and leisure. Other Government Departments including DfEE were represented on PAT 10. The report included a recommendation that'the DfEE and DSS should work together to ensure that the benefits system does not penalise those who volunteer to help community-building activities or who want to take up training or work opportunities offered by small community organisations, and that it operates to meet the flexibility for developing artistic and sporting talent'.
  My Department consulted with both DfEE and DSS regarding this recommendation prior to publication of the report and will be entering into further discussions with them in order to take the recommendation forward.

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Home Office about the future departmental responsibility for the sport of horse racing. [95188]

  Kate Hoey
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have had any direct discussions with Home Office colleagues about the future departmental
  761
  responsibility for the sport of horse racing. However, given the responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the horse industry and my own Department's interests in both racing and equestrianism, I intend to discuss with ministerial colleagues whether the current arrangements are satisfactory.

  Broadcasting Standards Commission
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to review the functions of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. [95153]

  Janet Anderson
  We have no plans at present to review the functions of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. As "Regulating Communications: The Way Ahead" made clear, the Government believe the current system of broadcasting regulation, of which the BSC forms part, is broadly sustainable for the time being. However, I envisage that developments in broadcasting and communications will require a fundamental reassessment of broadcasting regulation, with the possibility of major new legislation early in the next Parliament.

  Sports Strategy
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will be publishing his Department's sports strategy. [95187]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government's Action Plan for sport will now be published early next year.

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with(a) the Treasury and (b) the Home Office about charitable status for voluntary sports clubs. [95190]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend and I are in regular contact with Ministerial colleagues in the Treasury and Home Office on a wide range of issues of mutual interest. Most recently we have been in contact with the Home Office and Charity Commission in relation to issues arising from the Commission's review of the Recreational Charities Act 1958 and the planned consultation dealing specifically with charitable status and community based sports organisations. My officials, together with those of Sport England, recently met representatives of the Charity Commission to discuss a range of issues relating to the charitable status for voluntary sports clubs.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received and from whom about charitable status for voluntary sports clubs; and if he will list them. [95189]

  Kate Hoey
  I have received representations in favour of granting charitable status to voluntary sports organisations from: Sport England, The Central Council of Physical Recreation, The National Playing Fields Association, and Lord Phillips and Lord Cowdray. Parliamentary Questions on this subject have recently been tabled for answer by my Department by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones).

  Policy Action Unit 10
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what resources his Department has devoted in terms of(a) money and (b) personnel to the monitoring of Policy Action Unit 10's recommendations on the arts and sport. [95195]

  Kate Hoey
  Staff throughout DCMS have been asked to incorporate promoting social inclusion into their divisional and personal objectives, including the advocacy, monitoring and follow-through of Policy Action Team 10's recommendations on arts and sport. £90,000 has been set aside this year for a programme of research into improved ways of monitoring and evaluating the success of cultural, sporting and leisure approaches to social inclusion.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with(a) the West Country Tourism Board, (b) the Cornwall Tourism Board and (c) the DETR about possible projects to be undertaken with EU Objective 1 funding. [95201]

  Janet Anderson
  The Single Programme Document (SPD) for Objective 1 funding in the South West was presented to Government Departments for approval this week, prior to being submitted to the European Commission for approval.

  I have had no discussions with the West Country Tourist Board, the Cornwall Tourism Board or the DETR about possible projects. However, I have asked my officials to assist in the preparation of the SPD, and discussions have taken place with the West Country Tourist Board, the Cornwall Tourism Board and DETR.

  Business Partnerships
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the DTI about promoting partnerships between businesses and(a) the arts and (b) sport. [95200]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had a number of discussions with colleagues in the DTI about promoting partnerships between business and arts and sports organisations. The vital contribution made to arts and sport by business is recognised across Government. In the arts, for example, my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs participates in hosting receptions to recognise the contribution made by business sponsors through the Government's Pairing Scheme, managed by Arts and Business.

  DTI Ministers have also responded positively to the report of the Policy Action Team on Arts and Sport which recommended that DTI should encourage the business links network to forge partnerships between businesses and art/sport organisations.

  Manchester United
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what communications were sent by Ministers in his Department to Manchester
  763
  United concerning the club's participation in the FA Cup (a) before 29 July and (b) since 29 July; and if he will make a statement. [94710]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The then Minister for Sport's letter of 10 June to Roland Smith was the only such communication.

  I very much hope that a solution can be found and that Manchester United do compete in this season's FA Cup. Manchester United's exemption from the competition is ultimately something which only the FA could offer and only the Manchester United Board could decide to accept. Clearly any solution has to be acceptable to both these parties.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the DETR and DfEE regarding the sale of school playing fields in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [95210]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend and I are in regular contact with Ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department for Education and Employment on a wide range of issues of mutual interest including the important issue of protecting school playing fields. My right hon. Friend launched National School Grounds Week in June this year jointly with DETR and DfEE colleagues, at which the Government also announced details of the new 764
  procedural guidance on disposal of school playing fields. This builds on last year's DETR Direction requiring local authorities to refer the planning applications for the development of local authority owned playing fields and those currently used, or used in the past five years by schools, to which Sport England object.

  Quest
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will report on the activities undertaken so far by the agency Quest. [95138]

  Janet Anderson
  The Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team (Quest) has been set up to identify, evaluate and promote good practice across the sectors for which my Department is responsible.

  It works independently of the Department and reports directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The chief executive and advisory panel took up their appointments in July this year. The advisory panel has met to identify Quest's initial projects and draw up a work plan, details of which will be published shortly.

  School Sports
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many school sports co-ordinators have been appointed to date. [95208]

  Kate Hoey
  None. We are working towards the appointment of the first Active Schools Sports Co-ordinators by September 2000.

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

Baroness Harris of Richmond
Angela Felicity Harris, having been created Baroness Harris of Richmond, of Richmond in the County of North Yorkshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Hamwee and the Baroness Maddock.

Baroness Howells of St Davids
Mrs Rosalind. Patricia-Anne Howells, OBE, having been created Baroness Howells of St Davids, of Charlton in the London Borough of Greenwich, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Amos and the Lord Alli.
The Earl of Meath—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Catto—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Equality before the Law
2.48 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support further steps to promote equality before the law and the equal protection
2
of the law throughout Europe by means of an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, in principle the Government support the promotion of equality before the law. With regard to the additional protocol, the Government will come to a considered view in the light of its text.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that encouraging, although cautious, reply. Does the Minister agree that there is at present a gap between the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by which the United Kingdom is bound and which is a strong guarantee of equality, and the much weaker guarantee in the European Convention on Human Rights? Does he agree also that it is in the public interest of this country and Europe as a whole that that gap should be filled by means of the protocol? If not, are there any objections in principle which the noble Lord can foresee in the way in which the protocol is now being worded?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the gaps to which the noble Lord refers are regrettable. Our primary concern in looking at the draft text of the protocol is that there is no exemption for positive discrimination and for other forms of differential treatment which have a reasonable and objective justification. That is our primary problem. Of course, if those issues and others can be addressed, we can make progress with the protocol, which we fully recognise to be extremely important in the development of civil and political rights across Europe.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it would be a good idea for the British Government to set an example in this area? We have reasonable legislation on racial and sexual

3
discrimination, but some other countries are not so well blessed. Would it not be a good idea to set an example by supporting the protocol?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We have excellent legislation in this field. The Labour Government, and Labour in local government, have a proud record in taking forward equality provisions and policies in legislation. We require progress to be made in dealing with the protocol and perfecting the draft so that we can reflect positively on those aspects of it which need to be improved, in particular those which relate to positive discrimination and the need for differential treatment. That will take forward important equal rights objectives.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, without expressing a view on the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will the Government be wary about signing up to international covenants expressed in general language of principle, without any clear idea as to how such a principle might be interpreted in years to come by foreign judges brought up in different disciplines? Surely there are some lessons to be learnt from our experience with the European Convention on Human Rights.
While on that subject, will the Minister take special heed of remarks made the other day by the United States Supreme Court judge, Judge Kennedy, who said that the more that judges become involved in social and economic decisions, the more they will lose the respect of the public?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are always cautious in terms of incorporating European legislation into our own, so as to ensure that we protect and advance the British interest. Of course, we have to take account of the views expressed by the noble Lord. It is important for us to make sure that we get things right for our people in our country.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government's approach to the review of the race relations and equal opportunity legislation has been very cautious? Does he also accept that, by signing or supporting the protocol to the international convention, we are also giving domestic remedy on this issue which is very much in line with what the Prime Minister said at the Bournemouth conference?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is right to say that we are cautious; but we are cautious only because we want to get things right. Therefore, it is only right and proper that we give very careful consideration to the way in which we incorporate into our own domestic legislation measures such as Article 14. We share a common objective: to improve the standard and quality of equalities legislation.
Lord Desai: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lady Turner, my noble friend said that there were
4
some defects in the international protocol. In avoiding those defects, is he satisfied that we have done everything we can to bridge the gap between the protocol and the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we shall continue to make our case very strongly with regard to improving the quality of the protocol because we believe it to be important. We want to get it right. As I said earlier, as it is currently drafted, there is no exemption for lawful positive discrimination. We want to ensure that we can batter away at that and get things right so that the legislation, and the way in which we incorporate the protocol, accurately reflect our interests and our desire to get equalities legislation properly termed and phrased.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the Minister take advice from his department about the case law under the European Convention on Human Rights, Community law and the covenant, all of which deal with the problems to which he referred? At the same time, in relation to the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will he bear in mind the fact that the Government have the overwhelming support of these Benches, and the country as a whole, for having incorporated the convention and given our judges the responsibilities that it is time they exercised, as is the case in the courts in the rest of Europe and in the Commonwealth?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are more than happy to take advice and, indeed, more than happy to take encouragement from the Liberal Democrat Benches on these matters.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the Minister also accept that there are many who might not agree that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, speaks for the whole of the country? There are many others in the country who believe that positive discrimination is a can of worms. Indeed, it has proved to be so in the United States where the doctrine has been most advanced. On reflection, does the noble Lord agree that it might be better to rest on the principle of no discrimination?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, quite entitled to his view.

Prisoners' Voting Rights
2.56 p.m.
Lord Lucasasked her Majesty's Government:
What consequences the Human Rights Act 1998 has for the voting rights of prisoners in the United Kingdom.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, none. Remand and unsentenced prisoners already have the right to

5
vote. We do not believe that the Human Rights Act 1998 requires us to extend that right to sentenced prisoners.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the right under Article 3 of the convention is an individual right and that, therefore, the Human Rights Act gives to an individual prisoner, or another individual, deprived of his voting rights (for whatever reason), the right to pursue the restoration of his voting rights through the courts?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that may well be the case.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister will, perhaps, be able to think of an answer to my noble friend's question while he is listening to mine. I can confirm to the noble Lord that we agree that convicted prisoners should not be able to vote. The noble Lord is entirely right to say that remand prisoners can vote. However, can he confirm that I am correct in my understanding that remand prisoners who do not have an address (a rig ht of abode) are not allowed to vote at present because they do not have an address to register? I believe that the Government have considered whether that should be changed to allow them to vote. Surely anyone on remand should be allowed to vote even if he does not have an address—some people are on remand for a considerable amount of time—and even if his address has to be "care of" Her Majesty's prisons?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Viscount has put his finger on the problem. Remand prisoners may not have registered to vote at the time when they should have done so. For that reason, the Working Group on Electoral Procedures has been carefully looking at ways in which we can improve the situation. I can tell the noble Viscount that a recent survey revealed that just three of about 700 prisoners who were on remand at the time of the last general election managed to obtain, secure and exercise their right to vote. Clearly we need to try to improve upon their access to the right to vote, given the fact that these prisoners are fully entitled to it.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, as we are discussing the human rights of prisoners, does the Minister accept that it would be good to have warders who are better trained than they are at present to cope with the many prisoners who have a degree, though perhaps a low degree, of mental illness?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl's question. However, it does not entirely relate to the Question on the Order Paper. We would, of course, wish to encourage all prison staff to assist those who may well suffer from a mental illness, or any other illness, to improve their personal welfare.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is the policy justification
6
for a blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners no matter how long the sentence, how long they have served or what their record is? Is that really a proportionate interference with the rights conferred by Article 3 of the First Protocol?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a novel and interesting question. The Government have always taken the view that those who are convicted and serving a sentence have no moral right to vote. That is and has been our policy position for some time. I believe that it was also the policy position of the previous administration. We hold to that.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Protection
2.59 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wathasked her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the present arrangements for the protection of sites of special scientific interest and what consideration is being given to securing the sites' character.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government will be bringing forward legislation to ensure the better protection and management of SSSIs in England and Wales as soon as parliamentary time permits. We set out our proposals in The Government's Framework for Action on 2nd August this year. New powers to regulate potentially damaging activities and combat neglect will lead to an improvement in condition for all our SSSIs through better protection and better management.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer will be greatly welcomed? However, I hope that I may press him further. In view of the remorseless and continuing damage and the inadequate response to that damage over a long period on the part of the previous administration, will the Government urgently seek effective protection of these sites, which by their very nature are essential parts of our natural heritage?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for welcoming my Answer. At present somewhat over half of the SSSIs are in a satisfactory condition and another 15 per cent, while not being in a satisfactory condition, are improving. That still leaves over a third of SSSIs where there is a serious problem which we need to address. The Government have already allocated additional resources, for example, £6 million to English Nature in the current financial year and payments for positive management, and are taking strong measures to ensure that landowners are aware of their responsibilities in these matters. The provision

7
which I mentioned has suggested further legislative and non-legislative measures to improve the position yet further.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the protection of SSSIs and social, cultural or natural sites depends upon the definition and recording of significance and values and that securing values and significance within the excellent system of development control in the UK requires improvement to our systems in the UK of defining significance and value?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that to some extent the noble Lord suggests a different definition of SSSIs than we currently have. We are continuing to review the status of SSSIs, and indeed the number has increased significantly over recent years. As regards our wider development and planning policies, I believe that this Government have demonstrated that we have substantially included the protection of SSSIs in our general planning procedures. For example, in the area of roads policy, for which I am directly responsible, we have rightly reduced the number of SSSIs which would be affected by such developments in our own targeted programme of improvements to the transport infrastructure. The same is true of other areas of development and planning.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the overall objective of further protection for SSSIs—which I very much hope will be included in the Queen's Speech—is to protect wildlife? Does he therefore agree that in any protection measures the Government should seek to protect also the wildlife that does not depend on SSSIs but is mobile in habit, such as the skylark? Will the Minister consider rationalising our general approach to wildlife so that policy planning guidance in the planning service, for example, recognises its importance?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in respect of the noble Baroness's first remarks, I cannot possibly anticipate the Queen's Speech and nothing that I have said hitherto should be taken as doing so. As regards wildlife, a number of proposals are before us and are in process to improve the protection of wildlife in SSSIs and beyond. The noble Baroness may know that the skylark is one of the 12 species for which we have arranged sponsorship. We may well take further action, whether legislative or non-legislative, in a number of areas.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, bearing in mind the large number of Ministry of Defence holdings which are SSSIs, will the Minister say whether the review will include Ministry of Defence holdings?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the ongoing assessment includes that. In total the public sector as a whole owns about 40 per cent of SSSIs, a significant number of
8
which belong to the Ministry of Defence. I believe that in most respects the Ministry of Defence has a good record in this regard. However, all government departments, including the Ministry of Defence, are required to improve their management and husbandry of these sites.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what percentage of the land area of England and Wales is currently designated SSSI?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the figure is 7 per cent, which I understand is about a million hectares.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, obviously the Minister cannot predict the legislation in the Queen's Speech, but will there be a Bill to consider the protection of SSSIs—as the noble Baroness on the Liberal Benches asked—or will there be an "overall" Bill? The prospect of an "overall" Bill is causing great concern. Will the Bill, or the principle behind it, take account of overregulation and the burden imposed on many who run SSSIs at present in difficult circumstances?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am tempted once again to anticipate the Queen's Speech. I can do so neither as regards the substance or the structure of legislation. I regret, therefore, that I cannot reply to the noble Baroness's main point further than I already have. As regards the regulatory burden, the Government are always concerned that any changes do not impose an additional regulatory burden. A large part of our approach is to help owners of such sites to improve their management rather than to impose additional burdens on them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as such a wide area—I think that it is a million hectares—is covered, very roughly, what is of special scientific interest as distinct from wildlife interest?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that I could send the noble Lord a list of nearly 4,000 sites, all of which differ as regards wildlife, vegetation, geology and habitat in general. There is a whole range of considerations, some of which apply to some of the sites and some to others. As the noble Lord implies, wildlife is only one such criterion.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge the success of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme as administered by MAFF which has improved the condition of SSSIs up and down the country? Will the Minister consider developing that scheme to cover 100 per cent of the country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Earl means by covering 100 per cent of the country. Certainly I commend the efforts of my

9
colleagues in MAFF in this respect. But of course a significant number of these sites are not on agricultural land.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given the intrinsic scientific interest of endangered species, will the noble Lord consider recommending Westminster as an SSSI?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that that is business for tomorrow.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.8 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 269 [Establishment, membership and duty to maintain police force]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 535ZA:
Page 154, line 2., at end insert—
("Discrimination.
5BB. The Metropolitan Police Authority shall be subject to section (Discrimination) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 535ZA I will speak also to Amendment No. 556A.
I welcome the Government's commitment to a strong and effective partnership between the police and local authorities working with local communities to fight and prevent crime. The amendment seeks to provide a framework which will deliver a permanent improvement in eliminating discrimination in the area of policing and in the rest of society. After all, this is precisely what the Home Office reported in the 15th United Kingdom periodic report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination.
The amendment is designed to assist the GLA and the police publicly to reaffirm their commitment to investing in good community and race relations as a core function of policing. It will also assist the police and the GLA to undertake the community and race relations audit on a regular basis. The Scarman Report on the Brixton disorders in 1981 and now the Macpherson Report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry described a wide range of detailed measures to relieve institutional racism within the police service. The purpose of the amendment is not in doubt. It is to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Authority provides an appropriate and professional service to all sections of the community. The amendment will ensure that while those in a position of power and influence have a special duty and responsibility to provide leadership, everyone in an organisation will understand what they are expected to do. The evidence which was submitted to both inquiries painted a picture of lack of confidence in the police among ethnic minority communities.
The Government have pronounced that at some stage the Race Relations Act will be extended to bring police activity within its scope. But hopes for a far-reaching improvement to race equality legislation have been dampened to an extent by a cautious government response to the CRE proposal to reform the race relations legislation. I was delighted when during Questions the Minister said that the Government have something in mind in terms of taking a cautious approach.
I mentioned during the Second Reading of the Bill—and it is worth repeating—that it remains the view of the Commission for Racial Equality that extending the scope of the Race Relations Act is not sufficient. We do not know when this will happen. The CRE can be truly effective when challenging discriminatory practices only if there is a duty on all public bodies to promote racial equality and eliminate racial discrimination and all other forms of discrimination on improper grounds. No organisation can afford to put off tackling discrimination merely because the new legislation is not in place.
The Government have relied so far on Section 71 of the Act, which states:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need—

"(a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and

"(b) to promote equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups".

This provision in the 1976 legislation has not had the effect and impact that Parliament intended at that time. The permanent indicators on racial equality in the local authorities annual report to the Audit Commission show that despite Section 71 there are areas of local government employment practice and service delivery which remain wholly outside the equal opportunity programmes. The confirmed high level of complaints of racial discrimination of local authority employees—in 1996 they accounted for approximately 15 per cent of all cases decided by industrial tribunals—shows that, even where there are such programmes, there is a substantial gap between promise and performance.
So what do we see in the GLA Bill? The same old, tired and failed provisions. We shall miss a golden opportunity if we continue to put faith in Clause 71 of the Race Relations Act. It has not worked effectively.
The new clause applies to the GLA, the MPA and the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The proposed new clause differs from Section 71 in the following ways. First, the duty is a more direct one; it builds positive duties in regard to anti-discrimination and equality of opportunity for all into the functions of the GLA, the MPA and the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The experience of the Commission for Racial Equality is that the wording in Section 71 is sufficiently vague as to have enabled some local authorities to pay lip service to racial equality but to do little or nothing else over the past 20 years.
Secondly, the amendment proposes that the duty to promote equality of opportunity should apply to all of the areas identified in the EU treaty, Article 13, rather

11
than racial equality alone. Thirdly, it refers to all kinds of unlawful discrimination. At the present time discrimination is unlawful on grounds of race, sex and disability. Again, the amendment goes beyond the scope of the Race Relations Act. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that in future, possibly in response to directives, discrimination in other areas will also be subject to statutory provision.
Fourthly, the third duty, to promote good relations, recognises that for London racism is an issue that must be directly addressed within the functions of the new authorities. It also recognises that people in London meet hostility and violence where there are differences of religion or sexual orientation. The recent London bombing campaign bears this out.
If the Government were to give an indication that they are prepared to accept the amendment, take it away and bring it back at Third Reading, I shall be delighted to withdraw it. I hope that serious consideration will be given to the new powers in terms of the GLA, the MPA and the fire authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment raises important issues, and perhaps I would say that having raised similar points in Committee. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has highlighted key areas where the amendment adds to the existing provisions of the Race Relations Act. In particular, I welcome the inclusion in the new Clause 338 proposed in Amendment No. 556A of the need to promote and secure equality of opportunity for all persons irrespective of age and religion. Those are important matters for Londoners.
I am conscious that at times within London there has been an undercurrent of discrimination on grounds of religion. That is not adequately reflected in existing legislation. It is important that the new authority and its subsidiary bodies are seen to take a lead on this issue.
The other powerful provision in the amendment is the responsibility to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups, religious beliefs and sexual orientation. I hope that the new mayor and the new authority will be seen to be very much a force for good in promoting positive and harmonious community relations between all Londoners, whatever their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The placing of a positive responsibility on the mayor, the authority and its subsidiary bodies would be a welcome addition to the Bill.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment. I am not a specialist on these matters—I very seldom speak about race relations—but apart from the obvious necessity to improve race relations in the light of what we have seen in the past two or three years, we have to recognise that in London, being a global city, there will be a much greater variety of religions and races among the people who have recently moved here than is normally the case with other cities. We have to cast a very broad net and
12
define tolerance in a much broader sense than we have so far. We shall need a much more positive attitude from the new GLA.
The situation is much changed from 20 years ago. People of other races and other colours—if I may put it that way—are, on the one hand, very deprived and very poor; on the other hand, there are highly skilled people coming to this country. At both ends of the spectrum they deserve a much more tolerant, fair and positive discriminating attitude than we have seen so far.
The most important issue concerns young people. I speak as the father of children who are now in their 20s but who were teenagers in London. They do not like the police attitude towards them. That is a very simple fact. Unless the police can convey to the young people of London that they will not be suspected a priori because of the difference in their character, personality, colour or whatever else, we will not have good race relations. I very much welcome the noble Lord's amendment which seeks to place a positive duty on the GLA and the MPA to ensure good race relations.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I welcome the new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. On the last occasion that we discussed an amendment of this kind, we had the privilege of seeing the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, added to the amendment on the Marshalled List. I hope that his speech today will leave the Minister in no doubt that the noble Lord is with us again. On the last occasion that this matter was raised, the Minister rose to the Dispatch Box and stated that, because of the three names attached to the amendment, he felt that he would be able to accept it. I am moved that all three noble Lords wish to see this provision on the face of the Bill. I look forward to seeing the Minister return to the Dispatch Box to deliver the same words.
It is sad that a provision of this kind is needed at all. One hopes that we will all live to see the day when it will not be found necessary to incorporate words of this kind in any legislation. When we look back over the history of this country, there are bound to be equivalent provisions that would be laughed at now, because the nation has moved on in a certain way. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is right when he says that it is necessary at the moment. There is no more appropriate body than the GLA to take on this duty. This city has a 27 per cent ethnic population. For that reason, there could be no better place for a provision of this kind to be seen to be working.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred to religion, and he was right in what he said. Over the past year I have attended several religious meetings. It is unusual to see 100 people in the congregation of a Church of England church. Two weeks ago I attended a West Indian church. There were 3,000 people in the congregation. I attended a Muslim meeting with 4,000 in the congregation. On another occasion I went to my own church, and I am afraid to say that the choir at the

13
West Indian church was larger than the congregation at my Church of England church. If, as a nation, we are not aware that this is happening, then we are half asleep. I hope that the Minister will give the clause his blessing. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, it should be given a chance at Third Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made a further comment about young people, which, the Minister might agree, moves away somewhat from this clause. However, it is interesting that the noble Lord feels that young people should be included when we consider minority groups. I shall be happy to send on to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, my speech of a year ago to the Metropolitan Police. At the time I said that if I were fortunate enough to be elected mayor, I would place two people under the age of 20 on the committee. In that way, two out of the 25 members would be able to confirm to the commissioner the statement made by the noble Lord, and one that I have heard many times all over London, that the young are treated differently. Those young people would be on the committee and thus able to say to the commissioner, "When I was out on Saturday night at my club, I was treated differently from the way my father claims he was treated when he was there". I would not put young people into a minority group, but I see a clear reason for allowing them to have their say at that level. I ask the Minister to take this new clause very seriously indeed and consider bringing it back at Third Reading, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has asked.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I should like to follow up the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Archer. In south London in the Church of England we have something in the order of 300 congregations. Perhaps half of those are in the most deprived urban parts of our city. The majority of those congregations will be members of minority ethnic groups. When discussing the Church of England, as when looking at other Christian denominations in London, we have a Church in the urban areas which is predominantly black, certainly m terms of the members of the congregation. For that reason, I wholeheartedly wish to support this clause.
It has been very noticeable to me that the Metropolitan Police, following the sad Lawrence murder, has begun to learn its lessons. Immediately after the nail bomb incident in Brixton the police gathered together community leaders, including the local Church leaders, and from the first hour shared with them sensitive information. As a result, the community was welded together in its effort to oppose that horrific racial attack. If it can be done in Brixton, it can be done throughout London. I hope the Minister will accept this clause wholeheartedly.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, support the aspirations expressed in Amendment No. 556A, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We would all support the principle of equality of opportunity as expressed in the first point of the clause. Further, we do, of course, support obeying the law in the elimination of all forms of unlawful
14
discrimination. The promotion of good relations is obviously of extreme importance. Again, no one would disagree with that.
The difficulty lies in trying to translate such aspirations into legal provisions, the actual machinery of the law. That has always been the difficulty in this field. As it stands, the Bill provides that the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority should be subject to the Race Relations Act in the same way as other local authorities. That is proper and is the minimum requirement, as it were. The amendment seeks to substitute more general aspirations for the somewhat precise machinery of the Race Relations Act itself. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us, if the amendment were passed in its current form, what effect it would have on the duties and activities of the Commission for Racial Equality. So far as I can see, the clause would take the CR E out of the picture, except in a general reference to unlawful discrimination. That would remove the existing machinery without replacing it with other provisions. That may be a technical difficulty. However, that is not surprising since it is often the machinery of setting a matter down in law that is difficult to get right. Bringing forward a court case and ensuring that there is someone to bring the case is often the most difficult area.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, I, too, am encouraged by the efforts of the Metropolitan Police in recent months. I have heard several of its representatives describe what the force is doing in this area, and I feel that the way it has responded to the report on the Lawrence case is encouraging. It has obviously been difficult for the force, and there is a long way to go. Not everything is perfect so far as the Metropolitan Police is concerned. However, I believe that the responses of its senior officers and the new machinery that has been put in place will continue to lead to great improvements in race relations, and that is what concerns us here in Part VI of the Bill. I share the aspirations of the amendment, but the difficult part is to get the machinery correct.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench perhaps I may thank noble Lords from all quarters of the House who have offered their support. I hope we shall hear shortly from the Government Front Bench that they have taken on board the aspirations and ambitions encapsulated in the amendment, as have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Dholakia was able to be here to move the amendment. Although it is a Front Bench amendment, given the amount of work that the noble Lord has put into promoting good relations and equality of opportunity over such a long period, it is entirely right that he should take the lead on the amendment.
I use the term "ambitions" because I believe that the new government we shall have in London in a few months' time needs to be ambitious and to take the lead in these matters. I am increasingly of the view that in areas such as discrimination we need the structure of

15
law to help to set up the right culture. We need the new members of London government not only to look at mechanisms but to be clear that they have a responsibility to set a new culture and to take a lead, and to do more than what is required by the provisions incorporated in the Bill after Clause 27 when the House agreed an amendment on 12th October. That is a good clause but we feel it does not go far enough. It requires due regard to be paid to the principle of equality of opportunity. I hope that we can agree a clause in these terms, or something very like these terms, because it is a much more far reaching provision. If the Government are minded to accept something along the lines of this clause, I shall be interested to know what they intend to do with Clause 27. I thank my noble friend not just for moving the new clause today but for all the work he has done in making sure that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and in the rest of the House have their minds concentrated on such an important issue.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I very much appreciate the contributions made in the debate. It is important that in the Bill and in the operation of the GLA we reflect the concern about discrimination in London—discrimination on racial grounds and discrimination on the other grounds to which the amendment extends. I join the noble Lord, Lord Archer, once again, at least in terms of the ambitions of the amendment. The Government have already indicated—for example, in the equal opportunities clause introduced by my noble friend Lady Farrington on 12th October and to which your Lordships' House agreed—that we are concerned to meet the objectives of the amendment. It is vital that equality of opportunity is seen to run through the Bill. In particular in London, and in particular in respect of the Metropolitan Police, we have the terrible shadow of the Lawrence inquiry in terms of the racial dimension of the matter. It is important that the people of London should enjoy equality of opportunity and should not be discriminated against on any of the counts mentioned in the Bill.
Amendment No. 556A is the substantive amendment. In principle I would be happy to accept the amendment except that there are some concerns which reflect partly what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said. I do not think that it would rule the commission out of the arena entirely but it would mean that the section of the Race Relations Act which applies to other local authorities up and down the land will be disapplied in relation to the bodies within London. I understand the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in trying to extend the scope of Section 71 and therefore have considerable sympathy for them, but there are some operational implications of that in relation to how existing obligations on all local government would then be affected. To that extent, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has a point.
I therefore wish to indicate to the House that we accept the amendment in principle. We should like to look a little more closely at those implications and
16
either re-table Amendment No. 556A or something very like it at a later stage. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may also indicate that the Government have a commitment to the need for the authority to promote equality of opportunity beyond all doubt. In the light of what was said in the debate on 12th October, when my noble friend Lady Farrington moved her amendment, we intend to bring forward another amendment at Third Reading which will reflect the House's concern that the clause should include a provision similar to that in the Government of Wales Act requiring the mayor each year to publish a report setting out the arrangements which have been put in place and an assessment of how effective those arrangements have been in promoting equality of opportunity. That is another arm to our approach to equal opportunities to which I hope noble Lords will agree at Third Reading. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He has been generous in his dealings with me all along and I am grateful for what he has said. He is right to say that there are some technical difficulties with the amendment and he is right to say that those should be considered carefully. I am delighted that a provision similar to that in the Government of Wales Act will be incorporated in the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 535A:
Page 154, leave out lines 32 to 37 and insert

("(c) the person or body responsible for the appointment of members of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority under regulations made under section 30B of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (which, by virtue of paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 2A to this Act, appoints magistrates to be members of the Metropolitan Police Authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the appointment of magistrate members of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Now that the Access to Justice Act has been passed there are a number of changes we need to make to reflect the new arrangements that will apply to the administration of magistrates' courts in London. Amendment No. 536C substitutes new arrangements for how the four magistrate members of the MPA will be appointed. As drafted, paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 provides that the appointments will be made by a joint committee of the selection panels for the magistrates' courts committees within the Metropolitan Police District. There are 21 such selection panels, so it would be quite a task for them to join together to form a single panel to make the appointments.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Access to Justice Act establishes a new London-wide body called the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority. This body will replace the existing magistrates' courts

17
committees in London which will in turn mean the disappearance of the MCC selection panels. The GLMCA will not assume its full powers until April 2001, but work is already under way in relation to the appointment of its members. A selection panel is to be set up for this purpose around the turn of the year. This single panel will therefore be in place comfortably before the MPA comes into being next July. We think that this panel would be the ideal body to make the four magistrate appointments to the MPA. That is what Amendment No. 536C achieves.
Amendment No. 535A is consequential. It provides that the body or person who makes appointments to the GLMCA—that is, the selection panel to which I have just referred—may be consulted by the Secretary of State when he is considering reducing the number of MPA members. This replaces the current provision in Clause 269 of the Bill whereby it is the MCC selection panels which must be consulted.
Amendments Nos. 536B, 536H and 536L to 536N make further changes consequent on the passage of the Access to Justice Act. Amendment No. 536N removes an enabling power for the Secretary of State to amend the description of magistrates as used in various places in Schedule 21. This power was included because at the time the Bill was introduced it was possible that the Access to Justice Bill, as it then was, might make changes which would lead to the description of London magistrates as used in Schedule 21 becoming outdated. Now that the Act has passed, the need for the power has been removed. Hence our amendment to delete it.
The other amendments simply remove the word "London" used at four junctures in the same schedule. This reflects a provision in the Access to Justice Act which has amended the 1997 Justices of the Peace Act so that it refers simply to "commission areas" rather than "London commission areas". These amendments are all sensible changes needed to take account of provisions contained in the Access to Justice Act. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, what the amendments seek to do is sensible. However, I am slightly confused over two points. First, Amendment No. 535A refers to the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 but the Minister referred to the Access to Justice Act in that context. I am not sure how the two provisions interlink. Secondly, in the next line of Amendment No. 535A there is a reference to paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 2A to this Act. Should that be a reference to paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 21 to this Act? At the moment there is no Schedule 2A. Schedule 21 appears to be what it is intended to refer to. It seems to me that the reference should be paragraph 5(1)(b) rather than paragraph 5(b). Perhaps a manuscript amendment will be needed to correct that. While the Minister is seeking inspiration on that point, I may say that the new selection panel is clearly the right body, just as it is the right body to make the selections for the related Greater London. magistrates' courts authority.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for buying me some time. To answer
18
his first question, the Access to Justice Act 1999 amended the relevant part of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. If that is not clear, we will provide the noble Lord with further elucidation. To answer his second point, there is a reference to Schedule 2A because Schedule 21 to the Bill inserts Schedule 2A into the Police Act 1996. I trust that those two replies satisfy the noble Lord's inquiries and do not prove a further barrier to agreeing these necessary amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 21 [The Metropolitan Police Authority: Schedule 2A to the Police Act 1996]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 536XZA:
Page 303, line 42, leave out ("appointed")and insert ("elected").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 536YZA and 536ZZA. An amendment included in this group, Amendment No. 536ZA of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and his colleague, seeks to achieve the same purpose. The only difference is rather semantic; it is between the use of the word "election" or "appointment". For the purpose of debate, I am happy to accept that were the amendments to be successful, the assembly would appoint but might choose its appointees by election. I think we are at one in that respect.
We made clear at earlier stages of the Bill that this is not an argument about the strategic role of the mayor. We accept that our view will not prevail and that the Government's view will. We agree with the Government that there should be 12 members of the assembly on the Metropolitan Police Authority. There is no argument about that or that those members should reflect the political balance of the assembly and constitute a majority on the MPA. The difference between us is who appoints the assembly members.
The Bill states that the members should be appointed by the mayor. Members of both opposition Benches say that they should be appointed by the assembly. Nearly half the members of the assembly will serve on the Metropolitan Police Authority. They will be held accountable by their colleagues for their actions and behaviour. They will be, for all intents and purposes, representatives of the assembly. It is a fundamental democratic principle that those who represent the assembly should be appointed by the assembly and that the decision should not be foisted upon it.
I can understand the Government taking the view that the mayor must have more direct input to the work of the MPA to fulfil his strategic role. I would have thought the relationship between assembly members and the mayor would be good enough to achieve that through having half the assembly members on the authority. If the Government want a greater say, they could provide—as they do elsewhere in the Bill—that the deputy mayor must be a member. If the assembly were to appoint the 12 members, I would be happy to accept a provision in the Bill for making one of them the deputy mayor.
We return to the basic democratic principle that if the assembly is to be represented on the Metropolitan Police Authority in the way the Bill proposes, the assembly should choose its own representatives and not have the decision foisted upon it by the major—apparently without reference to the assembly. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I should put out that, as the other amendments indicated are also being spoken to, if Amendment No. 536ZZA is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 536ZA.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, although I hesitate slightly in present company to support any reduction in the powers of the mayor, nevertheless it will be apparent from the amendment in my name that I have some sympathy with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I see no effective difference between the wording of the two amendments. I do not think there is any way that the authority would select its members except by electing them. It seemed to me that "appointed" was the appropriate word to use but I accept that there is no difference between us. We are happy to leave it to whichever word the parliamentary draftsman suggests Ministers should use, if they wish to go along with the proposal.
I do not understand the Government's resistance to the amendment. I thought that I might be seeing the point when I read rumours in the media the other day that Mr. Philips had been induced to withdraw from the struggle to become the mayor by a promise of being on the police authority. Whether or not that rumour is true—I have been too long at this game to take much notice—patronage of that character might be helpful to those who wish to control everything. Perhaps that was the Government's reason for taking the line they did in Committee and perhaps they will continue to take it now. We shall see.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I commend noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches for their honesty in agreeing that the amendments are similar and for the way in which they have constructed an agreement between themselves. That seems very laudable.
The Government resisted similar amendments at Committee and Report stages in another place and in Committee in this House. While I applaud the tenacity of noble Lords, the Government will continue to resist the amendments for the same reasons. Amendments Nos. 536ZA and 536ZZA are another attempt to extend the powers of the assembly at the expense of the mayor. We have rehearsed again and again the arguments for striking the balance we have between the mayor and the assembly.
The power of appointment is crucial to the mayor's ability to take a high-level and strategic interest in the MPA's efforts to tackle crime and maintain an
20
efficient and effective policing service in London. Moreover, the role is consistent with the mayor's powers of appointment to the three other functional bodies. On the grounds of consistency and the need to have a high-level strategic interest, we must resist the amendments. We do not want any dilution of the mayor's power in that respect.
The mayor's power of appointment is of course subject to the requirement that he or she shall ensure that, so far as is practicable, his or her appointments reflect the balance of the parties on the assembly. Although, subject to that constraint, decisions on appointment are for the mayor, we would expect him or her to take account of views expressed by the parties represented on the assembly as to which of their number would be most suited to being on the MPA. For those reasons, I suggest that both noble Lords should feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I cannot say that I am surprised at that reply. Although I had no higher expectations, I am slightly disappointed. I can reassure the Minister that it did not take very much collusion between the two Opposition Front Benches. We have been agreed on this point throughout—the only difference between us was a minor one regarding the use of language. This amendment does not relate so much to the strategic role of the mayor, but more to control by the mayor.
I believe that we are making a big mistake. The 12 assembly members appointed by the mayor and answerable to him or her will soon find themselves in great difficulty with their 13 colleagues who will not be members of the Metropolitan Police Authority. However, I shall not press the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 536YZA to 536ZA not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 536ZAA, I must point out to the House that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 536A.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 536ZAA:
Page 304, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we turn specifically to the requirement that the deputy mayor "must" be a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I accept that if nearly half the members of the assembly are to be members of the Metropolitan Police Authority, it is entirely possible, indeed probable, that the deputy mayor may well be one of them. Our difficulty relates to the requirement in the Bill that the deputy mayor "must" be a member of the police authority.
I fail to understand, even after our debate in Committee, why the Government have singled out this particular functional body, important though it is—no one questions that—to require the deputy mayor to be a member. He or she may be better suited by qualification, experience or interest to membership of

21
one of the other functional bodies, and some other equally important senior member of the assembly could fulfil that function for the mayor. The deputy mayor will of course be a key member of the mayor's cabinet. But that role can be filled by other members of the mayor's cabinet who are also assembly members.
Our key point is not so much that the deputy mayor should not be a. member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, but the requirement that he or she must be. Why has the MPA been singled out for particular attention in that regard as distinct from any other functional body to which the deputy mayor may be better suited? I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, here is another oddity. Why should the deputy mayor automatically be a member of the police authority? We have argued the point in Committee. As the noble Lord has suggested, it might be better in the mayor's view to put another member in place of the deputy mayor and to give other responsibilities to the individual in question.
Perhaps the case of Mr Philips throws some light on the matter. Further information has reached me that Mr Philips has "peen promised that he will be deputy mayor, and indeed chairman of the police authority. If he believes that, he should consult paragraph 6 of Schedule 21. As the Bill stands, the paragraph makes it clear that it is for the authority to appoint the chairman. not for anyone else to do so. Not even the new mayor can promise that to any individual.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, it may be wise to suggest to my noble friend that it would be even better for the Labour Party to find out who their candidate is before stating who will be deputy mayor.
Lord Cope of Berkeley:My Lords, that would be a very good idea—and we all know a good deal about how they are setting about that effort. It seems a very peculiar way to set about it. However, I shall not go into that at present.
As I said, it is an oddity that the deputy mayor should automatically be a member of the police authority. Those with suspicious minds will wonder how the provision has come about and why it is necessary to include it. I do not have a suspicious mind, but I do wonder.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is probably wise to avoid speculation about mayoral candidates at this stage.
In responding to this amendment, perhaps I may speak first to the two government amendments which clarify a couple of matters regarding the position of the deputy mayor on the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Amendment No. 536K provides that the deputy mayor will cease to be a member of the MPA if he or she ceases to be deputy mayor. The Bill already makes specific provision as to what should happen when the
22
deputy mayor acts as the mayor. In such cases he or she will sometimes be required to step down temporarily from the MPA.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, correctly pointed out in Committee, the Bill as it stands is silent on what should happen if the deputy mayor ceases to be the deputy—for example, following a resignation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out the omission.
This amendment rectifies that gap—so there is success for the noble Lord there. Since the deputy will have his or her place by virtue of that office, we believe it right that that individual should be required to step down as a member on losing that office. Equally, provided that he or she remains an assembly member, there is no reason why he or she should not remain eligible for reappointment to the MPA in his or her capacity as an assembly member. That will be possible by virtue of paragraph 18 of Schedule 21.
Amendment No. 536A makes clear that the deputy mayor will be subject to the disqualification criteria for MPA membership as set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 21. These cover standard disqualification issues, such as bankruptcy and criminal convictions. They are very similar to those which Clause 20 of the Bill applies to assembly members—and hence to the deputy mayor.
I turn now to the opposition amendment which would remove the requirement that one of the 12 assembly members of the MPA be the deputy mayor. Various arguments have been advanced as to why it is unnecessary to tie the hands of the mayor and require him or her to appoint the deputy mayor. As my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said in a previous debate, our reasoning on this subject is clear. The deputy mayor will be a key player in the assembly and in the mayor's cabinet. We want the deputy to be on the MPA to provide a link between the mayor and that body. We believe that such an arrangement provides the right balance for the oversight of policing in London. It gives the mayor an appropriate means of influencing the thinking of the MPA in the way it exercises its responsibilities of maintaining an efficient and effective police force in the Metropolitan Police District. We believe policing to be that important.
This argument will, I know, sound familiar to your Lordships' House. But in the many debates that we have had on this subject during the passage of the Bill, we have remained of the view that the argument is sound and that the Bill should be left as it stands.
It may be helpful if I add a further point. In the debate that we have just had on the appointment of assembly members I referred to the party political balance requirement to which the mayor is subject. In case there is any doubt, I should make clear that the appointment of the deputy mayor is included within the overall balancing equation—it is not the case that the balance applies only to the other 11 appointments, with the deputy then added. That could lead to

23
unfairness, and is not the way the Bill operates. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment and I commend the two government amendments.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I understand why he does not want to speculate on who the mayoral candidate might be. That is not a problem that Members on either of the Opposition Benches have. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare—and more particularly, Councillor Eddie Lister—was also listening to the point about who appoints the chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority.
The Minister has not answered the point that both of us on the Opposition Front Benches have made again—namely, why include this specific reference to the Metropolitan Police Authority? We have accepted, very reluctantly, that the mayor will appoint all 12 assembly members of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Surely it is for the mayor to decide whether that is the key role that he or she wishes the deputy mayor to play. It is not for the Government to tell the mayor, whether or not he or she wishes it, that the mayor must have the deputy mayor on the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Why do the Government seek to control the mayor, whoever it turns out to be, to such an extent as to tell him or her what the deputy mayor must be doing? It must surely be a matter to be decided between the mayor and the deputy mayor. As has been said, it may very well be that the deputy mayor will be better qualified by experience, knowledge and interest to play an equally important key role on one of the other functional bodies.
I still have not heard from the Government any argument that goes anywhere near either convincing me or helping me to understand why they wish so much to control what appointments the mayor must make. Regretfully, this is perhaps not the time to pursue the amendment further, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536A to 536C:
Page 304, line 10. at end insert ("or unless the Deputy Mayor is disqualified for being appointed as or being a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority under paragraph 8 below.").
Page 305, line 4, leave out ("London").
Page 305, line 6, leave out from ("appointed") to end of line 18 and insert ("by the person or body responsible for the appointment of members of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority under regulations made under section 30B of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536D:
Page 305, line 32, leave out paragraph 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.536D removes from the Bill paragraph 7 of Schedule 21 which disqualifies those aged 70 or over from membership of the Metropolitan Police Authority. On reflection, we see no reason to exclude from police authority membership perfectly able people of advancing years. If this amendment is passed we shall take the earliest opportunity to amend the Police Act 1996 to remove the upper age criterion for police authority membership in the rest of England and Wales. The other amendments in this group are simply consequential on Amendment No. 536D and I commend them to the House.
As the Bill stands, those aged 70 and over are barred from being MPA members. Since magistrates have to retire at 70, magistrate members of police authorities throughout England and Wales have to resign on reaching that age. The reasoning appears to have been that equality of misery should be applied to other police authority members. The GLA Bill currently echoes the position in other police authorities in line with our general approach that the structures and functions of the MPA should, as far as possible, be the same as those of authorities outside London. However, on reconsideration it seems wrong to exclude from police authority membership perfectly able people. Amendment No. 536D removes the upper age limit for MPA members. The Government will bring forward legislation to remove the upper age limit for other police authorities in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, nobody in this House will believe that those over 70 have nothing to contribute to debate and decision. It happens all the time. I believe that everyone in your Lordships' House will support this amendment. I understand that in universities in the United States it is now illegal to retire an academic just because he or she has attained the age of 70. It is good that the Government are also moving towards that view.
I have only one small point. The Minister said that the Bill as it stood meant that a person would be disqualified from membership of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I believe that, strictly, he or she is disqualified from being appointed a member of the authority at age 70. If, as the Bill stands, he is appointed under the age of 70 presumably he can continue at least until his term expires. In any case, as that restriction is being removed it no longer matters. Magistrates will still have to retire at 70 but, as the Government are extending this principle to other bodies, perhaps they will get round to that in due course.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I welcome this change of heart by the Government. It was entirely appropriate that earlier this afternoon we debated the duty on the authority to promote and secure equality of opportunity, among other things, on the grounds of age. Therefore, it seems entirely appropriate that we should remove this particular form of discrimination that currently exists in the Bill. We welcome this provision. It is not for me to answer the point related to magistrates just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.

25
However, it seems to me that when people cease to be magistrates by virtue of age, they cease to be qualified as magisterial members of the police authority. That may well be the answer that the Minister is able to provide very shortly. I welcome the amendments.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I have no problem at all with the principle that age discrimination at age 70 should be ended as proposed by this amendment. I am sure that that is a positive provision which is intended to apply generally and not just to the occasional individual. However, Tarn unclear as to why in their desire to avoid age discrimination the Government have not sought to make a similar change to paragraph 9(1)(a) of the schedule which, as far as I can see, restricts appointment to people who have,
"not yet attained the age of twenty-one years".
I would have thought that the principle of trying to avoid age discrimination applied at both ends of the spectrum and that there would be considerable benefit to the considerations of the Metropolitan Police Authority if, in certain circumstances, it was possible for people not yet 21 to serve on that authority.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in this grouping is Amendment No. 538D. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could explain exactly how that is consequential on the removal of the age limit, since it does not appear to refer to that at all. Having dealt with that, perhaps he can explain exactly what it does and why it is required in this Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the warm words of support that this particular amendment has appeared to attract from all round the Chamber. I am also grateful for the very interesting question raised by my noble friend Lord Harris, on which I shall take advice. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, at the moment the Bill uses the term,

"has attained the age of seventy years".
Effectively, that wording is removed by the amendment. I believe that that answers the point.
Currently, I am taking advice on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He asked how Amendment No. 538D was consequential. If I do not have the answer by the time I have sat down I shall endeavour to provide it later in writing. I can now assist. The answer to the noble Lord's question appears to be that this amendment removes the age limit of 70 for membership of the selection panel for independent members of the MPA. If that is not clear to the noble Lord, I am happy to write to him.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is not clear and we may raise the matter when we come to that amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536E to 536G:
Page 306. line 28, leave out ("paragraphs 7 and") and insert ("paragraph").
Page 306, line 35, leave out ("paragraphs 7 and") and insert ("paragraph").
Page 306, line 39, leave out ("paragraphs 7 and") and insert ("paragraph").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536H:
Page 306, line 45, leave out ("London").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No.536J:
Page 307. line 13, leave out from ("years") to (", or") in line 14.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536K:
Page 307, line 28, at end insert
("( ) The Deputy Mayor appointed to be a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority under paragraph 2 shall cease to be a member of that Authority if he ceases to be Deputy Mayor.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments No. 536L to 536N:
Page 307, line 31, leave out ("London").
Page 308. line 31, leave out ("London").
Page 308. line 34, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 536NA:
After Clause 283, insert the following new clause—

Greater London Authority Bill

  MATTERS ARISING ON BOUNDARY CHANGES: ARBITRATION
  (". In the absence of agreement between—

  (a) the Police Authorities for Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey and the Metropolitan Police Authority about the transfer of land, buildings, capital and other assets from the Metropolitan Police to the other Authorities, or

  (b) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the chief officer of a police force about the secondment of staff under section 283,

  Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary shall act as an arbitrator, and the Secretary of State shall, if necessary, provide for the implementation of the arbitrator's decision by order".).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage there was some discussion as to what should happen if there was no agreement between the Metropolitan Police and its authority and the three county forces to which it is ceding areas in the reduction of the area for which the Metropolitan Police is to be responsible. That ceding of areas involves the transfer of a considerable amount of assets. Buildings, cars and so on are likely to have to be transferred. Police officers are likely in some cases to be transferred. but in most cases seconded.
  There may not be absolute agreement between the four authorities about which buildings, assets and police should be transferred or seconded. In that case the legislation should provide some way of resolving any disagreement. The proposed new clause provides that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary should act as an arbitrator in any dispute. That is one way; there are other potential ways.
  At this stage of the process, the Minister may be able to tell us that all is sweetness and agreement between the four authorities; that they have all signed up without difficulty to every proposal as regards the new arrangements. If that is so, no clause such as is proposed is necessary. If the Minister cannot assure us that that is the position, some such clause is necessary.
  The Secretary of State may find himself having to arbitrate, and that would be one provision that we might have to put in the Bill. At the same time, the Secretary of State, as the current police authority for the metropolis, is one of the parties involved in the discussion and very close to one of the four parties involved. It seemed to me that someone a little more independent might be called for; clearly he or she must be an expert. I do not know whether the Minister can assure us that there is complete agreement; that would solve the difficulty.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope that I can offer the noble Lord some comfort. We are happy with the progress in discussions and negotiations. We believe that the amendment is wrong in seeking to give Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary a role as an arbitrator which, in general terms given the work of the Inspectorate of Constabulary, would be inappropriate. It is unnecessary, as provisions already exist in the Bill for the Secretary of State to decide, in the event of disagreement between forces involved in the boundary change, about what should transfer or about what payment should be made to the Metropolitan Police for officers on secondment; and the amendment is flawed, since it refers to the MPA reaching agreement on a transfer which will take place before it comes into existence. I think that the noble Lord needs to look at the drafting of the amendment.
  In speaking to the amendment, I should emphasise at the outset that the Government recognise the importance of ensuring a smooth handover of responsibilities between the Metropolitan Police and the three county forces—Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey—affected by the boundary change.
  The transfer of property, rights and liabilities is part of this exercise, as is the secondment of officers from the Metropolitan Police Authority to the county forces. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it is important for these matters to be addressed. But I part company from him in his suggestion that the amendment that he has tabled is the right approach.
  This amendment would give a role to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary as an arbitrator. It is not clear why the noble Lord believes that the inspectorate
  28
  should take on this role. It is the inspectorate's role to help individual forces, and the service as a whole, improve their effectiveness. Adjudicating between forces is not its primary role and I do not think that issues of property transfer or police officer secondments are obvious candidates for its involvement. This amendment would risk bad feeling towards the inspectorate in the future from any force which felt it had lost out in any arbitration.
  During a debate on a similar amendment in Committee the noble Lord made the reasonable point that in the event that arbitration became necessary the Secretary of State was best placed to act as referee. I agree with what the noble Lord said then, and I am not sure why he should be taking a somewhat different view now.
  The Bill already includes provisions for suitable arbitration in the event of disagreements between the forces involved in the boundary changes. Transfers of land, buildings etc. will be effected by orders or schemes. Either way the contents of the orders or schemes, whether or not there is disagreement between the forces, will have to be approved by the Secretary of State. The relevant provisions, contained in Clauses 351 and 352 of the Bill, remain unaffected by this proposed new clause. Schedule 26 to the Bill gives power to the Secretary of State to modify transfer schemes should he wish to do so.
  Before moving on to the other part of the new clause, I should like to add that I do not envisage the Secretary of State's arbitration role arising often. The four forces involved in the boundary change have been working closely with each other and with the Home Office for over a year on these matters, and I am confident that in the vast majority of cases they will be able to reach agreement between themselves.
  Paragraph (b) of the amendment refers to disagreement about the secondment of officers. Clause 283(4) already provides for the Secretary of State to arbitrate in the event of disagreement about the level of payment to the commissioner for officers on secondment.
  It might be that the noble Lord is concerned about the Met being unable or unwilling to provide sufficient seconded officers to help the county forces, so leading to the transferred areas being poorly policed. That is an understandable concern, but I hope that I shall be able to reassure him on that point.
  The close working relationship between the four forces to which I have already referred extends to the secondment of police officers from the Met to the county forces. They are all fully behind the idea of secondments and I simply do not envisage serious disputes arising over the number of secondments.
  When the number of secondees is added to those officers who will be transferring on a voluntary basis as well as to new officers that the three county forces are recruiting, I am confident that there will not be a

  29
  shortfall in the number of officers. In the light of the assurances that have given, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister said that he is happy with the progress of the discussions between the four authorities. I make clear that I am not wedded to the details of the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.15 p.m.
  Clause 284 [Abolition of office of Receiver]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536NB:
  Leave out Clause 284.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 536NB, 536NC, 536ND, 570YA, 570ZA and 573C in relation to the Probation Service in London are largely of a technical nature.
  It is the Government's policy that the criminal justice agencies should share the same boundaries; namely, those of the police force areas in England and Wales. In the case of probation, this means that the present 54 probation services must become 42. In all, 20 probation services will be involved in amalgamations, which we intend shall take effect on 1st April 2001.
  In London, the five existing services—Inner London, South-East London, South-West London, Middlesex and North-East London—need to merge to form a new coherent service for Greater London. The Probation Service Act 1993 contains an order-making power to amalgamate probation services. (It is to be found in Section 2 of that Act). However, there is a problem in relation to the creation of a single London Probation Service in that the 1993 Act clearly envisages that there shall be more than one probation service in London.
  We have concluded that to make an order amalgamating the London services under the existing provision would go beyond the vires of that provision.
  Our amendments to the GLA Bill will allow us to proceed with the London amalgamation; the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 536NC provides an order-making power to that effect. Our amendments also deal with the abolition of the receiver, an issue which arises because of the Inner London Probation Service's links to the receiver.I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would like to ask a couple of questions on this group of amendments. As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 536NB reinstates the office of the receiver, and his eventual demise is provided for under Amendment No. 536ND.
  The group beginning with Amendment No. 536P contains a whole raft of amendments concerning the deletion of references to the receiver of the Metropolitan Police in other legislation. What
  30
  assurance may we have from the Government that these rather hasty, last minute amendments amount to a coherent whole? If the office of the receiver is to be retained, why are we none the less proceeding with a large number of deletions of references to that office in other Acts? Are we not likely to find ourselves in a state of some confusion as to whether or not those references should be retained until the office of receiver is eventually abolished when Amendment No. 536ND comes into force?
  In addition, should not the powers under that clause have included a limited Henry VIII power, as m the immediately preceding amendment, to polish up other bits and pieces of Acts and remove references to the receiver when the office of receiver is actually abolished? Are we not in danger of running into difficulty in that respect?
  These amendments have arisen at the very last minute and refer to several pieces of legislation. In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult to know whether those are in fact in place. Should not the Government give themselves time and opportunity to find out if that is the case?
  With regard to the powers under subsections (6) and (7) of Amendment No. 536NC, will the Government say that these are limited to what is obvious? Under subsection (6) of Amendment No. 536NC there are extensive powers to amend the Probation Service Act 1993. I believe I understood the Minister to say that that would be limited to amendments necessary to ensure that there could be one single Probation Service authority for London. Is that true, or will other use be made of those powers? I would also very much like to know what use is to be made of the powers under subsection (7) of Amendment No. 536NC.
  Turning to the last three amendments in this group, we appear to have a mixture of affirmative and negative resolutions. Some of the resolutions under these new amendments will clearly be affirmative. However, an exception is made to that and they appear to be caught by the negative procedure under Amendment No. 573C. Because I have not been able to establish it from my study of the amendments, I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could clarify which resolutions will be affirmative and which will be negative.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Lucas, I had difficulty working out the parliamentary procedure to be followed in the laying of orders under this group of amendments. As my noble friend said, Amendment No. 570YA seems to mean that an affirmative procedure has to be followed. However, that is immediately qualified by Amendment No. 570ZA, which refers to the possibility of an instrument
  "making … amendments or repeals in an enactment contained in a local and personal or private Act".
  It seems to me that it is extremely unlikely, though I do not speak with authority, that the organisation of probation in London would be involved in any local, personal or private Act.
  Paragraph (b) suggests that it relates to,
  "amendments or revocations in subordinate legislation which was not subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure".
  That is rather difficult. We know what these orders will achieve. They are going to achieve the amalgamation of the Probation Service. That is a considerable matter and a matter which should be dealt with by affirmative order. However, it may be that there are some aspects of the amalgamation which deal with
  "subordinate legislation which was not subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure",
  and the whole matter might slip out of the affirmative procedure under that guise.
  The difficulty in this respect is that these amendments have been laid relatively late in the passage of the Bill, and much too late to receive the attention of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which usually looks into these matters, unravels them and sets them out clearly in reports, so that we do not need to trouble ourselves too much in the House with them. However, where these powers are introduced in such a complex way in a late stage amendment, I believe that we require to look into them a little more closely, as my noble friend has suggested.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall try to be as helpful as I can, although I am not able to be as helpful as I would like.
  The overall purpose of these amendments is to create a coherent Probation Service for London. I believe that that point is well understood by all your Lordships. It is our intention to do this in a way which ensures that there is a coherent working relationship between the Probation Service in London and the Metropolitan Police Service. These amendments give effect to that desirable policy objective, which is shared across the Dispatch Boxes.
  With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about powers under subsection (6) of Amendment No. 536BNC, these are strictly limited to the purpose of amalgamating the London probation services. I trust that that takes care of that particular point.
  He made a further point in relation to the Metropolitan Police receiver. It is not proposed that we should commence the revocations in relation to the receiver until all his functions have been transferred elsewhere. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord's question.
  With regard to some of the other detailed points about negative and affirmative processes and order-making, if your Lordships would be gracious enough to accept the suggestion, we would like to write to noble Lords and describe further the interrelationship of these various processes and procedures so that they will be clear. As a consequence, they may also become clearer to me. On that basis I trust that noble Lords will be happy to accept the amendments that we have moved this afternoon.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said at the beginning that this
  32
  was a group of technical amendments. It seems to me that a complete reorganisation of the service by order, not by primary legislation, is very far from technical. It is an enormous move and a slightly odd way to treat Parliament. Will he retract the statement that they are technical amendments? I believe that my noble friends accept that the Government are of necessity proceeding in this way because of late consideration of the matter. It seems to me, after a great number of years in this House, a most extraordinary way in which to deal with the matter and even more extraordinary to call it a technical matter. Is the Minister prepared to tell us why he said that it was technical?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is technical and there is technical. When I described these amendments as being of a technical nature it was not meant to belittle the import of the policy thinking behind them. While the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has a point, it is not an entirely formed point. The policy was clear. We decided that it would be better to achieve the amalgamation by way of legislation rather than seek to do it otherwise, so that we could achieve a proper amalgamation of the London probation services. We feel that this is more consistent with the powers contained in the 1993 Act. I hope that that satisfies the point. I am quite happy to take further questions on the matters that have been raised. If it is required, we will happily reply in writing at greater length in an attempt to satisfy your Lordships entirely. However, I trust that the question is satisfied.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he did not answer my question about the intention of subsection (7) of Amendment No. 536NC.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can now answer the noble Lord's point. It is the Government's policy in the 42 areas to amalgamate. We do not envisage a need to amalgamate London probation any further but consider it wise to have the power which enables us to achieve that. I hope that that answers the point.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, I do not believe that it does. If the Government have no intention of using the power, why are they giving themselves the power? This is a reorganisation taking place in short order. If the Government do not know what they want the power for, why is it in the Bill?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I offered to write and I shall happily do so. We believe that this power is necessary to achieve the objective of our stated policy. I shall be happy the elucidate further in writing to the noble Lord.
  Lord Shepherd: My Lords, will the Minister look at the provision again? This is not the first occasion in recent weeks when the House has felt that it would have been better to send amendments, prior to their being laid, to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation

  33
  Committee. On an occasion last week, a Minister was able to report to the House that that committee had seen the amendments and had approved them.
  The Minister's final point moves on to dangerous ground. I was a member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and it took great exception to Ministers taking powers that they might "wish". There is no end to where such powers might lead. Will the Minister look further at the issue? Although it might be immaterial with regard to this Bill, it could be seen as a dangerous step in terms of other legislation.
  I do not want to delay the Bill and I am sure that that is the view of noble Lords opposite. However, I ask the Minister to inquire whether the matter can be referred to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—per ha.ps it can be brought to the attention of the chairman or the committee—to consider whether the Government should be taking powers which they might need but they might not.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that this matter has been the subject of correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, confirming that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee concluded that no matters needed bringing to the attention of the House.
  Lord Shepherd: My Lords, was that in connection with the original Bill?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the correspondence, of which I have a copy, was transacted last week. I should be happy to furnish the noble Lord with a copy should he so wish.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536NC and 536ND:
  After Clause 285, insert the following new clause

  ORGANISATION OF PROBATION SERVICE IN GREATER LONDON
  (".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for combining in one probation area ("the Greater London probation area") all of the petty sessions areas which fall wholly within Greater London.
  (2) An order under subsection (1) above may make provision for the purpose of, or in connection with, organising the probation service for the Greater London probation area.
  (3) The provision that may be made under subsection (2) above—

  (a) includes provision for the qualifying expenses of any probation committee for the Greater London probation area to be defrayed by the Secretary of State, and

  (b) in consequence of the provision mentioned in paragraph (a) above, includes provision requiring the Receiver for
  34
  the Metropolitan Police District to refrain from exercising the functions conferred on him by the Probation Service Act 1993.

  (4) In subsection (3) above the reference to the qualifying expenses of any probation committee for the Greater London probation area shall be construed in accordance with section 17 of the Probation Service Act 1993.
  (5) The provision that may be made under subsection (2) above includes provision relating to the appointment of, and allowances payable to, members of any probation committee for the Greater London probation area and any probation liaison committee for any area in the Greater London probation area.
  (6) Without prejudice to section 349(1) below, the provision that may be made under subsection (1) or (2) above includes provision amending or repealing provisions of the Probation Service Act 1993.
  (7) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for including in the Greater London probation area any petty sessions area outside that probation area.
  (8) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall give the justices acting for any petty sessions area affected by the order an opportunity of making representations about it, and shall consider any such representations.").
  After Clause 285, insert the following new clause—

  ABOLITION BY ORDER OF OFFICE OF RECEIVER
  (".—(1) When the Secretary of State is satisfied that —

  (a) provision has been made such that no statutory functions remain, or are to remain, exercisable by the Receiver (whether as a consequence of provision made by or under this Act, the Access to Justice Act 1999 or any other enactment whenever passed), and

  (b) provision has been made for the transfer of all property, rights and liabilities of the Receiver (whether under Part XII below or by or under the Access to Justice Act 1999 or any other enactment whenever passed),

  the Secretary of State may by order provide for the abolition of the office of the Receiver.
  (2) In subsection (1) above references to the Receiver are references to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 22 [Further amendments relating to metropolitan police etc.]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536P:
  Page 310, line 2, at end insert—
  ("The Metropolitan Police Act 1887
  The Metropolitan Police Act 1887 shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this large group of amendments makes various consequential amendments to legislation dating back to the last century. Schedule 22 to the Bill already makes numerous such changes which are required to reflect the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the eventual abolition of the office of receiver. These amendments simply complete the set. I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am entirely "uncontent" to let the noble Lord get away with that. These are complicated amendments making many changes to existing legislation. If they had been connected with other amendments being discussed, they could have been grouped with them, but they have not been. They

  35
  are presented in isolation as though they have something in common just because they amend existing Acts.
  I should like an explanation from the noble Lord of the principal amendment in the group because from what is in front of me I fail to understand. I shall ask him the same question individually on each amendment in the group until we have reached the point where the House and I understand what is going on.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can rely only on what I am advised. It is that the amendments are consequential. Looking at the schedule, they would appear to be exactly that. I am confident enough to say that they will not necessarily trouble your Lordships; they seem simply to follow on and to tidy up legislation.
  I am happy to write to the noble Lord setting out in full what the amendments achieve. I can assure the House that they are all consequential to the establishment of the MPA, which we all agree is a highly desirable policy objective.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, taking the first amendment, how can it be evident to anyone in this House that the abolition of the Metropolitan Police Act 1887 is entirely necessary for the purpose of the Bill? One might suggest it, but perhaps the noble Lord will tell me what that Act does. If it is obvious that what is proposed is required by the Bill, why was it not in the Bill at an earlier stage?
  Nothing has changed. The Metropolitan Police Authority was always going to be created by the Bill. Why has it suddenly occurred to the draftsman that that Act now needs to be removed? That question applies to many similar amendments in the group. It is not sufficient for the Government to seek to move amendments which they do not understand, merely on the assurance of the Box, apparently not questioned by the Minister, that the changes are consequential. If the Minister does not understand amendments, he should not move them.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is overegging his argument and his point. It is the case that a number of amendments have to be consequential. I am happy to provide the noble Lord with a more detailed explanation of the cause and effect of all of these amendments in the fullness of time and in due course. I had hoped that he would be satisfied with that.
  The legislation is complex. It cannot always be immediately obvious to those drafting it as to which other pieces of legislation need to be amended. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that as a reasonable point.
  The amendments repeal the Metropolitan Police Acts 1887 and 1897. They deal only with the sections which relate to the receiver's functions in relation to the police. They will no longer be relevant once the
  36
  MPA is in place. The case is that the functions of the receiver will no longer be relevant once the MPA is set up and established. I should have thought that it was glaringly obvious, therefore, that one would seek to amend and negate the other pieces of legislation which no longer have relevance to the way in which the MPA will operate.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536Q and 536R:
  Page 310, line 6, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—
  ("8. The Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1897 shall cease to have effect.").
  Page 311, line 5, leave out paragraph 15 and insert—
  ("15.—(1) The Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts Act 1959 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 4(2) (borrowing powers of Receiver), the words ", or of the metropolitan police force," shall cease to have effect.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536RA:
  Page 311, line 29, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) and insert—
  ("( ) In subsection (1)(a) (definition of "member of the metropolitan civil staffs")—
  (a) before sub-paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—
  "(ia) who is employed by the Metropolitan Police Authority; or"; and.
  (b) for that sub-paragraph there shall be substituted—
  "(i) who was employed under the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District and was not a constable and whose salary was paid out of the Metropolitan Police Fund;".
  ( ) In subsection (2) (power of Secretary of State to grant certain pensions payable by the Receiver out of the Metropolitan Police Fund) for the words from the beginning to "in respect of members of the metropolitan civil staffs" in paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
  "(2) As from the day on which section 269 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 comes into force, the Metropolitan Police Authority shall have power to grant pensions or other benefits to or in respect of persons who on that day are, or thereafter become, members of the metropolitan civil staffs.
  (2A) The Metropolitan Police Authority may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, authorise the exercise of the function of administering the grant of pensions and other benefits under this section by, or by employees of, any person.
  (2B) Where a person is authorised under subsection (2A) above to exercise the function of administering the grant of pensions and other benefits under this section, anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to him (or an employee of his) in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function shall be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by the person who authorised him.
  (2C) Subsection (2B) above does not apply for the purposes of—

  (a) any criminal proceedings against the authorised person (or any employee of his); or

  (b) any contract between him and the person who authorised him, so far as relating to the function.

  37
  (2D) Unless the powers conferred by section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972. paragraph 36 of Schedule 14 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 or Part XII of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 are exercised for the purpose of making provision with respect to the provision of pensions for or in respect of members of the metropolitan civil staffs, the civil service provisions shall have effect (subject to any regulations for the time being in force under subsection (3) of this section) for the purposes of the grant of pensions and other benefits under this section to or in respect of such a member".
  ( ) In subsectior (3)(b) (power by regulations to adapt civil service provisions) for "(2)(b)" there shall be substituted "(2D)".
  ( ) In subsectior. (6) (requirement to consult before making regulations) after "staffs" there shall be inserted "and with the Metropolitan Police Authority".
  ( ) In subsection (7) (continuation of payment of pre-existing pension entitlement; by Receiver), for the words from "continue" to the end there shall he substituted "be paid by the Metropolitan Police Authority".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this small group of amendments is concerned with pensions. As your Lordships know, we wish to ensure that the organisational changes we are bringing to London do not adversely affect the terms and conditions of the staff involved. This extends to their pension rights. Amendment No 536RA makes changes to Section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967, which governs the pensions of civil staff of the Metropolitan Police. These staff are members of the Metropolitan Police Civil Staff Superannuation Scheme, which is by analogy to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. This means that they receive the same benefits as do civil servants.
  It may be helpful if I make it clear that pension arrangements for civil staff in the Metropolitan Police are quite separate from those of police officers. Police officers are part of a national pension scheme and their pension rights are not affected by this Bill. Amendment No. 536RA is intended to meet a number of policy objectives. It supersedes the minor amendments to Section 15 which Schedule 22 to the Bill already provides.
  First, the amendment makes various changes which simply reflect the fact that the MPA will take on the employer and pension-payer roles currently undertaken by the commissioner and the receiver. Secondly, it is intended to provide that anyone who has any benefits under the MCSSS scheme as at 2nd July 2000 will not be disadvantaged when the MPA is established. At the same time, the intention is that staff who join the MPA after 2nd July 2000 will benefit also from the MCSSS scheme.
  Thirdly, the amendment provides for three circumstances in which staff currently on the MCSSS scheme might move on to another pension scheme. Those are: first, if the MPA were to set up a local government pension scheme, which, in common with other police authorities, it will have power to do by virtue of the 1972 Superannuation Act. If it did that, new employees would be placed on that scheme and existing staff would be offered the option of transferring to it.
  The second circumstance will be if an order is made under powers in Part XII of the GLA Bill to transfer MPA staff, as well as pensioners and deferred
  38
  pensioners, from the MCSSS scheme to the PCSPS scheme. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 337 already provides that employment with the MPA is to be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under Section 1 of the 1972 Superannuation Act can apply. Finally, powers in the 1999 Access to Justice Act might be used to move justices' clerks in inner London off the MCSSS scheme and on to a scheme operated by the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, which is due to take up its full powers on 1st April 2001. Until separate arrangements are made for those staff, their pensions will be handled by the MPA.
  The aims of the amendment are entirely proper and, I hope, uncontroversial. Pensions are of course a very important matter. They can also be very complex. The technicalities of this amendment therefore require a bit of unravelling even though the policy intention which I have just described is clear. It is possible that the amendment could be refined to ensure that our policy objectives are fully met. If, on further inspection, we conclude that improvements could be made, I should beg the indulgence of the House by saying that there is a possibility of our seeking to make some refinements at Third Reading.
  Amendment No. 566A is more straightforward, so I will be brief. It inserts an extra provision into Clause 354 which requires that the Secretary of State must consult with the MPA and obtain the consent of the Minister responsible for the Civil Service before making an order under that section relating to pension transfers of MPA employees. The purpose of any such order would be to place those employees on to the PCSPS scheme. As I mentioned, Clause 337 includes the MPA among the list of bodies covered by Section 1 of the 1972 Superannuation Act. I beg to move.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister. I am grateful to him for pointing out that the matter is rather technical and not too easy to follow. I shall read carefully what he said. However, I wonder whether, for clarification and for simplicity's sake, he can confirm two points on the Government's intentions, irrespective of whether this version is the final one.
  Can he confirm that there will be no alterations to the pensions actually being paid—in other words, that pension provisions will not change so far as relates to the pensioners covered under this provision? Can he further confirm that the changes being made here will not affect the budget for the Metropolitan Police service?
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I also am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that this issue is rather technical and complicated. It is extremely important, particularly for those employed or to be employed and for those who have already retired or left the service. Nevertheless, it is extremely complex, as pensions provisions often are.

  39
  Several different groups of civilians are involved in the provisions. First, the civilian staff of the Metropolitan Police; secondly, the court staff who have been under receiver; and, thirdly, the probation staff, who have also been paid through the receiver of the Metropolitan Police for historical reasons.
  Within each of those three groups there are existing staff who have built up pension rights for their length of service. There will be retired staff already on pensions, and there will no doubt be some staff who have left employment, who have deferred their pensions and who are waiting until they reach pensionable age. For each group within each staff bracket, we should like an assurance that those concerned will not be worse off but will continue to have the same entitlements, or receive the same amount of pension, as they have done until now.
  I cannot quite understand the timing. Some of these provisions seem to be due to begin when the Metropolitan Police Authority itself starts to function. That is, after all, the point at which an individual member of the civilian staff stops being employed by the Metropolitan Police through the receiver and becomes employed through the new police authority. However, somehow or other, the Metropolitan Police Authority is required to be consulted about the order before it is made. If the police authority has not entered into its responsibilities, it is difficult to see how it can be consulted under the terms of Amendment No. 566A.
  I may be getting the timing wrong, but it is clearly necessary that there should be a time-lag between the setting up of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the actual transfer of the employment if employees are to be properly consulted.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take first the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I am happy, willing and able to confirm that pensions paid prior and post to the time of transfer will be paid at the same rate. The noble Lord asked whether or not budgets would be affected. I can assure him that they will be unaffected.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also raised questions. Consultation for an order to make things effective will take place after 3rd July 2000; in other words, after the MPA has come into effect. I trust that that helps the noble Lord.
  I can also assure the House that no one will be worse off as a result of the amendments. In addition, no probation staff will be on the MCSSS scheme. Only police civil staff and inner London justices' clerks will be on that scheme. I trust that that reassures the noble Lord, but I am happy to provide further elucidation if necessary.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536S:
  Page 311, line 45, at end insert—
  ("The Firearms Act 1968
  . In section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 (interpretation) in the definition of "civilian officer", paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I did not object to the grouping but I want to speak to Amendment No. 536S. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain what is the effect of this amendment so that I and the House can understand why it does what the Minister claims it does; that is, nothing.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has me at a disadvantage. I confess that I am struggling to find the right reference so that I may provide him with an answer that is of some value.
  As I understand it, the amendment affects the definition of a civilian officer which was inserted into Section 57(4) of the 1968 Act by Section 43 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. That definition is amended by deleting "or" and paragraph (b).
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I did get that far, but the noble Lord claimed that the amendment merely tidied up the wording in order to recognise the existence of the Metropolitan Police Authority. It is not at all clear to me how this amendment comes under that rubric. I should be grateful for an explanation as to how it does.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that it will fall within that rubric because the Police Act ceases to have effect. I am conscious that the noble Lord is keen on these matters. The definition of a civilian officer was inserted into the 1997 Act. It was no longer needed because people are no longer employed under the receiver. That provision relates to Amendment No. 536S. Those two matters should satisfy the noble Lord. I appreciate his keenness in those matters.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536T to 536XB:
  Page 313, line 40, at end insert—

  The Employment Agencies Act 1973
  . In section 13(7) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (cases in which the Act is not to apply) after paragraph (f) there shall be inserted—
  "(fa) the exercise by the Metropolitan Police Authority of any of its functions;".").
  Page 314, line 6, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").
  Page 314, line 6, at end insert ("following offices—

  (a) Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,

  (b) officer or servant employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and

  (c)")

  Page 314, line 11, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").—
  Page 314, line 11, at end insert ("following offices—

  (a) Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,

  (b) officer or servant employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and

  (c)")

  Page 315. line 6, leave out from beginning to ("(enforceability") in line 7 and insert (".—(1) The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 shall be amended as follows.
  (21 In section 33").
  Page 315, line 9, at end insert—
  ("(3) In section 41 (lost and uncollected property) in subsection (13) in the definition of "local authority", after paragraph (ca) there shall be inserted—
  "(caa) the Metropolitan Police Authority; and".").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536XC:
  Page 315. line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
  ("(2) In section 26 (exercise of police functions at designated airports), subsection (4) (which makes provision for the application of the section in the case of the metropolitan police district) shall cease to have effect.
  (3) In section 29(2) (entitlement of traffic wardens to exercise functions at designated airports) in paragraph (a) the words from "(or," to "metropolis)" shall cease to have effect.
  (4) In section 30(3) (transfers of officers and staff) in paragraph (c) the words from "or, if that area is the metropolitan" onwards shall cease to have effect.
  (5) In section 31(1) (interpretation) the definition of "members of the metropolitan civil staffs" shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for thinking that this Report stage exists just for me. However, I believe that the House needs to understand the amendments that it is passing. Many of the points are self-evident. Although one is prepared to take it on trust, the amendments do in fact do what they appear to do and what the Minister says they do.
  Amendment No. 536XC becomes a little more complicated. It is not clear on the face of it that this is consequential on the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I should be grateful for a swift explanation from the Minister as to why the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority necessitates this and why the amendment does no more than reflect that.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, lest the House should believe that it is only my noble friend who is interested in this matter, I, too, should be grateful for an explanation.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I must confess that this matter is proving more taxing than I had imagined it might otherwise be. That is not to say that I am to be entirely defeated by these very important points as they arise.
  42
  Amendment No. 536XC amends the Aviation Security Act 1982. It reflects an amendment in relation to the Metropolitan Police district. I believe that should help the noble Lord.
  Amendments Nos. 536XA and 536XB define the MPA as a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. We all know that that is important because it affects property in local authority premises. The provision brings the MPA into line with other public authorities. I trust that that satisfies the noble Lord's inquiries.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536XD to 536XG:
  Page 315, line 22, leave out paragraph 45 and insert—
  ("45.—(1) Section 97 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (supplementary provisions as to traffic wardens) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (application of regulations) the words "employed outside the metropolitan police district" shall cease to have effect.
  (3) Subsection (4) (wardens in the metropolitan police district) shall cease to have effect.").
  Page 317, line 14, at end insert—
  (Monitoring officers
  . In section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (designation and reports of monitoring officer) in subsection (1) (duty to designate officer as monitoring officer) after "Police Act 1996" there shall be inserted "or the Metropolitan Police Authority".").
  Page 317, line 19, at end insert—
  ("Financial provisions
  . In section 157 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (commutation of payments to local authorities) in subsection (6) (meaning of "local authority") for paragraph (f) there shall he substituted—
  "(f) the Metropolitan Police Authority;".").
  Page 317, line 30, at end insert ("; and

  (b) at the end there shall be inserted "or the Metropolitan Police Authority".").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 537:
  Page 324, line 41, leave out (""subsection") and insert (""subsections (4) to").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, after that piece of excitement perhaps we can turn to borough police community consultative groups.
  In moving Amendment No. 537, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 538. The existing police community consultative arrangements are currently borough-based and therefore equate with local government boundaries in London. On these Benches, we wish to see that preserved. That is what Amendments Nos. 537 and 538 seek to achieve.
  The police consultative groups in London, their coordinators and the voluntary organisations involved with them also feel strongly that they wish to see the existing structures continue. Our case is that the arrangements now enshrined in the Police Act 1996

  43
  which were formerly in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 have worked extremely well for 15 years. They should not simply be done away with as part of this Bill. That would be a retrograde step.
  The present borough consultative arrangements were set up in the aftermath of the traumatic Brixton disorders in 1981. As a long-standing Lambeth resident, I saw the way in which those consultative arrangements came into being, as recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I have also seen the success which they have had, and I detailed that at greater length in Committee.
  We believe that without that statutory structure there will be a temptation simply to move forward with a statutory structure of partnership under the Crime and Disorder Act with local authorities and with the Probation Service, but not taking account adequately of local borough interests. Indeed, in the Metropolitan Police Service's report of 1998–99 I can find no reference to police consultative groups. I believe that that is an unfortunate pointer. We do not believe that it is right to abolish the existing borough basis of consultation.
  Ministers claimed in Committee that the Bill as currently drafted will do nothing to affect the statutory basis of the current arrangements. However, a former Home Office Minister, Kate Hoey, said in another place that the police community consultative groups will be secure if they work well. Does that mean that some will be allowed to fall by the wayside? Perhaps the Minister can explain.
  The 1996 Act, as currently drafted, is very clear. It ensures that consultation takes place on a borough-byborough basis. However, paragraph 98 of Schedule 22 of the current Bill deletes this statutory duty. That simply leaves subsection (2), which is far less specific as to the borough basis of consultation.
  In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the current PCCGs were creatures of guidance rather than statute. I hope the Minister will be able to elucidate that. Is the MPS currently not complying with the 1996 Police Act? That is the implication of what the Minister said. However, during that part of the Committee stage the hour was late. It may be that we can all benefit from a re-run at a rather earlier hour. Perhaps the Minister would then be able to give us more details.
  The basis of the Minister's case seems to have been that London should be treated the same as any other part of the United Kingdom, and that therefore there should be no prescription about the geographical area of the consultative groups. However, the natural and logical area for such consultation in London is the borough. And "if it ain't broke, why fix it"? What is the underlying motive for these amendments? Some groups may need to be made more effective in London. Some of those borough consultative groups may indeed need to be made more effective. But surely that is a rather different issue. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend which
  44
  are grouped with the noble Lord's amendments achieve the same effect. We believe that our drafting is to be preferred. It is a little more elaborate than that of the noble Lord. However, I do not emphasise that point.
  I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord. However, there is some confusion about what the borough's place is supposed to be. Very wisely, the Metropolitan Police have moved towards borough policing. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides that every London borough, like other local authorities elsewhere, must formulate and implement a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder within that borough. Yet, as far as I can see, the Bill attempts to remove the obligation of the Metropolitan Police to talk to the boroughs at all.
  That seems to be moving the policy in the opposite direction from the Crime and Disorder Act. I believe that some amendments, along the lines suggested by either the noble Lord or ourselves, are required.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I support my noble friend. These committees have performed a great service, particularly in Notting Hill where I was a resident for a long time. It is important that such committees should be related to the borough and a democratic structure rather than to something ill-defined, such as the "Notting Hill Community", or whatever. That would allow the police or other interest groups to say what the community is and by whom it should be dictated. We need to have an anchorage into democracy and into the proper, ordinary representation of the people. We should not allow these matters to drift into becoming sectional interests and unrepresentative groups. I believe that the link with the boroughs matters. I hope that the Government will consider retaining it.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise to support the comments of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. Whether or not there is justification, there is still considerable concern among the borough police consultative groups as to their future. That concern was added to rather than alleviated by the discussion we had in Committee.
  It would help greatly if, when replying, the Minister could state clearly and unequivocally that the Government have no intention of changing or seeing changed the present arrangements for borough-based police consultative groups; that they will remain as presently constituted unless and until at some unspecified time in the future the new Metropolitan Police Authority may deem it appropriate to review such arrangements.
  No doubt if and when that authority takes that view, it will do so with full and proper consultation. However, that is some time in the indefinite future, if ever. For the present, we and, more particularly, the police consultative groups, seek clear and unequivocal reassurance from the Government that the groups will

  45
  continue in existence as presently constituted after the establishment of the Greater London Authority and, with it, the Metropolitan Police Authority.
  Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, stated that we might have a re-run of the debate we had in Committee because, I understood him to say, it was late at night. Every night we have here is late at night. If we had to have a re-run of everything because it was late at night, it would not do. I also have to say, with great respect, that it might be out of order, especially on Report. I appeal to my noble friend not to accede to that request.
  I have sat through many of the debates on this Bill and others. As noble Lords opposite have commented, some of these matters are complicated. However, on the whole our Ministers have dealt with them with great clarity. In those circumstances, I hope we can make progress. We, on these Benches, are anxious for the Bill to pass as soon as possible.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support my noble friend's approach. I understand entirely the term he used; namely, "re-run", even though it is a shorthand term. On a number of occasions we have, indeed, sat pretty late debating this Bill. We have criticisms of that practice. I shall speak for our Benches. I do not wish to be too pejorative as regards other Members of your Lordships' House but, frankly, I have felt my own performance deteriorating as the hour has gone on. If one reads Hansard, it is perfectly clear that the later the hour, the shorter the comments and responses from the Government and the more one needs to work hard to understand what is said. Very often, answers seem to be given to points which have not been made but which the Government thought might be made.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for that thoughtful contribution about the way in which business is transacted in this House at a late hour. I must confess that the other night, when doing exactly that, I was struggling to stay awake even as I read the words. However, it was 1.30 a.m., so I believe that I was justified.
  I am intrigued by this debate. It seems to have been hatched and formulated by way of being more of a conspiracy theory than anything based on reality. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made plain in Committee, I can assure the House that the aim of paragraph 98 of Schedule 22 is to bring the statutory arrangements for consulting the public in London on policing matters into line with those which operate elsewhere. Those which operate elsewhere do so primarily to local government boundaries, as they quite properly should.
  We oppose the amendments because they would create a situation inconsistent with police authorities outside London. The amendments, in effect, leave the responsibility for making consultative arrangements in the Metropolitan Police District with the commissioner. They also require separate arrangements to be made for each borough. Such
  46
  provisions are inconsistent with the creation of the MPA. Our view is not that borough-based consultation is wrong—far from it—but that decisions on such matters should rest with the MPA. After all, the MPA is to be entrusted with conducting affairs on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service. That, therefore, seems entirely logical. We do not believe that it should be determined simply by primary legislation.
  Outside London, police authorities are trusted to take these decisions and it would be wrong to treat the MPA differently. I do not accept the argument that the size and diversity of the population of London justifies special provisions. Other police authorities are faced with populations which are also varied and spread over a much wider geographical area.
  It might have made sense, in the absence of a locally and democratically accountable police authority, to require that the commissioner draw up separate arrangements for consultation. As pointed out by the Home Secretary at Second Reading in another place, the last Home Secretary with a constituency in the Metropolitan Police District was, oddly enough, the noble Lord, Lord Carr. But this argument can no longer apply from 3rd July 2000, with the advent and creation of the MPA.
  I recognise the need for all sections of the community to have their voice and I have no doubt that it will be a top priority of the MPA to ensure that it has effective means of obtaining the views of local people. Indeed, our establishment of such a body demonstrates the importance we, in Government, place on consultation and can only increase the role it will play in the policing of London.
  In practice, there are several reasons for believing that the MPA will adopt a borough-based approach to its consultation. First, it is a logical approach. Secondly, the Metropolitan Police is moving towards a borough-based system of policing, and in areas outside London, police authorities tend to establish consultation arrangements which fit in with the police force structure. Thirdly, each London borough has its own crime reduction strategy, in which the MPA will be a key partner. For that reason, if no other, it seems to us to make perfect sense for consultation to be based on borough boundaries.
  At the same time, I have little doubt that certain common or strategic issues will arise where consultation needs to be carried out across several London boroughs, or even the whole police area, and other issues, again which are of concern to areas much smaller than a London borough, where consultation at a neighbourhood level would be the best solution.
  In short, there will be many circumstances under which the need for consultation will arise and many ways of responding to them. But, as I have said, I would expect the MPA to view borough-based consultation as an important and critical part of this.
  Concern has again been expressed about the future of police community consultative groups. This was a matter we discussed in Committee. As we have repeatedly stressed, the Bill does not adversely affect

  47
  the status of PCCGs. Neither the transfer of duty from the commissioner to the MPA nor the removal of the requirement that consultation be borough-based jeopardises the position of existing PCCGs. I trust that that reassures your Lordships.
  The purpose of PCCGs is to assist police authorities—or, in the MPD, the commissioner—in discharging their duty to obtain the views of the community on policing matters. It will be for the MPA to decide how best to discharge that duty. Many PCCGs in London do good work, and we warmly applaud them for it. I would be surprised if the MPA chose to dismantle the existing system of PCCGs for so long as it considered that they had a part to play in capturing the views of Londoners. No single method of consultation is likely to provide the MPA with all the input it needs from the public, but PCCGs can be a key part of the consultative system and will continue to be so.
  My officials are in contact with PCCG representatives. We will ensure that the views of PCCGs are put fully and fairly to the incoming MPA members as part of the training and induction programme we will be putting in place.
  Police authorities outside London are responsible for consulting the public about policing matters and are not constrained by local government boundaries; they are advised by them. The Government see no reason why we should discriminate against the MPA in the way proposed in these amendments. The MPA will be a local, democratic and representative body and we should treat it as such. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be reassured by what I have said and feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered reply. He gave us more than he did in Committee to provide reassurance to the community consultative groups. I recognise in the way the Minister used his words—talking about the valuable role that the PCCGs carry out—that it is probable that they will be borough based and that it is unlikely that, where those groups are effective, they will be discontinued; further, that the changes in the Bill do not in his view adversely affect the status of those PCCGs. However, at the end of the day the Bill seeks flexibility for the MPA in the way that those PCCGs are or are not treated. There is a discretion whether to treat them on a borough basis. In other words, the geography will be entirely in the hands of the MPA.
  It is that lack of statutory underpinning which makes the PCCGs vulnerable. I recognise that the Minister does not believe that the Bill adversely affects the status of the PCCGs, but by its nature it must. They are borough-based PCCGs and could be disbanded and replaced with a PCCG based on two, three or four boroughs; their job could be changed. Therefore, though I accept that some reassurance has been given by the Minister, it is not the total reassurance that the PCCGs—which are based on a borough basis—are seeking. In the circumstances it is perhaps not
  48
  appropriate to press the amendment, but we will consider the Minister's words and may well come back at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 537A to 538 not moved.]
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538A:
  Page 325, line 10, after ("(1)") insert (", or

  (b) if no agreement is in force under that subsection in relation to the function or functions in question, to a standard which the Secretary of State considers to be satisfactory.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 538A and 538B seek to amend the Bill's provisions in relation to the Metropolitan Police's national and international functions. Amendment No. 538A enables the Secretary of State to direct the MPA to take specified measures when he is not satisfied with the Met's performance of its national or international functions, even where the functions in question are not covered by a service level agreement between the Secretary of State and the MPA. Amendment No. 538B ensures that the MPA's responsibilities extend to all the Met's national and international functions. It also makes clear that those particular functions are included within those of the force when the Secretary of State considers whether to set a minimum budget for the MPA under Clause 81 of the Bill.
  Schedule 22, paragraph 99, which inserts a new Section 96A into the 1996 Police Act, provides at present that,
  "(1) The Secretary of State and the Metropolitan Police Authority may enter into agreements with respect to the level of performance to be achieved by the metropolitan police force in respect of any of its national or international functions.
  (2) If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the metropolitan police force is not performing any or all of its national or international functions to the standard specified …he may direct the MPA to take [specified] measures".
  So the Secretary of State is able to make directions where he has a service level agreement with the MPA. But what happens if he is unable to reach agreement with the MPA on the performance of any or indeed all of those functions? As things stand, he would be unable to make a direction. That is a loophole in the legislation. Amendment No. 538A closes that loophole.
  Amendment No. 538B closes a couple more loopholes. The functions of police authorities, which will apply to the MPA from next July, are generally framed in the 1996 Police Act in terms of the police force area. Some of the Metropolitan Police's national and international functions, by their very nature, take place or relate to matters outside the metropolitan police district. This amendment makes clear that the MPA's responsibilities apply to those particular functions as they do to the rest of the Met's work.
  Those responsibilities include the principal police authority function to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force as well as the duty to produce local policing objectives, plans and annual reports by police authorities and chief constables. This amendment also ensures that the provision in Clause 81 for the Secretary of State to set a minimum budget for the MPA in order to maintain or restore an efficient and effective police force includes within its scope the MPS' national and international functions. That clause currently refers to maintaining a force for the police force area, so could otherwise have excluded from its scope same of the national or international activities. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify Amendment No. 538A. I understand the need to plug the loophole. I understand also that the provision needs to be read in the context of the minimum budget providing for national and international functions, to which the noble Lord referred. However, it seems to put the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State in a way which enables him to deal with them subjectively; there seems to be no objective test of what is satisfactory. The Secretary of State may require that the standard is what he considers to be satisfactory under Amendment No. 538A. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the term "reasonable" should be implied; in other words, that it should be to a reasonably satisfactory standard or something to that effect.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I simply want to add that the national and international functions of the Metropolitan Police are of the greatest importance. Some of us, including me, have had reason to appreciate some of the national work of the Metropolitan Police Federal Branch in particular, though that is only one example.
  That makes me glad that the Home Office and the Secretary of State are still to be closely involved in these matters and to oversee them. It is inevitable that there will be duplication of responsibility between the police authority and the Secretary of State, and hence a potential area for disagreement, not only on money but also on other matters. That is to be regretted but it is unavoidable; it is inherent in the policy of abolishing the Secretary of State as the police authority for the metropolis and creating the Metropolitan Police Authority. That said, it is important that the Secretary of State should be involved in the national and international functions.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his supportive comments with regard to the amendments and for the valuable role of the Secretary of State in these matters. He is right that there will need to be a continued involvement, albeit of a different quality and nature.
  Perhaps I may take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with regard to "subjectiveness" and the question of"
  50
  reasonableness". In applying the satisfactory test, we can read into the wording the term "reasonableness". That applies to other requirements placed on Ministers, whose actions are, of course, subject to judicial review. Therefore, we will have to have due regard to the test of reasonableness in all circumstances. That applies in particular to the provisions contained in Amendment No. 538A.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538B:
  Page 325, line 21, at end insert—
  ("National and international functions: application of requirements relating to reports etc.
  96B.—(1) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 6(1) shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (1) to securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for the metropolitan police district included a reference to securing that that force discharges its national or international functions efficiently and effectively.
  (2) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 7(1) shall have effect as if the reference to the policing of the metropolitan police district included a reference to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions.
  (3) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 8 shall have effect as if—

  (a) the reference in subsection (1) to the policing of the metropolitan police district included a reference to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions, and

  (b) the reference in subsection (2)(c) to any performance targets established by the Authority excluded any standards of performance established by it in pursuance of an agreement under subsection (1) of section 96A or a direction under subsection (2) of that section.

  (4) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 9(1) shall have effect as if the reference to the policing of the metropolitan police district included a reference to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions.
  (5) In their application to the metropolitan police force, sections 22 and 44 shall have effect as if references to policing the metropolitan police district included references to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions.
  (6) Section 81(1) and (3) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (minimum budget for Metropolitan Police Authority) shall have effect as if the references to restoring or maintaining an efficient and effective police force for the metropolitan police district included references to securing that that force discharges its national or international functions efficiently and effectively.
  (7) Subsection (4) of section 96A shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 538C:
  Page 326, line 3, leave out ("7,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538D:
  Page 326, line 7, at end insert—
  ("( ) In paragraph 3(1) (term of appointment of member of panel), after "panel" there shall be inserted "for a police area listed in Schedule I".
  ( ) After paragraph 3(1) there shall be inserted—
  "(1A) A person shall be appointed to hold office as a member of a selection panel for the police area constituted by the metropolitan police district for a term of two years."").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised a question on this amendment. The grouping deals with age limits as regards Metropolitan Police Authority membership. The GLA Bill provides for a selection panel of three people to be established to start the selection process for six independent members of the MPA. The purpose of Amendment No. 538D is to remove the upper age limit of 70, which applies to being on a selection panel. We have drafted the amendment to specify that the age limit of 70 remains for selection panels for appointment to police authorities outside London. We propose to remove that age limit when removing the age limit for membership of such police authorities. I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation that that is all the provision does. It is not obvious from the wording of the amendment that that is its purpose. I take it that the two-year term is common for other police authorities and that that is not being altered by this amendment, so that it remains a standard. All that this provision does is to make it possible for a person over the age of 70 to be a member. If I have understood it correctly, I shall support the amendment.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is yes.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538E:
  Page 326, line 18, leave out ("7,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 538F to 538J:
  Page 326, line 29, at end insert ("shall cease to have effect").
  Page 327, line 23, at end insert—
  (".—(1) Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1997 (appointment of members of the NCS and NCIS Service Authorities) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 4 (appointment of core members by local authority members of police authorities)—

  (a) at the beginning there shall be inserted "(1)", and

  (b) for "Three" there shall be substituted "Four".

  (3) After the sub-paragraph formed by sub-paragraph (2)(a) above there shall be inserted—
  "(2) Those local authority members shall exercise their powers under sub-paragraph (1) so as to ensure that one of the members appointed by them is a local authority member of the Metropolitan Police Authority."
  52
  "(4) The following provisions—

  (a) paragraph 5 (appointment by Secretary of State in his capacity as police authority for metropolitan police district),

  (b) paragraph 8(4) (Secretary of State prohibited from appointing additional member of NCIS Service Authority to represent him in that capacity), and

  (c) paragraph 10(4) (corresponding prohibition in respect of appointment of additional member of NCS Service Authority)

  shall cease to have effect.
  (5) In paragraph 14(a) (meaning of "local authority members of police authorities") for "to the Police Act 1996 (local authority members)" there shall be substituted "or paragraph 2 of Schedule 2A to the Police Act 1996 (local authority members and London Assembly members of the Metropolitan Police Authority)".
  (6) In paragraph 16 (which makes provision for the application of Schedule in the case of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis and the Commissioner of Police for the City of London) for the words from "the Commissioner and" onwards there shall be substituted "the Commissioner of Police for the City of London shall be treated as if he were a member of the City of London police force."").
  Page 327, line 25, at end insert—
  ("( ) In paragraph 1(6) (meaning of "police authority members") paragraph (b) and the word "or" preceding it shall cease to have effect.").
  Page 327, line 34, at end insert—
  ("( ) In paragraph 1(6) (meaning of "police authority members") paragraph (b) and the word "or" preceding it shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I suspect that the Minister will be able to satisfy me quite quickly as to what Amendment No. 538G does. Again, it is not obvious from the wording that this is merely confined to consequentials. It appears that the MPA is to be given a seat among the good and the great. Perhaps the Minister can explain whether that is purely consequential or whether it is a new additional decision. Indeed, there may be other aspects of the amendment that I have failed to understand. I should also like to point out that Amendment No. 538F is in no way consequential; it merely corrects a mistake made by draftsmen which I am delighted to see they have picked up. In fact, it has nothing to do with any of the other amendments.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as before, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his dedication to detail. I can confirm that this is a consequential removal of the reference to the age limit. I trust that that provides the noble Lord with a satisfactory response.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, this cannot be anything to do with the age limit. Indeed, Amendment No. 538G has nothing to do with the age limit. I hope that the Minister will take a quick look at his Marshalled List and assure me that all this relates to the bringing into

  53
  existence of the MPA and its taking a seat at some unspecified table. which will now consist of four rather than three members.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I said, the grouping deals with age limits. As I understand it, this amendment deals with membership.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords can the Minister say what Amendment No. 538G seeks to achieve?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is consequential upon the Home Secretary's removal as the police authority for London. Therefore, it is consistent in that regard. The amendment ensures that one MPA assembly member can sit on the boards of the NCS and NC IS. I trust that that answers the noble Lord's point.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 538K:
  After Clause 286, insert the following new clause—

  LONDON FRE BRIGADE PENSION SCHEME
  (" . The Mayor and the Assembly shall, by 2030, reconstitute the pension scheme of the London Fire Brigade moving it from the present unfunded scheme to a fully funded pension scheme.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the complexities of the police, the fire service would seem to be relatively simple. I apologise for bringing back this particular amendment at this stage, but I have done so in order to press the Minister a little harder on the issue of the fire service pensions.
  For anyone who is in the fire service, the security of his or her future pension is a matter of great significance; and, indeed, for anyone who is about to enter the service it is equally a matter of great significance. However, in both those instances, the time-scale of consideration goes considerably beyond the time-scale which politicians are normally invited to consider as being significant. In particular, the pensions conside:7ation of someone at the age of 25, while looking into the possibility of receiving a pension at the age of 60, is dramatically outwith the normal five-year time-scale that politicians are wont to consider, especially in the other place.
  The fortunate situation that this country is in vis-àvis its national pension liabilities arises in large part because a great proportion of pension liability is covered by funded schemes. In this instance, we have a particular service—the fire service—which does not have such a scheme. The Minister assured us in Committee that the Government should, and only "should", continue to cover the long-term costs of the fire pension scheme.
  The Government have a review in place. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister something about the time-scale which they envisage before this matter is brought to a conclusion. It has been around for a very long time, and I do not deny the difficulty surrounding the problem. I accept that it is somewhat difficult in a Bill vis-à-vis London to deal with a matter which has national implications because, as the Minister said, it
  54
  would not perhaps be proper to approach the matter exclusively on London's behalf. However, if we were to deal with the matter on London's behalf and resolve it, that would create a catalyst and I believe that the Government would then be obliged to act to deal with the national problem as well. Therefore I do not wholly accept the argument that we should not deal with the issue.
  However, the real purpose of bringing the measure back was to press the Minister a little harder on the Government's view of the possibility of a solution to this matter arising. No one who has had direct experience of the present situation, particularly in a local authority context, but even as regards the fire service generally, can possibly be satisfied with the existing situation. I accept that the problem has been around for a considerable time. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets and the more difficult it is to find an acceptable solution. I would be grateful to hear that at least we have some prospect of a conclusion in a reasonable political timescale, in other words, in the next two, three, four or five years. I accept that as a reasonable timescale for dealing with a matter of this significance. However, even that kind of timescale is beyond the normal range of timescales which politicians consider to be significant. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am almost persuaded by my noble friend's argument in broad terms but I am rather surprised that he has chosen the year 2030 which, after all, is 30 years' time, before this reconstituted pension scheme shall come into force. I remember once that a Labour prime minister said that a week was a long time in politics.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, if the Government were to resolve this problem next week I am sure that we would be as grateful as we would be surprised. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, apologised for bringing back this amendment. I assure him that no apologies are necessary. I am grateful to him for bringing back the amendment. I hope that he succeeds in what I think is his real objective; namely, to seek greater clarification from the Government on their intentions in dealing with what he rightly describes as a major and growing problem.
  The unfunded pension schemes for the London fire service, and I think all fire services, are a considerable problem now. There is no question but that that impinges already on the operational ability of the fire service and as the problem grows, that problem too will grow. The problem is of such magnitude that only government action can deal with it. I do not know whether the amendment proposed here is necessarily the right way to tackle it—I suspect that perhaps it is not—but I wholly support what I think are the real intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in moving it.
  I also agree with his view that although this is a nation-wide problem there is no reason that we should not take this opportunity in a London Bill to let London take the lead in this matter. As London has

  55
  the biggest fire service I imagine that it has the biggest problem in this regard. The Government have already set that precedent in removing the age discrimination for membership of the Police Authority. I accept that that provision has rather fewer financial implications than the matter we are discussing, but nevertheless the principle has been established; namely, the Government have taken the legislative opportunity that is now before us to allow London to lead the way where they intend that the rest of the country should follow. I hope that the Minister in his reply will acknowledge that there is a major problem which requires government action to resolve; that he will tell us how and when that government action is to be taken, and that he will perhaps tell us that the opportunity presented by this Bill will enable us to tackle the problem first in London as regards the London fire service.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this problem seems to follow me round. I recall that as an official I had to deal with fire service pensions. Therefore it is not altogether unfamiliar territory.
  The Opposition amendment seeks to change the firefighters' pension scheme from its present unfunded basis to a fully funded scheme during the course of the next 30 years. As this is the length of service which a firefighter needs for a full pension, presumably the intention would be to start future new entrants in a funded scheme so that there would be a gradual transition to full funding over that period.
  The firefighters' pension scheme is a national scheme which is set out in an order made under the Fire Services Act 1947. The Government cannot accept changes which affect one fire brigade but not others. On the question of consistency, the Government are proposing a minor technical amendment to legislation affecting fire service pensions. In order for public service pensions increase legislation to apply pension awards payable by the LFEPA in the same way as it does to the current fire authority, a minor amendment is required to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act lists various types of pensions which are "official pensions" for the purposes of that Act. The present fire authority comes within the definition of a local authority for the purposes of the 1971 Act, and the proposed amendment will ensure that the LFEPA is treated in the same way.
  Turning to the Opposition amendment, we recognise that there is concern about rising pensions costs. The firefighters' pension scheme in common with a number in the public service does not have a pensions fund. One of the main purposes of pension funds—to protect employees' pension rights—does not arise as the benefits are guaranteed by statute. The Government have recognised the extra pensions costs for fire authorities in recent local government finance settlements and in the Comprehensive Spending Review by including additional amounts for pensions in the fire share of total standard spending. In addition, a pension factor is included in the grant
  56
  distribution formula. The value of this factor has been adjusted to take account of trends in pensions expenditure. The distribution to individual brigades is based on projections by the Government Actuary's Department of each brigade's relative share of the overall pensions expenditure.
  A change to "new entrant" funding would not provide an easy solution to the fire authority's concerns about rising pensions costs. In fact over the next few years it would be likely to make matters worse. The authority would still carry the costs of existing pensions and of the new retirements for those pensioned under the existing scheme. But it would start to lose income from the employee contributions (11 per cent. of pay) from new entrants. These would have to go into the fund.
  A review of the provisions of the FPS was published as a consultation document last year. Ministers have been considering the position in the light of the responses. The Government have recently announced (as of 14th October) an independent inquiry into the future arrangements for determining firefighters' conditions of service, but have made it clear that there will be no changes to firefighters' pensions while the inquiry is sitting.
  I hope that, having registered their concerns, the noble Lord will now withdraw the amendment. I commend the government amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for supporting me once again as regards this issue. I say to my noble friend Lord Renton that the year 2030 seems to me to provide a reasonable transition time from a wholly unfunded scheme to a wholly funded scheme. That does not mean that it would have to be done that way; it could be done by the Government taking a decision to capitalise the fund on a particular date and making the funds available. Certainly I believe that there would be rejoicing all round if such a solution were to come about.
  I am grateful for the Minister's response in which he took some care to assure us that the situation is adequately covered, particularly from the point of view of the pensioners for whom we must all feel concern, but also from the point of view of fire authorities across the country. Although the SSA for fire may have been adequately adjusted as regards future pensions liabilities, most fire authorities take the view that it has not been adequately adjusted. However, they are of course looking at the broad spread of their liabilities and the cost of providing a wide service. Behind that there is the issue of what is included in the standard spending assessment of the fire service. Not everything that the fire services carry out on the public's behalf is properly included in the standard spending assessment.
  That said, it has been worth while to bring the matter back. However, in the light of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 23 [The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority]:
  Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 538L:
  Page 328, line 6, leave out ("appointed by the Mayor") and insert ("elected by the Assembly").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 538L I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 538M to 538Q.
  Schedule 23 provides that the new London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority shall have 17 members, of whom nine shall be assembly members. Here we return to the issue we dealt with earlier in relation to the Metropolitan Police Authority of who should appoint the assembly members. It is our contention that the assembly members should be appointed by the assembly from which they come; they should not be foisted upon the assembly by the mayor.
  I shall not repeat all the arguments we had earlier. I suspect that they are well known to your Lordships as I have mentioned them once or twice. However, there is an additional point. Schedule 21, which relates to the Metropolitan Police Authority, states specifically that,
  "twelve of those members shall be members of the London Assembly".
  Schedule 23, which relates to the membership of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, describes specifically the nine assembly members as "the assembly representatives". Beyond any doubt they are described here not as the mayor's representatives but as the assembly's representatives. If, as the Bill states quite clearly, they are the assembly's representatives, it must be a fundamental democratic provision that the assembly should have the authority to appoint its own representatives.
  I suspect that the Minister will tell me that it is essential that the mayor appoints these representatives in order to maintain his strategic role in relation to the authority. I shall be a little surprised if I do not hear some words to that effect. We have made it clear that that is not our view, but if that is the Government's intention then the schedule should state clearly that they are the mayor's representatives. The mayor has appointed them; they are there to maintain the mayor's strategic role. By any definition they are the mayor's representatives, but the schedule states that they should be the assembly's representatives.
  If we had been at an earlier stage of the Bill I would have accepted that this was a relatively minor point; that the Bill was poorly drafted and would be corrected. But we are at the end of an extremely long process. We are dealing with a point that we raised specifically in Committee. The Government have presumably considered the matter further—although perhaps not in great detail—and have decided that the members mentioned in Schedule 23 should continue to be described as the assembly's representatives, unlike the description used in relation to the Metropolitan Police Authority.
  I return to the point that if the assembly members are representing the assembly, the assembly should appoint them. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 538R is grouped with these amendments. It deals with a small procedural point. Schedule 23 on page 328 deals with the tenure of office. In view of the relatively short period in office that members of the tire and emergency planning authority will have, it is right that they should be eligible for reappointment. That is fine. Paragraph 2(3) states:
  "The Mayor may at any time, by giving notice to a member of the Fire etc Authority, terminate the member's appointment, if he is satisfied that the member is unable or unfit for any reason to discharge his functions as a member".
  That is fine. One has no problems with any of that. However, the schedule goes on to say that anyone whose appointment has ceased for any reason may be eligible for reappointment.
  It would appear from the way the schedule is drafted—it may be that I have a silly mind—that someone may have his appointment terminated because he is not able to discharge his functions properly, or is unfit, or whatever. It seems unreasonable that in those circumstances he should be eligible for reappointment. This raises the question of what is the definition of "unfit"? If unfit means that he has a medical problem, then clearly he is not unsuitable. However, "unfit" could mean "unsuitable".
  We feel the definition needs to be tightened up, which is what Amendment No. 538 seeks to do.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats were considered in Committee both here and in another place. They seek to change the mayor's relationship to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The mayor would no longer have any role in the appointment process for the assembly representatives on the fire authority.
  The amendments seek to sever the constitutional links between the mayor and the fire authority. These links are important if the new arrangements are to function effectively. They ensure that the authority is suitably accountable to the mayor for the service that it provides.
  The Conservative amendment would mean that the mayor would have the power to reappoint a former member whose appointment had been terminated on the grounds of being unable to perform his or her duties, but not if it was a question of the member being unfit to do so. These words are traditionally used together in a single phrase to cover the range of circumstances in which a person should be removed from office. Separating them causes problems. If a member has suffered serious injury, he or she might be unable, unfit or both.
  A mayor who has terminated a member's appointment because he is "unfit" in the sense perhaps intended by the noble Lord, is most unlikely to wish to

  59
  reappoint that individual. Admittedly, a different mayor might take a different view, but the member concerned would have to have been either nominated by the boroughs or elected to the assembly. For a seriously ill member whose appointment has been terminated, it seems inappropriate to include in the Bill a provision under which the mayor would be prohibited from appointing that person again upon recovery.
  In view of my responses, I would ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he tell us why the Government have chosen specifically in this schedule to describe the nine assembly members as "the assembly representatives"? Why are they doing that? Would it not be better more honestly to describe them as "the mayor's representatives"? Why do not they follow the precedent set in Schedule 21 for the police authority and simply state:
  "nine … shall be Assembly members appointed by the Mayor".?
  Why specifically describe them as assembly representatives when they are not representing the assembly at all?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the term is used as a shorthand way of referring to members of the LFEPA who are members of the assembly. This allows a distinction to be drawn in the schedule between LFEPA members who are assembly members and those who are councillors. It means nothing more.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, I do not think the Minister convinced himself. He certainly has not convinced me. I will not embarrass him further by asking him why the Government have not made similar distinctions in Schedule 21—which relates to the Metropolitan Police Authority—between those who are assembly members, those who are independent members, those who are magistrates, and so on. I have made my point very clearly. I have won the argument but I do not think I will win the battle. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 538M to 538R not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 539:
  Page 329, line 15, at end insert—
  ("Allowances not to be paid to members who are also Assembly members
  .—(1) The allowances specified in sub-paragraph (2) below shall not be paid to members of the Fire etc Authority who are also members of the Assembly.
  (2) The allowances are—

  (a) allowances under section 175 of the Local Government Act 1972 (allowances for attending conferences and meetings) other than an allowance for travelling and subsistence; and

  60

  (b) allowances under section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances).").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 24 [Amendments relating to the Fire etc Authority]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 539XA:
  Page 332, line 44, at end insert—
  ("The Pensions (Increase) Act 1971
  Meaning of local authority
  (" . In Schedule 3 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (meaning of local authority) after paragraph 6(1)(a)(ia) there shall be inserted—
  "(ib) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority:".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 290 [Discharge of functions]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 539YA and 539ZA:
  Page 163, line 5, leave out ("for").
  Page 163, line 7, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 11 and insert ("shall be treated as if it included a reference to a person who is disqualified under section 20 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 from being elected or being the Mayor of London or a member of the London Assembly.-").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments deal with the power of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to co-opt on to its committees and sub-committees individuals who are not members of the authority. The need for the amendments has emerged as a result of discussions and correspondence with representatives of the current fire authority and the Association of London Government. The effect of Clause 290(2) of the Bill as it stands at present is that a person may not be a co-opted member of a committee of the LFEPA unless he or she is a member of a London borough council, the Common Council or the GLA. This is rather more prescriptive than the present arrangements; and so the intention of the proposed amendments is to bring the Bill much more into line with existing law.
  We are proposing to amend Clause 290(2) to the effect that a person may not be co-opted on to an LFEPA committee if disqualified from being an assembly member under Clause 20 of the Bill or a member of a local authority under Part V of the Local Government Act 1972. These amendments have been the subject of considerable consultation. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 292 [The spatial development strategy]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 539A:
  Page 163, line 23, at end insert ("which shall include an appraisal of the sustainability of its policies and proposals").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 539A I shall speak also to Amendment No. 539B. Amendment No. 539A is a significant amendment, while Amendment No. 539B is relatively less important.
  Amendment No. 539A seeks to include the issue of sustainability in the mayor's spatial development strategy. There was considerable debate on the matter in Committee. On 27th July the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quoted from the debate in another place where the Minister argued that the Government could not be specific about a sustainability appraisal because as yet,
  "there is no national guidance on what such an appraisal might comprise or on how it should be conducted".
  The noble Baroness then commented:
  "That seems to me to be remarkably unambitious for London".
  I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. The Minister in this House then responded to a point I made at the time by saying that this would form,
  "one element within a wider sustainability appraisal which also considered the economic and social impacts of the policies and proposals of the SDS".—[Official Report, 27/7/99; col. 1454.]
  That is, the strategic development strategy. I am sorry, the spatial development strategy. My daughter's initials used to be SDS and every time I see those initials I seem to go into a state of mental confusion. I hope that the House will forgive me.
  We have returned to the business of the Bill being a London Bill for Londoners, and thus all about London. The response of the Minister in another place and the response of the Minister in this place seem to suggest that the only people who have any brains and who are capable of working out a policy for sustainability exist in the Government. I do not accept that proposition. I have immense confidence and faith in those already involved in local government. Let us hope that the Government have some faith in those who work in the Government Office for London. If the Government are not yet themselves certain of what would be involved in a sustainability strategy as part of a spatial development strategy, or at least a sustainability assessment, perhaps it would be wiser to leave the matter to the mayor and the assembly so that they can reach their own conclusions on it.
  If, subsequent to that, a form of national guidance were produced as to what should or should not be included, then of course the mayor's spatial development strategy could be amended accordingly. Not the least of our complaints from these Benches in the past has been that the Minister has too much power to direct the mayor on what should or should not be included or amended. I do not believe that that approach is reasonable and propel. If the Greater London Authority was given the responsibility for providing a sustainability assessment of the mayor's spatial development strategy, it would do so. What is more, I am sure that that assessment would be reasonable and would take all matters into account. Such a responsibility might complicate the issue of devising the spatial development strategy and could make the process, marginally longer, though I doubt that it would have much effect. This is a perfectly reasonable provision to include on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration.
  I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 539B. This is a small matter. The Bill as drafted states:
  62
  "(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Mayor may publish the spatial development strategy".
  We feel that "may" is an inappropriate term and that "shall" would work better here. I entirely accept that this is entirely an exercise in semantics, and I daresay that the Minister will respond by saying that this is the normal form in legislation and that the word "may" is normally used. That may be so. The Minister may say that it should be so, but I believe that there may be reason here to change what has always happened in the past. I have often argued that everything that is done could be done better. This is one of those occasions. I beg to move.
  6p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I note that Amendment No. 539A seeks to add words to a subsection of Clause 292 which states that the spatial development strategy "must"—neither "may" nor "shall". The question of an appraisal of sustainability is certainly one that we on these Benches support. Well, we would, wouldn't we, because we moved a similar amendment at the previous stage. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer spoke to it. As the noble Lord said, the Government confirmed at that stage that there should be a full appraisal of the spatial development strategy impact within a wider appraisal, including social and economic impacts, and anticipated that guidance would deal with that.
  We became fairly well accustomed to being told that matters which we felt ought to be on the face of the Bill when they were good would find their way into guidance or regulations. During the course of proceedings on the Bill I have become increasingly convinced of the importance of the role of the members of the assembly in their scrutiny function, which needs to be interpreted in a very wide sense. Ensuring the sustainability of the strategy will be one of those functions. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment at this stage, will he say that such an appraisal is not proscribed and indeed that the mayor and the assembly through its role may ensure that it happens?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, in replying to Amendment No. 539A, I have not a lot to add to what I said in Committee. We agree that it would be sensible for the mayor to carry out the sustainability appraisal, and guidance will provide for that. The problem is, first, that the sustainability appraisal will be somewhat wider than relating to the element of this clause. This is the environmental dimension. As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, I have already indicated that it would be a somewhat wider one.
  Secondly, the sustainability appraisal as a concept—as a term of art—is in its infancy and may well change over time. We therefore do not wish to be prescriptive on the face of the Bill but prefer to deal with the matter in guidance. Indeed, we have given a commitment that our guidance on the production of this strategy will advise the mayor that an appraisal should be carried out. But that guidance can change over time as appraisal techniques improve over time. Perhaps

  63
  I may also mention that the findings will be embraced in a forthcoming revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note 11 on regional planning guidance. That underlines the fact that it will be included in the guidance to the mayor. I recognise the desire of the noble Lord to put this provision on the face of the Bill. But I think that it is an evolving concept and one that is broader than this point in the Bill.
  As far as concerns Amendment No. 539B, my recollection is that in Committee the noble Lord referred to it as a matter of taste and now regards it as a matter of semantics. It is the normal form of words. In this case the term "may" is used because there is a series of conditions following it in the text that the mayor has to satisfy before he or she can publish the spatial development strategy. It is both conventional and, in this case, conditional and therefore "may" is appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has, as usual, provided an interesting response to the points that were raised. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support. The noble Lord said that we should not be prescriptive on the face of the Bill. Nothing in the amendment is prescriptive as to what is involved in a sustainability assessment. It simply requires that a sustainability assessment should be a part of the spatial development strategy. From what the Minister implied—he did not say it—regulations setting out what should or should not be included in a sustainability assessment will be vastly more prescriptive than the amendment. So that seems to be a slightly peculiar reason for not accepting an amendment that requires something sensible as an addition to what is already going to happen.
  I note what the Minister had to say about a revision of planning guidance. I note also that he accepts that a sustainability assessment is an evolving concept. If it is an evolving concept, presumably at some point we shall have to face evolving planning guidance and evolving regulations in order to keep up. If we to have all of that, I cannot see why we should not have this amendment on the face of the Bill. I am tempted to take the view of the House on the matter but I am in a pacific mood. We may need to return to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 293 [Public participation]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 539AA:
  Page 164, line 28, at end insert ("; and

  (e) any other body to which, or person to whom, the Mayor considers it appropriate to send a copy.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 539AA arises from a commitment which we gave at the Committee stage to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we would ensure that, in deciding to whom consultation copies of the spatial development strategy should be sent, the mayor is to consider not only those bodies set out in this part of the Bill but also the relevant bodies under the description
  64
  specified in Clause 27(3)—the four groups set out there. These amendments achieve that. I thank the noble Baroness for highlighting that issue. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may, in turn, thank the Minister for recognising the point and for acting on it.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 539AB:
  Page 164, line 28, at end insert—
  ("(3A) In determining the bodies to which or persons to whom it is appropriate to send a copy of the strategy under subsection (3)(e) above (if any), the bodies to which and the persons to whom the Mayor considers sending a copy must include bodies of each of the descriptions specified in section 27(3) above.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 295[Publication]:
  [Amendment No. 539B not moved.]
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 539BA:
  Page 165, line 24, leave out ("findings reported") and insert ("report made").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 539BA, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 539BB, 539BC, 539BD and 539C. Amendments Nos. 539BA, 539BB, 539BC and 539BD arise from government commitments in Committee to consider the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, concerning the report of the chair or panel of the examination in public into the SDS. I note that he has retabled Amendment No. 539C. Our intention is that the report of an EIP panel should include not just findings of fact but also recommendations. I know that the noble Lord was concerned that the current term "findings" may be too narrow to encompass recommendations.
  We indicated in Committee that in planning Acts and secondary legislation, the term "report" is more often used. We believe that that would be more appropriate as it requires the mayor to take account of the entirety of the panel's report including recommendations and—I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome this—any supporting argumentation and evidence. The amendments change relevant references in the Bill from "findings" to "report". I thank the noble Lord for raising the issue and trust that the amendments satisfy his concerns. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am pleased to acknowledge the Government's response to what was in effect my amendment No. 539C. When I tabled it again, I believe that I am right in saying that the Government had not yet got in their amendment. Otherwise, I might have been spared the necessity. This is a fortunate outcome and I am grateful to Ministers for their invention.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 539BB:
  Page 165. line 36. leave out ("findings") and insert ("report").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 539BC:
  Page 165, line 37, leave out ("have been reported") and insert ("has been made").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 296 [Examination in public]:
  The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No 539BD is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 539C.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 539BD:
  Page 166, line 36, leave out ("report his or their findings") and insert ("make a report").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 297 [Duty to notify London borough councils of publication]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 540:
  Leave out Clause 297.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 299 [Reviews of the strategy]:
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 541:
  Page 167. line 22, at end insert—
  ("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Mayor shall commence a review of the spatial development strategy not more than five years after the date on which it first becomes operative pursuant to the provisions of this Part.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am aware of intervening for the first time at this stage of the Bill and I shall be brief. The Bill acknowledges that there will need to be a review of the spatial development strategy. My amendment seeks to place a time on the commencement of the first review. I have been in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and he stated—and I agree—that it is in general wise to,
  "avoid including firm timetables in the Bill for the production or review of any of the Mayoral strategies. This was for practical reasons and to avoid fettering the Mayor's discretion unduly".
  However, the SPS will make a substantial impact and will break new ground for an authority of this kind. It is highly unlikely, given the amount of detail—not least that added to the Bill at a very late stage—that we have got it right, which merely heightens the importance of taking corrective action. By providing for a review within five years of the SDS becoming operational—which means, when it is first published—the amendment would ensure that the process of evaluation actually happens and is not squeezed out.
  The House recognises that the huge, detailed and prescriptive powers heaped on the mayor by the Bill mean that he will have an enormous range of responsibilities. It will be extremely difficult for him to decide priorities when he comes to review the activities
  66
  for which he is accountable. The amendment is important from the point of view of the City of London, which has the enormously important role of attracting foreign finance houses to contribute to the work of the City. It is important that the House lays down a timetable for the commencement of the review. Then it is up to the mayor to decide on the pace of the review.
  The amendment allows commencement to be delayed, if necessary, until the second mayoral term. But that such a review should happen and happen within a reasonable time is paramount. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will feel able to accept that as a reasonable requirement for something as novel and all-pervasive as the spatial development strategy. I beg to move.
  6.15p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before speaking to Amendment No. 541ZA in this group, I shall comment on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I am a little anxious about artificial time limits. In the world of development plans—I appreciate that the spatial development strategy is not the same but there are some connections—there is a problem with the length of the process which tends to mean that plans are out of date by the time they come into effect. Concentration is needed in keeping up to date both the strategy and the development plans that boroughs will be publishing. It may be that five years is too long but it may be that it is too short a period. Matters may have settled down, so it is not necessary to commence a review within five years. Responsiveness to what is going on is important. If the mayor tends to sideline a review, I hope that assembly members will make sure that the mayor is not allowed to forget it. As I say, I am a little unhappy with the prospect of an artificial time limit.
  Amendment No. 541ZA to Clause 300, which deals with alterations to the spatial development strategy or its replacement, proposes to remove one of the Secretary of State's powers of direction. Clause 300(2) allows the Secretary of State to direct the mayor to publish not only a new SDS but—this is the provision we seek to delete—to publish,
  "such alterations of the spatial development strategy as the Secretary of State directs."
  We find the words
  "as the Secretary of State directs"
  particularly offensive.
  In Committee, I moved an amendment to delete the whole of Clause 300(2) but now I am limiting the amendment to Clause 300(2)(a). In Committee, the Minister said that reserve powers for the Secretary of State were needed and that they reflect powers in other parts of the country. We have protested throughout the passage of the Bill at the Secretary of State's powers not just to require the mayor or the authority to reconsider certain matters but to take steps that the Secretary of State directs. Will the Minister confirm specifically that the power to direct particular alterations reflects powers that are in effect elsewhere?

  67
  In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, pointed out that the Secretary of State might make such a direction if the mayor and central government were in a state of political confrontation. I agreed with the noble Baroness at that time. On further reflection, I still agree. She made an important point. While I can see that a power to ask the mayor to reconsider is one thing, to, "reconsider and do what I say", is entirely another. It is symptomatic of the centralising nature of the Bill to which we have objected throughout.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 541A is grouped with the two amendments previously spoken to. Perhaps I may comment on the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It seems to me that if the provision in Clause 300(2)(a) represents anything, it represents over-prescription on the face of the Bill. That is something for which we have been condemned from time to time by Ministers opposite. In regard to that subsection the boot is on the other foot.
  Amendment No. 541A refers the Secretary of State's power to make a direction that the mayor should either amend the spatial development strategy, or indeed develop a new strategy back to Clause 295(6). That clause, in reference to delaying publication, states:
  "If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient to do so for the purpose of avoiding … any inconsistency with current national policies or relevant planning guidance, or … any detriment to the interests of an area outside … London".
  The purpose of the amendment is to limit the power of the Secretary of State to order or direct a new spatial development strategy to situations where only those two conditions are fulfilled.
  We believe that that is not unreasonable. We do not think that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have power to direct a new or amended strategy if the Secretary of State was doing so simply because he disagreed with an aspect of the strategy. More than that is needed for this kind of direction to be used. A conflict with national policies or a detriment to the interests of areas outside London would be appropriate reasons for a new or amended strategy to be developed. That is our reason for tabling this amendment. I commend it to the House.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendment No. 541 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would require the mayor to review the spatial development strategy at least every five years. I understand the thinking behind the proposal and why it may be felt that there is a need to build in a review process. It is important that the mayor should keep the strategy up to date and should regularly review it.
  However, I do not see that that cuts across the general view that we have deliberately not included a fixed timetable for the production and review of these strategies. The work programme for reviewing strategies is a matter in the first instance for the mayor.
  68
  I acknowledge in part the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that there is a particular need for the SDS to be reviewed regularly because of its relevance to the boroughs' unitary development plans and planning applications which organisations may be pursuing and which may indeed come to government. That is why Clause 299 of the Bill already contains a specific duty on the mayor to review the SDS from time to time. But that does not necessarily mean that we should have a rigid timetable.
  The same clause also includes a reserve power for the Secretary of State to direct a review of the SDS if, for example, the mayor were to allow the strategy to become seriously out of date. As I shall say shortly in relation to the other amendments, I do not anticipate that that power will need to be used often, if at all, but it is there. It safeguards some of the anxieties that lie behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
  I have also undertaken, in Committee and in correspondence with the noble Lord and others from the City, that we shall also draw attention to the importance of regular review in any guidance that we issue to the mayor on the production of the SDS. We shall shortly issue the basis of that for consultation. I hope, therefore, that with those assurances the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
  Both of the other two amendments would seek to circumscribe the Secretary's State's power to direct the mayor to alter or prepare a new spatial development strategy. They therefore move to some extent in the opposite direction from that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
  We are dealing with what is in effect a reserve power. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in regard both to a new plan and alterations to the plan, the legislation very much reflects the existing provisions for the rest of local government, which appear in most recent form in the 1990 planning Act. That reserve power is needed in the context of London as well. As I said, it is a power that we would hope not to use very frequently.
  The strategy has a prime part to play in setting the strategy framework for London, particularly in terms of its relationship with the boroughs and their UDPs. If, for example, the mayor failed to keep the strategy up to date, by means of this power the matter could be rectified in terms of the Secretary of State being able to direct the mayor.
  Amendment No. 541ZA deals with alterations as distinct from directing a new strategy. Again, that is a reflection of the existing provisions in all other planning legislation. Were there not to be a reserve power, there could be significant problems. If the Secretary of State thought that the original SDS was seriously defective but only in one particular factor, or, in the case of a change, if the Secretary of State regarded that change as important but the mayor was ignoring it, it would make sense to have the ability to direct alterations to part of the strategy rather than involving the mayor in preparing a completely new

  69
  strategy. That would save time and money for everyone involved. It would also avoid the uncertainty of having a totally new spatial development plan.
  As I have said, this provision is fully precedented in the existing planning system. It performs an essential reserve power function, even if rarely used. I hope, therefore, that on all those counts the amendment proposed by noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the other two amendments will not be pursued.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I think I can accept the noble Lord's assurances on the question of the necessity, and perhaps even urgency, of having a review. We shall wait to see what is said in the consultative paper. The Minister has clearly indicated to the House that he accepts the importance of having a review of the crucial strategic development strategy. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and seek leave to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 300 [Alteration or replacement]:
  [Amendments Nos. 541ZA and 541A not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 542:
  Page 167, line 41, at end insert—
  ("( ) In this Act, references to the spatial development strategy include, except where the context otherwise requires, a reference to—

  (a) the spatial development strategy as altered; or

  (b) a new spatial development strategy which replaces a previous spatial development strategy.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  6.30 p.m.
  Clause 303 [Amendments of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990]:
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 543:
  Page 170, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(1D) The Mayor shall not exercise any power under subsection (1B) to direct a local planning authority to refuse an application involving the erection of a building by reason only of the floor space which that building is to provide if—

  (a) the building to be erected is to replace a building which is located on the land to which the application relates;

  (b) the floor space provided by the building to be replaced is not less than the floor space to be provided by the building to be erected; and

  (c) the building to be erected and the building which it is to replace fall within the same use class.

  (1E) In subsection (1D) above—

  "floor space" in relation to any building means the sum of the total floor area provided by every level of that building, measured by reference to its external surfaces, and

  "use class" means class specified in an order made under subsection (2)(f) of section 55 above or in an order having effect as if made under that subsection."").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 543 I refer also to the Government's Amendment No. 543YA. I return to a matter that I raised in Committee; namely, that the mayor's strategic development strategy should focus on matters that are truly strategic in nature. Without wishing to repeat what I said on that occasion, the hostility that existed between the boroughs and the Greater London Council for many years had much of its origin in the interference by the upper tier authority in the planning role of the boroughs. I am aware that both we and the Government are anxious to avoid that happening again. It was a major flaw in the legislation and the way that it was implemented.
  I make it clear at this stage that it is not my intention to press the matter to a Division, but I hope that in reply to the debate the Minister will be able to give a further indication of the mechanisms— perhaps subordinate legislation or ministerial guidance—by which this strategic focus will be achieved. I said in Committee that if the mayor's strategy did not deliver a quick and streamlined decision-making process for planning applications we would run into the same problems as post-GLC. Therefore, it is important that we get it right; and it is even more important that it is right for the City of London.
  It is worth repeating the figures and the reasons for the concern. Based on 1997–98 data, 22 per cent of planning applications and 48 per cent of floorspace generated by developments in the City must be referred to the mayor as involving matters of strategic importance, and therefore will be dependent on the speed and efficiency of the new authority in processing them. Those are very high figures. In responding to the point that I and my noble friends on the Front Bench then raised in Committee, the Minister pointed out that the regime proposed would, in relative terms, involve reference to the mayor of only a very small number of planning applications throughout London. Without quoting from the debate on 27th July, the Minister estimated that it would involve between 150 and 250 applications over the whole of Greater London.
  I readily accept that that is relatively small in relation to the whole of Greater London. However, the disproportionate effect on the City of London is illustrated by the fact that, supposing one took as a mid-point 200 applications that had to be referred to the mayor, about 10 per cent of the total would arise within the square mile. I can produce the figures if the Minister wants them. That is about 50 times what would be expected if the referral process was uniform over the whole area. Moreover, the figure of 48 per cent of floorspace generated as referable to the mayor illustrates that a very large proportion of the planning developments in the City will be subject to mayoral involvement.
  I do not need to dwell on this for too long, because it is designed to enable the Minister to tell us a little more about the way that the strategy will be operated in practice. But perhaps I may make one or two further points so that they can be taken into account in subordinate legislation or guidance. Since our

  71
  exchanges in Committee I have continued my consultations with the City. I am aware that the City has been in regular contact with the Minister and his officials. I am also aware that recognition by Ministers of the City's special position has been widely appreciated. Therefore, one approaches this issue on the basis that there is common ground across the House on the underlying objective; namely, to maintain the City's ability to respond rapidly and effectively to the accommodation needs of the international financial community.
  My amendment provides that the mayor shall not direct a refusal of planning permission for a development on the grounds of the size of the development alone where the buildings envisaged by the application are no bigger than the ones they replace and are within the same use class. Anyone who is the least bit familiar with development in the City will know that we are talking about the redevelopment of office blocks with replacement on a like-for-like basis—perhaps the single most common form of development within the square mile.
  Strategic considerations which might otherwise arise in relation to substantial developments, such as the ability of local services or the transport infrastructure to cope if there were to be a significant increase in the daytime population, will not be in point because by definition there will be no appreciable change in the circumstances in relation to these issues.
  I accept it is perfectly possible for issues of strategic importance to arise in other contexts; for example, a redevelopment may have unusual architectural features. The clause caters for this because subsection (1D) to be inserted refers to floorspace alone as preventing the mayor from directing a refusal. If there are other features which raise issues of strategic importance then the mayor can still intervene.
  One appreciates that these are matters of some detail, but they are of enormous importance to what one recognises is a hugely significant part of our economic life. The Bill should enable matters to be dealt with through subordinate legislation, and that is my aim here. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that the points I have raised will be considered when those orders and regulations, or guidance, are drawn up.
  The Minister for London indicated when the revised proposals for the spatial development strategy were announced in March that an order would be laid, and observed that,
  "the consultation … also highlighted a number of points which need technical clarification … and are to be covered by the drafting of the order".
  I note that only last week in a Written Answer in another place Mr Keith Hill, now Minister for London, said:
  "The Government will be carrying out further consultation on the draft secondary legislation associated with the mayor's planning role shortly".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/99; col. WA 521.]
  Therefore, the opportunity exists for these points to be dealt with.
  I hope that this evening the Minister will be able to say that the matters I have raised will be considered as part of the process, whether in secondary legislation or supporting guidance. It cannot be right that nearly half the planning applications in the City by floorspace should be regarded as strategic. If the Minister can provide some reassurance on that point it will go some way to allay the concern that has been expressed. I beg to move.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Jenkin made it clear that he spoke mainly about the City of London. I believe that the problem is bigger than that and involves most of central London and, increasingly, areas like Southwark which will undergo a very dramatic change in a short time. Wherever and whenever this situation exists, the essential point of the amendment is that the building proposed is not to be any larger than the previous one. Everyone feels strongly if suddenly a building doubles in size, which of course has strategic importance. My noble friend makes a very relevant point. Anything that holds up the process for an abnormally long time, which I believe may happen, can be very damaging. I support the amendment.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I speak first to Amendment No. 543YA. It arises from a government commitment during Committee stage to consider an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
  We have always made clear that the mayor will be liable to the costs of holding an appeal inquiry and the costs of other parties where he or she has directed a refusal of planning permission unreasonably. We have taken the power in Clause 303(9) to do so by modifying the relevant provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act.
  However, the noble Lord was concerned that the mayor might be able to evade costs by not actually appearing at an inquiry and considered that the provisions should be on the face of the Bill. We have accepted the noble Lord's arguments and the amendment ensures that. I trust that on this occasion I can look forward to his support on that amendment.
  I turn now to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. The requirement for the mayor to be consulted on a small number of the most significant development proposals, coupled with the fall-back power to direct refusal, is an important element in ensuring that the strategic dimension is taken into account in the consideration of planning applications, which otherwise are entirely a matter for the boroughs.
  This in no sense re-establishes a two-tier system or a second-guessing operation of the kind described by the noble Lord which occurred on occasion during the era of the GLC. We have indicated our intention to ensure that the applications to be notified to the mayor are limited and clearly defined, using clear numerical definitions to achieve that. That will help bring certainty for boroughs, developers and others, and will

  73
  minimise the scope for confusion and delay. We shall review the criteria in the light of experience, but we need clear criteria.
  These arrangements will give the mayor the ability to advise boroughs on the strategic aspects of a planning application. In giving that advice, the scale and nature of any existing development would clearly be something for the mayor to take into account.
  In response to the noble Lord's request for some advice on the secondary legislation and guidance which we shall issue under this clause, we shall be publishing shortly for consultation draft statutory instruments and a draft circular that will govern the mayor's use of the power of direction. These arrangements will ensure that the mayor cannot unduly delay a decision on a planning application, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. As we have already indicated—I think in the statement by my colleague Nick Raynsford—the time during which the mayor can use the power of direction will be limited to 14 days once the local authority has resolved to grant planning permission.
  The mayor will have to give clear reasons, based on strategic grounds, for the use of a direction. I know that the noble Lord, and others outside this House, have been particularly concerned about the City of London. I am confident that the numbers will be much smaller than those he quotes. We recognise the importance of the City. That is why the criteria for notifying the mayor of applications within the City will, quite rightly, be higher than elsewhere in the capital. Indeed, we amended quite substantially the thresholds in our original consultation paper in the autumn of last year in the light of similar comments received.
  From the response to the consultation paper from the City, our calculations indicate that in 1997 only 15 applications in the City would have had been referable under the original proposals for size thresholds; and with the amended thresholds just nine of the City's applications would have been caught by the revised proposals we announced in March. There is something odd about the arithmetic here because that is out of a total of over 1,000 planning applications in the City in 1997. By my calculations, that is around 1 per cent, not the 10 per cent referred to by the noble Lord. The provisions for the City seem limited to very major applications. I appreciate the noble Lord's point about no change in use. However, an application of that size may well have the kind of features which need to be taken into account. If it is straightforward, then the procedure requires the mayor to deal with it very quickly; and in most cases, therefore, that would be nodded through.
  As regards London as a whole, we estimate that the mayor will need to be consulted over about 150 to 250 applications, as the noble Lord said. Spread across London, where we are talking about 70,000 applications in total, those are very few indeed. I emphasise that I refer to consultation. It does not mean that the mayor will intervene. The mayor may well intervene in far fewer cases than that implies.
  74
  We need to be clear about the figures and the potential. I accept that there will be some major developments in the City which will have to go through this process. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, may be right that there will be some other large developments. The use in the development in Southwark to which she referred would be substantially greater than the current use. If the figures rose above the threshold, it is right that the mayor should have the opportunity to intervene.
  I hope that we are not conveying to noble Lords that we wish to compromise the ability of the City or other areas—I am very much in favour of the regeneration of the London borough of Southwark—to maintain the City's important contribution and to build and improve on the newly revived parts of the London borough of Southwark and elsewhere. The arrangements that we are putting in place do not inhibit any of that development but ensure that the developments across London as a whole fit together and do not compromise those strategic priorities.
  The detailed arrangements which we intend to put into place through secondary legislation and guidance will contain sufficient safeguards. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter today. I hope that when he sees the consultation document and the legislation arising from it he will recognise that his anxieties have been met.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the conclusion of the debate, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to the Minister for picking up the point we raised earlier on the costs of planning inquiries. We seem now to have a satisfactory answer for which I thank the Minister.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I shall not bandy figures with the Minister. I have a calculation which will justify the figures I used. He probably has one. But at this hour and with more of the Bill to deal with that would be a waste of time.
  I am grateful to him for having acknowledged that there is concern here. If his figures are right, much of that concern should be met. Given the structure of this part of the Bill, it is of course inevitably right that the mayor should have the power to be consulted on developments which would have truly strategic significance. Part of the case made by the City and others is that merely replacing an old outdated building with a modern building with all the necessary infrastructure for modern communications, and so on, but with no increase in the size and the floor area, does not amount to a strategic development. During Committee stage I said that perhaps the increase should be the trigger which would provoke a reference to the mayor. I understand that the Government have not accepted that point.
  If the guidance can provide that only if the new building is of real strategic significance to the mayor's overall plan for London as a whole would he seek to call it in, I think that much of the anxiety would he removed.

  75
  However, regulations and guidance are the next stage. As I indicated, I do not intend to take the opinion of the House. But I would not wish the Minister to be under any doubt that the matter is regarded as of grave seriousness by those concerned with the development process. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 543YA:
  After Clause 303, insert the following new clause—

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: COSTS OF APPEALS
  (" . After section 322A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 there shall be inserted—
  Local inquiries in London: special provision as to costs in certain cases.
  322B.—(1) This section applies where—

  (a) the local planning authority for a London borough refuse an application for planning permission,

  (b) that refusal is in compliance with a direction made by the Mayor of London in accordance with provision made in a development order by virtue of section 74(1B)(a), and

  (c) an appeal against the refusal is made to the Secretary of State under section 78.

  (2) If the Secretary of State causes a local inquiry to be held under section 320(1) to determine the appeal, in its application to the inquiry section 250 of the 1972 Act shall be treated as if—

  (a) for subsection (4) there were substituted the subsection set out at subsection (5) below, and

  (b) for subsection (5) there were substituted the subsection set out at subsection (6) below.

  (3) If the appeal does not give rise to a local inquiry under section 320, in the application of section 322(2) in relation to the appeal the reference to section 250(5) of the 1972 Act shall be treated as if it were a reference to that provision as modified by subsection (2)(b) above.
  (4) If arrangements are made for a local inquiry in relation to the appeal and the inquiry does not take place, in the application of section 322A in relation to the appeal the reference to section 250(5) of the 1972 Act shall be treated as if it were a reference to that provision as modified by subsection (2)(b) above.
  (5) The subsection referred to in subsection (2)(a) above is as follows—
  "Where this subsection applies to an inquiry, the costs incurred by the Secretary of State in relation to the inquiry shall be paid—

  (a) by the Mayor of London, if he is not a party to the inquiry and if the Secretary of State decides that the Mayor acted unreasonably in making the direction in accordance with which the local planning authority refused the planning permission, or

  (b) if the Mayor is a party or if the Secretary of State does not so decide, by such local authority or party to the inquiry as he may direct;

  and the Secretary of State may cause the amount of the costs so incurred to be certified, and any amount so certified and directed to be paid by the Mayor or by any authority or
  76
  person shall be recoverable from the Mayor or from that authority or person by the Secretary of State summarily as a civil debt.".
  (6) The subsection referred to in subsection (2)(b) above is as follows—
  "Where this subsection applies to an inquiry, or to costs incurred for the purposes of an inquiry, the Secretary of State may make orders as to the costs of the parties to the inquiry and as to the parties by whom the costs are to be paid; and—

  (a) the parties by whom the costs are ordered to be paid may include the Mayor of London if he is not a party to the inquiry and if the Secretary of State decides that the Mayor acted unreasonably in making the direction in accordance with which the local planning authority refused the planning permission;

  (b) every such order may be made a rule of the High Court on the application of any party named in the order.".

  (7) In this section "the 1972 Act" means the Local Government Act 1972".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 306 [Mayor's functions in relation to planning around Greater London]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 543ZA:
  Page 171, line 6, at end insert ("or

  (c) any other body which the Mayor considers should be informed,").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 309 [The Mayor's environmental report]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 543A:
  Page 172, line 24, at end insert—

  ("( ) housing conditions, and

  ( ) the effects of the environment on health").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks, first, to add "housing conditions" and, secondly, "the effects of the environment on health" to the list of the matters that the mayor would include in a state of the environment report.
  We heard what the Government said in Committee about not being over-prescriptive. We have therefore whittled down the list of matters which we believe should absolutely be included to these two essential items. The aim is linked to that set out for the mayor in his strategies in Clause 33(7) in which it is said that the point of the strategy production is,
  "to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London".
  Surely the point of the state of the environment report is that people and agencies may see the impact of the listed items on them and their state of health. All this information must provide the basic aim of improving life. Therefore, the link between the environment and health is critical. In terms of housing conditions, one of the greatest impacts on people's health and well being comes from the state of their micro-environment, that is their homes, their blocks of flats and their streets. The state of that micro-environment is a vital contributor to health.
  One of the professions that has made a contribution to this debate and which very much feels that housing conditions should be included is that to which environmental health officers belong. They have frontline experience of the impact that housing conditions have on the state of people's health. The mayor will need to remain strategic and retain a general picture of improvement or deterioration across the boroughs. He will also need to determine whether housing conditions have improved or deteriorated over, for example, a five-year period.
  We believe that both of these areas crucially affect the day-to-day lives of Londoners. That ought to be of sufficient significance to be listed alongside those matters that the Government are happy to list on the face of the Bill—for example, litter.
  In his reply on the last occasion, the Minister made the point that these were areas for which the mayor was not directly responsible and that it would therefore seem an unnecessary burden on the mayor should he decide that other priorities ought to be pursued. We have carefully considered that point. However, I hope that the Minister by now feels minded to accept the fact that the impact of the environment on health is one of the main points of producing a state of the environment report and that that link is absolutely vital to Londoners who will eventually read the report.
  In the meantime., I hope that the Government will have considered that these two elements are worthy of inclusion. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 543B, 543C, 543D and 545A are grouped with this amendment.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: No, they are not.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Are they not? I beg your pardon.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, they were grouped and then they were ungrouped. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for raising this issue. We are concerned that all the relevant issues should be taken into account by the mayor in producing the report. However, we do not believe that these two issues should be set out as matters which could join a potentially endless list in terms of adding them to the list in Clause 309.
  I remind the House that the Bill already states that the mayor may include information about any other matters in relation to Greater London which he or she considers are appropriate, thus giving the mayor the discretion to include matters of his or her choice which the Bill does not specifically state. It allows the mayor a free hand to include anything which he or she considers might be relevant or of importance to Londoners.
  The problem is that housing conditions and the effect of the environment on health are not within the mayor's direct control. If the mayor considers them to be appropriate, he or she can include sections on these
  78
  issues. However, we see no reason to add any of them to the existing list in the Bill, thereby adding to the mayor's and the GLA's workload by requiring the state of the environment report to include a section on each or any of them.
  In debating these issues, we have to be mindful of the role of the boroughs and the responsibilities they have. In this respect, the housing role is obviously relevant. Clause 309 requires the mayor to consult the Environment Agency, each London borough council, the Common Council, and any other person whom the mayor considers it appropriate to consult before producing the report.
  A requirement to include every single potential item considered by the noble Baroness to be relevant will produce an over-prescriptive definition for the mayor to work to. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, can I ask the Minister why, therefore, "litter" is included in the list in subsection (3)? If anything is local, litter is local. I can well understand that a borough being consulted about litter would be very happy to say, "Mayor, you deal with that." However, it seems a very odd inclusion if matters as substantial as the ones to which my noble friend has referred are excluded.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the point is that the list includes those matters about which information may be available. I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about local authorities which may choose to hand over litter. I would point out, however, that very few of those local borough councils would wish to hand over their housing responsibility to the mayor.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I reassure the Minister that we did not intend the list to be endless. That is why we removed some of the matters we felt were important, leaving the two essentials, as I have pointed out.
  I do not believe that our amendment would result in taking away any of the boroughs' responsibility for housing. They will obviously deal with housing need and with the question of putting in bids to improve their housing. However, good housing is crucial to improving the lives of Londoners. I am therefore surprised that the state of the environment is not to be included on the face of the Bill as something to which the mayor must pay regard.
  I am not sure that I have heard the Minister respond to my point relating to strategy production and the state of the environment report. The Bill refers to the fact that the report is intended to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London. However, I shall dwell on her answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 543B:
  Page 172, line 25, after ("other") insert ("relevant").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for putting myself in an offside position. However, I believe that the Government's Chief Whip would be pleased and thrilled to think that I was anxious to get on with the business.
  Of the amendments in this group, two are important and two are less so. Amendment No. 543B deals with a minor matter. The clause empowers the mayor to produce a state of the environment report. The amendment proposes that when the mayor is introducing other matters in relation to Greater London which he considers appropriate they should be "relevant". If one is an optimist, one believes that no mayor would dream of putting anything irrelevant in any report. But, my Lords, you never know. Elections are strange things; we do not know who the mayor will be or what will happen.
  Amendment No. 543C introduces the concept of an environment strategy group which should be involved before the mayor consults the Environment Agency, London borough councils and so forth. That is an important paving amendment about which I shall have more to say later.
  Amendment No. 543D lists the main atmospheric pollutants about which we believe information should be contained in any environment report published by the mayor. I dare say that the Minister will say that that is being overprescriptive—it would be remarkable if he did not. But we believe that it is worth wasting—I am sorry, worth inserting—those. I apologise to the House; there is an awful lot of waste in environmental matters.
  I return to the issue of an environment strategy group dealt with in Amendment No. 545A. The mayor is required to produce a series of reports in the environmental field. He has to produce a document to be known as the London biodiversity action plan; he has to produce the municipal waste management strategy; he has to produce a strategy for air quality; and he has to produce a strategy for noise. Those are significant issues.
  It may be that the mayor will be able to put together a professional team of advisers who are so competent and sufficiently read in all those fields that he will need no further advice. However, he will be extremely fortunate if he is able to do so. In Amendment No. 545A, we propose a new schedule which establishes an environment strategy group for London. Its membership is not specified, but we suggest that it should consist of people with knowledge and experience relevant to the environment and the issues in respect of which the mayor must produce reports. The commercial world and, more importantly, the academic world contain people with knowledge of what is happening in the more strategic sense. We believe that they could make a real contribution to the work of the mayor in producing all the reports that I have mentioned.
  As an aside, I find it fascinating that a little further in the Bill we come to consider a cultural strategy group. Apparently, there is no problem about having such a group, although perhaps there is more executive history in that area. I believe that the environment is a far more significant issue as regards London, Londoners and the future of London. I hope that those people involved in the cultural debate will not take umbrage at what I am saying, but I believe that cultural matters can be extremely controversial if they are heavily and articulately advanced. But the environment in London is critical to London's strategic future. I have no doubt that the mayor, if he is obliged to work with the Bill as it stands, will do his best, but the purpose of the amendment is to make it possible for him to do better. That is a worthwhile ambition and I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 543B. I am not sure that I understand the rationale for it. The mayor will decide what additional matters are relevant or appropriate. I do not believe that the amendment adds a great deal to the Bill. However, the other amendments are more substantial.
  Amendment No. 543D requires that the mayor includes information on specific pollutants in the air quality section of his report. We debated a similar amendment in Committee. I understand the reasons behind the amendment and I agree that the pollutants listed are important. However, the amendment is unnecessary and overdetailed—I am trying to avoid using the word "prescriptive". In any case, the mayor will have to pay attention to the majority of pollutants listed in the amendment, with the exception of PM2.5. These pollutants are listed specifically in the national air quality strategy which the mayor, under Clause 317, will be required to implement in London.
  There is, of course, nothing to prevent the mayor from adding PM2.5 or any other pollutant to the strategy he or she produces. The Bill has the necessary flexibility for that but we do not need to repeat the list. We need a little flexibility.
  Amendments Nos. 543C and 545A deal with the environmental strategy group. We debated the provision of such a group in Committee. At that time, the Opposition had slightly grander plans for the group. The amendments now on the Marshalled List indicate that they envisage only a limited role for such a group; that of advising the mayor on the issues to be covered in the state of the environment report.
  It is important that the mayor mobilises all the expertise he can get. He must decide how all of those strategies which he is required to deliver can be delivered. But we want to leave a little bit of flexibility on how he delivers his obligations under this measure. He might decide to work in a number of different ways. For example, he might decide to bring together some kind of strategy group as prescribed here or to use a round table model using senior officers from the GLA, the functional bodies, the London boroughs and so forth and other environmental experts. Alternatively, he might do so by appointing a series of different

  81
  environmental experts to work throughout the authority on the range of responsibilities in the different strategies. It may be to gather groups of advisers on each of those strategies. More probably, it will be a combination of those in order to produce a degree of consensus behind each of the strategies.
  There is a different position as compared with the cultural strategy group which we are setting up in the next section because in this section the mayor has the prime responsibility in relation to drawing up these strategies. It is the mayor's responsibility to deliver.
  In the cultural area, we are primarily concerned with setting up partnerships where others in the cultural scene around London will deliver. I make no implication about the importance of the environment and culture. The noble Lord was getting himself into deep water over that. But it is a different relationship. The relationship in the environmental field is clearly a mayoral responsibility. In the cultural field it is a cooperative and collective one—that is the difference. The mayor may well set up a strategy group of some sort, but he cannot be required to do so on the face of the Bill. I beg the noble Lord not to press the amendments.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As always, he is helpful and informative, even when he does not completely agree with me. I hear what he has to say, but he has to produce a "state of the environment" report, which will need to pull together all the other specialist aspects which I mentioned earlier and on which the Minister touched. Bringing together a lot of specialists can be a successful way of producing a unified report, but it can also be a successful way of producing an almost interminable disagreement on points of detail.
  It was partly with that in mind as well as the significant importance of this particular issue for the whole strategic future of London that we tabled the important Amendment No. 545A. I have heard the Minister's comments and I shall study them with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 543C and 543D not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 544 not moved.]
  Clause 311 [The Mayor's municipal waste management strategy]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 544TA:
  Page 173, line 34, after second ("the") insert ("minimisation,").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 544TA seeks to include minimisation in the waste strategy which the mayor must produce. When we discussed the issue in Committee, the Minister's response was that he would not accept our amendment, which sought to insert the word "minimisation", because minimisation was such an integral part of waste management, that to separate it
  82
  out, as our amendment proposed, would send the message that waste minimisation and waste management were two different matters.
  However, looking at the other terms which the Government have chosen to include on the face of the Bill: "recovery", "treatment" and "disposal", I should have thought those terms to be equally absolutely part of waste management. I cannot quite understand why minimisation is taken as implicitly part of waste management and why, for example, recovery is not to be taken as implicit, since it is on the face of the Bill. The Minister was kind enough to say at the beginning of his reply that he totally agreed with my remarks on the importance of waste minimisation—indeed, I should not expect him to disagree.
  However, since that time I have given some more thought to the matter and made inquiries in the local authority area and it seems that waste minimisation is one of the most difficult areas to tackle. Although local authorities are now responsible and indeed, empowered, to put into place waste minimisation strategies, that is happening remarkably slowly, probably because it is such a difficult area to tackle. But if, as the Minister accepted, it is such an important area to tackle, it must be on the face of the Bill. We do not want to repeat the experience of it taking a long time to tackle because it is a difficult area. I should like to give one example where minimisation might mean something very different from waste management.
  In Committee, we took the example of take-away boxes being used, in fact, by staff in your Lordships' House, but also throughout London. Little triangular plastic take-away boxes are used for sandwiches and rectangular ones for hamburgers and so on. At huge events, such as those which take place in the Royal Parks, an enormous quantity of take-away containers are used. In a minimisation strategy, the mayor might decide to encourage, cajole and require people supplying take-away food to do so in packaging that minimised waste in two ways.
  There is now at least one company of which I am aware in Somerset which produces take-away food boxes from the waste produced in making chips. Potato starch is used to make the boxes, which are used for take-away food and can then be composted. That seems to me to be a perfect example of minimising waste twice. That is the sort of use of minimisation at which the mayor might choose to look—my noble friend is laughing because I often refer to potatoes in Somerset, and I did so when he visited our area committee. However, that is a small example of where minimisation is important. If it is not included on the face of the Bill, the mayor will necessarily continue to concentrate on recovery and disposal.
  I stop with the example of take-aways as an area where a huge impact could be made. The outlet does not in fact have to pay for any disposal because people take away the packaging from the premises. It usually ends up in dustbins or on the roadside, creating extra problems. In the great generality of things, and as we look to the next 10 and 20 years of what the mayor should be doing for London, minimising waste should

  83
  be written onto the face of the Bill, particularly to send the message that that is the future for waste. I beg to move.
  7.15p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am happy to rise to speak to my Amendment No. 544UA, which is grouped with Amendment No. 544TA.
  It is not an interest which needs to be declared, but I speak as an Essex nationalist, and indeed, a Home Counties nationalist and a representative, in some sense, of counties far beyond the immediate Home Counties. Everyone who lives outside London will have an instant empathy with this particular amendment. Thirty-seven per cent of London's waste has been disposed of in Essex for a very long time. It goes to many other places. We should be grateful for progress which prevents London's waste from being dumped into the sea any more, but it is still dumped outside London.
  It is a real problem in two senses for those counties obliged to receive London's waste. First, the counties have all the local environmental interference that results from having large waste disposal facilities, when they have not had the privilege of producing the waste themselves. More importantly, if London's waste is filling up space in other areas, it means that they will in fact run out of their own space more quickly. They then have a problem not only in disposing of London's waste but also in disposing of their own. That is a real difficulty. Technologies are coming into being, of which the south-east London combined heat and power installation is perhaps the most modern and prominent, which permit the disposal of waste within an urban area and actually benefit the local community at the same time. The heat from the disposal process can be used to heat houses, and it also generates electricity which goes into the National Grid.
  Those technologies are sophisticated and expensive. It is interesting that that particular installation causes apparently almost no concern to people in the locality. It certainly causes no interference; there are no smells, it is exceedingly well controlled and it is a very successful installation.
  It is true to say that it would be perfectly possible for more of those installations to be established, provided of course that one disregards the NIMBY factor. One of the facets of modern society is that it longs to enjoy, and does enjoy, the amenities of modern life. It does not like to be involved in any possible ill consequences of that enjoyment. One of the less fortunate consequences of the way we live today is that we produce a lot of waste. I agree with the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to see waste production minimised. That is part of the solution to the problem.
  London should be able to dispose of far more of its waste within its own boundaries than it does at present. This amendment would make the planning of that a part of the waste disposal process and of the
  84

  mayor's municipal waste management strategy. I believe that that is a worthwhile ambition which should be included in the Bill.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not able to accept this amendment, although I commend the noble Lord's commitment to those various technologies. I am sure they will play a major part in the mayor's waste strategy, as indeed will the more middle-brow technologies referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in terms of the recycling processes in Somerset.
  There is a slight conceptual problem here. Clearly, waste minimisation has a role in all of the points of the cycle of waste strategy: in waste production, disposal, recycling, transport, and so forth. The mayor's state of the environment report will already contain information about minimisation. However, the strategy is specifically addressed to those matters which are within the specific control of waste collection and waste disposal authorities. If waste minimisation is interpreted literally, those authorities do not have direct control over the production of waste.
  Clearly, minimisation is a major part of waste management strategy and lies within the responsibilities of those authorities which deal with the various aspects of waste. As regards encouraging those whose waste they collect to engage in waste minimisation projects, that is a different angle over which the authorities have no, or little, direct control. However, it is also part of the strategy. Were we to write in that provision as a part of the strategy which is separate from the various areas which are specified in the legislation, that would cut across those points in the cycle.
  The guidance to which we refer in this clause would cover waste minimisation strategies in all those contexts and would give guidance as to how authorities could go about writing and implementing those strategies. The mayor would certainly be expected to include strategies for waste minimisation, but not as a separate item from the various stages of waste management. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness can see the conceptual difference and will not pursue these amendments.
  I turn to Amendment No. 544UA. As a former London nationalist, I believe that Essex received a fair amount of rate income from the waste disposal plants and it was a service for which we paid. Nevertheless, I understand what the noble Lord is seeking and there is some logic to his long-term position. However, it is rather unrealistic in the short to medium-term to expect the London waste strategy to be able to achieve total self-reliance in terms of disposal of municipal waste within London. It may be a long-term and ultimate aim, but it is not one which would be achievable in the likely periods of the strategies.
  In addition, those authorities, such as Essex, in whose areas it is planned to dispose of London's waste are involved clearly and centrally in the process of consultation. Therefore, they too may have a say in the direction in which we are moving. However, I do not

  85
  believe that it would be sensible to place on the face of the Bill what generally would be seen by many people as an unrealistic objective in the foreseeable timetable. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Dourer: My Lords, the Minister is right: I have great difficulty in understanding the conceptual difference between waste minimisation being part of a waste strategy and not being a part of it. If there were such a difference, it is unlikely that the Government would have empowered local authorities, through various measures, to be responsible for waste minimisation. I have difficulty in understanding how that legislation fits in with what the Minister now tells us about the mayor's responsibilities.
  I shall read again with care what the Minister said in this regard. However, I still fail to understand why the Government refuse to put minimisation on the face of the Bill but are willing to include all other aspects of the waste cycle. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 544UA:
  Page 173. line 35, after ("waste") insert (''which shall include proposals for the disposal of London's waste within London").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I heard what the Minister had to say. I shall consider it carefully. I felt very much like a 22 year-old whose father told him that he had unreasonable ambition. I am sorry that the Minister feels like that about this subject. It seems to me that strategic ambition is worth while.
  [Amendment No. 544UA not moved.]
  Clause 314 [Directions by the Mayor]:
  The Deputy Speaker (Viscount St Davids): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 544UAA, I should point out to your Lordships that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 544VA.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 544UAA:
  Page 175, line 6, leave out from ("direction") to end of line 8.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tabled a similar amendment in Committee. We agreed to go away and consider whether the second power of direction in this context was needed. We decided on reflection that it was not. Therefore, that is one power of direction for the Secretary of State that we should like to remove from the Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, one down and one zillion to go! I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the point. Of course, I am very happy to have my amendment pre-empted.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 544VA not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 544VAA:
  Page 175, line 8, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Mayor may not give to an authority a direction under subsection (1) above requiring the authority—

  (a) to terminate a waste contract before the expiry of the term of the contract; or

  (b) to do anything which would result in a breach of any term of a waste contract.

  ( ) The Mayor may not give to an authority a direction under subsection (1) above requiring the authority to exercise a function in relation to the awarding of a waste contract if—

  (a) the authority is required to comply with the public procurement regulations in awarding that contract, and

  (b) in compliance with those regulations the authority has sent the second information notice relating to the awarding of that contract to the Official Journal of the European Communities.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 544VAA, I wish to speak also to the other amendments included in this group.
  This group of amendments appears to be fairly complicated but in fact deals with one issue. Your Lordships may recall that in Committee I indicated that we would bring forward amendments to clarify the scope of the mayor's power of direction and how that could be made to sit with the contractual nature of local authority waste management. This group of amendments makes it clear that the mayor's power of direction operates at the point at which a new contract is entered into between the local authority and the contracting parties, which will normally be required to go to tender. It does not introduce an overriding power for the mayor to introduce a break clause into contracts and override existing and on-going contracts.
  Therefore, the intention is clear. It retains for the mayor a power to intervene when the contract is changed but not to engage in the legal complexity of overriding a contract because it does not comply with the overall strategy. I believe that point applies to all the amendments in this group. I hope noble Lords are able to accept them.
  7.30p.m.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am concerned about these amendments. It seems that the group of amendments to which the Minister spoke includes these two and perhaps the two which follow, which are to insert new clauses. I have waited for some time to speak. I have been invited to an engagement downstairs, so I do not wish to return too soon after dinner. In that case, perhaps I may be allowed to comment briefly on those amendments.
  The Minister stated that this power would operate at the point of contracts being introduced. I am worried by the timing. There is nothing to make clear that negotiations might not have reached a crucial point when the contract was on the point of being let. At that stage the mayor would have the right to intervene. That is worrying.
  The public cost involved in waste disposal contracts is enormous. I want to be satisfied that whatever powers the mayor can exercise, he would in some way

  87
  be obliged to have regard to the cost, the practicality and the environmental benefit. I do not believe that such points are adequately covered by this series of amendments. I would appreciate the Minister's comments.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, intervention prior to the contract being awarded would minimise any costs to the local authority concerned. The mayor's ability to intervene would be on the basis that a proposed contract, or proposed terms of contract, would be contrary to the overall strategy for waste management within London as a whole. Without being controversial, if one were to see an authority moving disposal of waste from one form of transport to another, clearly contravening the direction of the strategy, the mayor would need the power to intervene. If, however, the previous contract had been more or less in line with the strategy and the subsequent contract was likely to be the same, it is unlikely that the mayor would wish to redirect the authority.
  There are, however, safeguards. All the contracts are subject to public procurement provisions so that intervention cannot take place after the second notice has been published. In any event, before issuing such a direction the mayor would need to consult the authority concerned. There are also safeguards relating to the disclosure of information in what would be commercial contracts or bids for commercial contracts.
  We are therefore dealing with a situation where the mayor can see a local authority going outside the general direction which, by and large, London and the authority have been party to in drawing up the overall strategy. These are important powers for the delivery of the strategy. However, I do not believe that they are so wide ranging as to cause the kind of anxieties among local authorities regarding cost, disclosure and commercial partnerships about which the noble Baroness is concerned.
  As there were, slightly surprisingly, no other interventions, I commend Amendment No. 544VAA.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I feel that he has not adequately answered the point about cost. Does he remember a time when people stopped sending barges down the river? There was great discussion in many London boroughs. We all had a sentimental attachment to barges going down the river. However, it was very expensive to continue such practice. Is the Minister aware of the cost implication?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are examples where there would be a cost implication but that should be covered through compliance with the strategy, in the first place, of the contract specification. It is in just such a situation that an additional cost may have to be incurred by an authority in order to comply with the overall strategy. However, that should be known at an earlier stage when the contract specification is established. In other words, if the mayor's strategy
  88
  required the riverside boroughs, where possible, to move their waste by water—I am not saying that it would—that could be a provision, as far as possible, for the strategy. That would be known before the contracts were made. Yes, there are circumstances where that would be a greater cost to the authority than the alternative. However, it would be within the strategy and known well before the contract came up.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments 544VAB to 544VAD:
  After Clause 314, insert the following new clause—

  INFORMATION ABOUT EXISTING WASTE CONTRACTS
  (" .—(1) Where at the date on which this section comes into force a waste authority is a party to a waste contract, the authority shall, before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which this section comes into force, notify the Mayor of the date on which the term of the contract is due to expire.
  (2) A waste authority which is a party to a waste contract shall—

  (a) at least two years before the date on which the term of the contract is due to expire, but

  (b) no earlier than three years before that date,

  notify the Mayor of that date.
  (3) Subsection (1) above is without prejudice to subsection (2) above.
  (4) If at any time before the date on which the term of a waste contract is due to expire a waste authority which is a party to the contract—

  (a) proposes to terminate or amend the contract, or

  (b) receives notification from another party to the contract that the contract is or is proposed to be terminated or amended,

  the authority shall as soon as reasonably practicable notify the Mayor.
  (5) Where the Mayor has been notified by a waste authority under subsection (1), (2) or (4) above he may direct the authority to provide him with such information as he may require for the purposes of deciding whether—

  (a) the arrangements which the authority is making to enter into a new contract,

  (b) the terms upon which the authority is proposing to enter into a new contract, or

  (c) the amendments or proposed amendments to the contract,

  would be detrimental to the implementation of the municipal waste management strategy.
  (6) Where the Mayor gives an authority a direction under subsection (5) above, the authority to whom the direction is given shall comply with the direction.").
  After Clause 314, insert the following new clause—

  INFORMATION ABOUT NEW WASTE CONTRACTS
  (" .—(1) If in the awarding of a waste contract a waste authority is required to comply with the public procurement regulations, the authority shall not send the first information notice relating to the awarding of the contract to the Official Journal of the European Communities unless—

  (a) the authority has notified the Mayor that it proposes to send such a notice, and

  (b) a period of at least 56 days beginning with the day on which the Mayor is so notified has elapsed.

  (2) If in the awarding of a waste contract a waste authority is not required to comply with the public procurement regulations, the authority shall not enter into the contract unless—

  (a) the authority has notified the Mayor that it proposes to enter into such a contract, and

  (b) a period of at least 56 days beginning with the day on which the Mayor is so notified has elapsed.

  (3) Where the Mayor has been notified under subsection (1) or (2) above he may direct the waste authority to provide him with such information about the contract as he may require for the purposes of deciding whether the contract would be detrimental to the implementation of the municipal waste management strategy.
  (4) Where the Mayor gives an authority a direction under subsection (3) above, the authority to whom the direction is given shall comply with the direction.").
  After Clause 314, Insert the following new clause—

  CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT WASTE CONTRACTS
  (" .—(1) Nothing in section (Information about existing waste contracts) or (Information about new waste contracts) shall require a waste authority to provide any information if—

  (a) the information has been provided to the waste authority by another person,

  (b) that person has imposed requirements as to the maintenance by the waste authority of confidentiality in respect of the information,

  (c) the waste authority is, by virtue of the public procurement regulations. under a duty to comply with those requirements, and

  (d) the provision of the information would be in breach of that duty.

  (2) If at the time when information is provided by a waste authority to the Mayor under section (Information about existing waste contracts) or (Information about new waste contracts) above the waste authority notifies the Mayor that, in the opinion of the authority, the information is confidential information or exempt information, the information shall not be disclosed—

  (a) by the Mayor, except to a person appointed under section 56(1), or (2) above, or

  (b) by such a person, except to another such person.

  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—

  "confidential information" has the meaning given by section 100A(3) of the Local Government Act 1972, but taking the reference to the council in paragraph (a) of that provision as a reference to the waste authority;

  "exempt information" shall be construed in accordance with section 1001 of that Act, but taking references to a principal council in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 12A to that Act (meaning of "the authority") as references to a waste authority.").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 315 [Interpretation of sections 311 to 314]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 544VAE to 544VAJ:
  Page 175, leave out line 17 and insert—
  ("(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 311 to (Confidential information about waste contracts) above.
  (2) The following expressions have the meanings given below—").
  Page 175, line 26, at end insert—
  (""the public procurement regulations" means any of the following—
  S.I 1991/2680

  (a) the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991,

  (b) the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993,

  (c) the Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1995, and

  (d) the Utilities Contracts Regulations 1996,").

  Page 175, line 31, at end insert—
  (""waste authority" means—

  (a) a waste collection authority in Greater London; or

  (b) a waste disposal authority in Greater London,").

  Page 175, line 33, after ("Act") insert—

  (""waste contract" means a contract which includes or is to include provision relating to municipal waste and is made or to be made by a waste authority in the performance of its functions under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (waste on land).").

  Page 175, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(3) "First information notice", in relation to the awarding of a waste contract by a waste authority, means—

  (a) in a case where the authority is required in the awarding of that contract to comply with—

  S.I 1991/2680

  (i) the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991.

  (ii) the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993, or

  (iii) the Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1995,

  a notice in respect of that contract sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities in compliance with regulation 9 of the relevant Regulations; or

  (b) in a case where the authority is required in the awarding of that contract to comply with the Utilities Contracts Regulations 1996, a notice in respect of that contract sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities in compliance with regulation 14.

  (4) "Second information notice", in relation to the awarding of a waste contract by a waste authority, means—

  (a) in a case where the authority is required in the awarding of that contract to comply with—

  S.I 1991/2680

  (i) the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991.

  (ii) the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993, or

  (iii) the Public Supply Contracts Regulations1995.

  a notice in respect of that contract sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities in compliance with regulation 11, 12 or 13 of the relevant Regulations; or

  (b) in a case where the authority is required in the awarding of that contract to comply with the Utilities Contracts Regulations 1996, a notice in respect of that contract sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities which in accordance with regulation 15(2)(b) satisfies the requirement of regulation 15(1) to make a call for competition.

  (5) Until the date on which the municipal waste management strategy is first published under section 311(1) above, sections 314(1), (Information about existing waste contracts)(5) and

  91
  (Information about new waste contracts)(3) above have effect as if the references to the municipal waste management strategy were references to the policies contained in the strategy prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 44A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (national waste strategy).").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Mozambique
7.36p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale rose to ask her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to help reconstruction and development in Mozambique.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I always enjoy these debates. I feel that my standing up to speak has a certain effect on the House! I thank the many noble Lords who put their name to this Unstarred Question at such short notice.
This debate is timely. Although that is said about many Unstarred Questions, I believe it to be so because the second presidential and parliamentary elections in Mozambique will take place in December. This also gives me an opportunity to welcome the fact that Her Majesty the Queen is visiting Mozambique next month after her visit to CHOGM in South Africa, Mozambique being the newest member of the Commonwealth.
The importance of Mozambique becoming such a member is not because north-south relations would be improved but because the Commonwealth is far more important for south-south co-operation. Also, it has a particular role in Southern Africa in uniting many of the countries.
Mozambique is in a period of transition at present. The war which ended in 1990 ravaged the whole country. I first visited Mozambique in 1990 hitching a ride on the truck convoy that went between Zimbabwe and Malawi, through the Tete corridor. I have to admit that to see a country so devastated was a sight which gave me nightmares. At the side of the road I saw people who were living in grass houses. Such grass houses were not traditionally made and properly constructed but built very quickly so that if they had to be left almost immediately, there would be nothing for which to return.
Almost 10 years on, the country is now a different place. I have not been to Mozambique since 1994. Indeed, the High Commissioner told me that if I went back, I would not recognise it. I very much hope that that is the case. It is now a democratic country attracting foreign investment at a rate which would be fairly unusual in many of the African countries.
I started my speech by referring to the elections because the future of the country rests very much upon their outcome. By that I do not mean which party wins but that elections in themselves are incredibly important. The process of election is not only to elect a government but to elect an opposition. It is important to remember that democracy rests on a credible opposition.
A credible opposition is one that can take the government to task. It is not one that has to defeat the government at every opportunity, but one that can make sure that the government are accountable and are being watched at every opportunity. In that respect, I hope that the international community will support Renamo in the years ahead. It acted as a focus for the opposition groups; in fact, many of the smaller parties joined with Renamo in fighting this election against Frelimo. I say that not in a party political way, but because it is good for Mozambique. Many countries suffer when the "winner-take-all" attitude prevails.
An area in which Britain can help Mozambique, perhaps through the Westminster Foundation and maybe through other organisations, is in helping the parties to build up their party structures and produce credible policies that can be distributed to their electorate. One of the great issues that faces emerging democracies is economic pressure. Mozambique is a country with staggering economic difficulties. I want first to talk about health and education.
The international community has an important role to play in adjusting the economic ground rules under which Mozambique will go forward. The health and education systems were badly damaged, in many cases destroyed, by the war. Hospitals were burnt down. Schools were shattered. I remember monitoring the elections in Zambezia and we could not use some of the buildings because they were so badly damaged. Some of the poll stations meant to be in the schools had to be in the roads outside.
Another factor is not just the physical damage, but the damage to the people who make the infrastructures work. The trained staff left. One of the interesting factors in relation to economic growth in Mozambique is that there is a massive shortage of staff because those people who were trained are moving into the private sector where wages are far higher.
One reason why the international community has so much responsibility is because Mozambique is crippled by international debt. It is impossible to conceive that health and education will be able to develop while international debt stands at such a level. The international community is aware that Mozambique is one of the most unsustainably indebted countries in the world. That is why there was an agreement to reduce that debt by 1.4 billion dollars. That must be regarded as helpful. However there is a problem. The figures show that each year Mozambique is expected to service over 100 million dollars of debt—more than it spends on education and health put together.
When reading many of the articles on Mozambique, I picked out one which put forward its hopeless situation very well. Gary Younge from the Guardian said,
"The debt write-off will make somewhere between no difference at all and a negligible improvement, since the debt being relieved was money that the Mozambican government simply could not pay anyway. Between 1995 and 1998 the country paid roughly $113m a year in debt services. After HIPC that figure will drop to around $100 million—almost as much as the Mozambican government spends at health and education combined".
One of the problems I also see with that figure of 100 million dollars is that Mozambique is a developing economy and has a fairly rapid growth rate; however, the country's economic import and export ratio means that it is likely to be dependent on donor aid for some period to come. I realise that the Government have difficulty in writing off each country's total debt burden. But I ask the Minister to remind his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he said he would look at each country on a case-by-case basis. I believe that Mozambique falls into a scenario where a 100 per cent write-off is the only step forward.
Even without debt an interesting problem arises in one area that must be looked at in all debt relief; that is, that more care must be taken to look closely at the situation and not blindly follow principles of economic adjustment. I am thinking particularly of the case of the cashew nut industry in which the World Bank proposed liberalisation on taxation. That led to the collapse of the cashew nut industry. The World Bank has seen the error of its ways, but 8,000 people in one of the few industries lost their jobs.
The situation on the ground in Mozambique gives cause for hope. There is investment. Many countries are looking at large products, even though they are in the south rather than the north. The Commonwealth Development Corporation, in its new form, may play a significant role in that work. Mozambique is an agricultural economy with the potential, through the richness of its soil and its climate, to make significant gains in production. However, agricultural produce is very much subject to the vagaries of the market.
I wish to end on two specific points. The first concerns the landmines which still kill 1,000 people a year. I hope that the Government will not forget that the signing of the Ottawa Treaty did not remove any mines and that they will carry on the excellent work funded by people such as the Halo Trust. Also, I want particularly to thank the Government for pumping money into the AIDS vaccination project—an issue close to my heart and something which I called for on a number of occasions. The Secretary of State recently said that £14 million will be going into that project.
In fear of going over my time, I wish to say that DfID produced a wonderful report which looked at many of the import ant issues such as gender. There is a great deal of hope for Mozambique. but if DfID's target for 2015 is to be met, serious thought must be given to writing off its debt in total.
7.47p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for introducing this debate.
Mozambique is one of the poorest countries in the world, yet it has made considerable strides in the past four years following democratic elections in 1994. It has a committed government, developing coordinated strategies; it has low inflation and many dynamic and engaged partners, including the UK But it faces enormous challenges in continuing to achieve economic growth which benefits the poor. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the speed with which she decided to increase UK support through debt relief and a doubling of the aid programme following her visit last year.
Much has already been said about economic development. I want to say something about targeting rural areas, and particularly to concentrate my brief remarks on one specific aspect of rural development in Mozambique; namely, the role of women. If there is time, I should like also to say a few words about good governance.
Over 70 per cent of the rural population live in poverty. In the rural community women rarely own land, may have less education and their access to productive resources, as well as to decision-making, tends to occur through the mediation of men. Women typically have access to a narrower range of labour markets than men, while studies show women work up to three hours a day more than men. The lack of basic services in rural areas, reliable water supplies, health centres, woodlots and transport, all add considerably to women's workload.
The Government of Mozambique have clearly said that they are committed to the removal of gender discrimination and have signed up to international conventions. But although there is a supportive legislative framework, women's rights are not realised because of traditional beliefs and underdeveloped social and physical infrastructure. For example, girls are particularly disadvantaged in terms of access to education, especially in the northern and central areas where they account for only 39 per cent of students at primary level.
The Department for International Development is, very appropriately in my view, aiming to mainstream a focus on gender across the different sector activities, rather than initiating small-scale projects which target women directly. But the UK is also providing support in other ways. I want to highlight the work of two organisations which are playing a part in the reconstruction process. I must declare an interest in both.
Voluntary Service Overseas, of which I am chair, has 23 volunteers in Mozambique and these will double in the next three years. They focus on teacher training and improving rural livelihoods, particularly for children and women. It is worth noting that English language is a priority for the Government of Mozambique, who see the language as having a role to

95
play in poverty alleviation measures through education and training, through increased employment opportunities and through commerce and trade, as well as increased links with their immediate English-speaking neighbours in the SADC region.
But also, as part of an imaginative development of VSO's work, we have two Portuguese volunteers. These, of course, have to be handled sensitively, as they are seen as "returnees" by some who resent the attempts by Portuguese "returnees" to claim nationalised real estate and industries. However, we hope to extend these possibilities by considering youth exchanges between Mozambican and Portuguese Muslims. Mozambique has many donors. It is important that partnership and collaboration maximise the impact of the resources which are being committed to this devastated country.
The noble Lord emphasised the importance of democracy. I was delighted that he referred to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, of which I was previously a director. It is a UK organisation with a proven track record in delivering high-quality projects in support of democracy building. It has supported six projects in Mozambique specifically focused on human rights training and on voter education. Clearly, that will be enormously important in the forthcoming election. There is much scope for further projects. There is no doubt that democracy is still fragile and civil society relatively weak. There is a great deal that the Westminster Foundation can do, in conjunction not only with our political parties but also with other democracy building organisations working in Mozambique.
I would urge my noble friend the Minister to intensify the work being done in rural communities, particularly where women's chances of employment can be enhanced. At the same time, I urge her to encourage further the development in English language training and in democratic consolidation through the excellent work done on the ground by non-governmental organisations like VSO and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
All those who work in Mozambique speak of the extremely positive feel about it, despite its real and widespread poverty. Its determination to achieve economic growth and its moves towards good governance are good reasons to increase support. But, as the noble Lord said, no one should underestimate the task.
7.53 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for introducing the debate at this excellent time. I do not have his experience because, regrettably, I have never been to Mozambique. Nevertheless, I have a great concern for the eastern seaboard of Africa.
Can the Minister tell us how Mozambique is gaining at present from its new membership of the Commonwealth? I can see enormous value in southern
96
Africa working together. It must be of great advantage to have Mozambique, with its geographical location, working in that organisation. I know that South African interests are spreading northwards a great deal, and I hope that Mozambique is gaining economically, linguistically and in many other ways from its new membership of the Commonwealth.
As has been said, Mozambique has a very good economic growth rate—perhaps up to 10 per cent at times—and aluminium, iron and steelworks are progressing in the country. The government's priority is poverty reduction and, with 70 per cent of the population living in absolute poverty, no one can deny the importance of that aim. But as well as the improvement and investment in those major industrial works, the improving agricultural productivity in rural areas is also extremely important. I believe that about 80 per cent of the population live in rural areas, though I am sure that that will decrease as the years go by.
I was sad to hear about the problems with the cashew nut industry. I am aware that cashew nuts, along with sugar, rice and cotton, are important in the rural and agricultural areas. I hope that the situation will improve and that the industry will recover. As regards the Government's poverty action plan to bring prosperity to the poorest of the poor, I should be glad to know how the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, reckons that is actually working today.
Perhaps I may also refer to the question of debt, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I believe that 80 per cent of the debt being written off is quite insufficient, as this is one of the poorest of the poor countries. It will not take many billions of dollars to write it off, in comparison with what was found, for example, for the Asian economies when they were rescued a year ago. I look forward to hearing from the Minister the present position with regard to the write-off of debt, which is obviously crucially important for the future of the country. It cannot afford even that 100 million dollar debt repayment each year.
I turn now to health and education, to which reference has been made. Can the noble Baroness tell us how the campaign to eradicate polio by next year is progressing? It would be very good news to hear that that has been eradicated from the country. Have the UK Government contributed towards the cost of bringing about that eradication? I am not talking about a large sum of money, but it would relieve much suffering in that country. Further, can the Minister say whether the cost of doing this has been covered for Mozambique?
I am also concerned about the health needs of the under-fives. Can the Minister say whether the health of these children is improving? I recently read that 45 per cent were undernourished. Indeed, as has already been touched upon, there is a great need for rural basic health services, as the distance to the nearest doctor's practice may be much too far away.
There is also a need for primary and secondary schools. Can the noble Baroness say whether there has been any progress in that respect? I confirm what the

97
noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said; namely, that the rural literacy rate for women is half that of the general population as a whole.
Can the Minister say what is the progress on roads and railways generally, especially for rural road access to markets? It is often difficult for people who grow their own crops to get to where such crops can be sold. Further, can the Minister tell the House how landmine clearance is proceeding, particularly in the food production areas and those areas adjacent to school and health facilities?
Logging was another problem, which came to my attention. Much indiscriminate felling of trees took place, which gave rise to fears of possible desertification of some areas. Can the Minister say whether that has now been stopped or whether it is now being planned?
A year ago I met Bishop Denis Singulani of the Anglican Church in Mozambique. Al. that time he was conducting a marvellous programme for interpreting in today's language the biblical injunction to change swords into ploughshares. He told me that many weapons were being handed in and destroyed. In exchange, people were receiving a farm implement, a sewing-machine or something like that. That seemed to me that the Anglican Church was taking a very positive step in the country. I greatly look forward to hearing the Minister's response. If she wishes to write to me in relation to some of the points I raised, I shall be very happy to receive a letter.
7.59p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for having introduced this debate. Indeed it is timely and opportune that this debate should be introduced not only because Her Majesty will be on one of her few visits to Mozambique next month but also because of the imminent second general election on 3rd and 4th December.
As for what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to help reconstruction and development, credit ought to be given to Her Majesty's Government as well as to the international community for their tremendous support since the peace accord in 1992 in transforming what was ranked as the world's poorest country in the early 1990s to, in the words of the Financial Times' special edition on Mozambique last week,
"an unlikely member of the elite club of the Tiger economies at the end of the 1990s".
That is a remarkable achievement.
However, this is not a note of complacency but more an acknowledgement of the extraordinary success of the country's economic reform programme since it was launched in 1986, largely supported by international donors. While the Financial Times special report commended the country's economic achievements it cautioned,
"progress is likely to he hampered by a skills shortage, poor infrastructure and corruption within the bureaucracy".
98
As we are all aware, despite the immensely impressive economic growth over the past decade, Mozambique is still one of the world's poorest countries with GDP per person less than 200 dollars per annum, compared with 3,000 dollars per annum in South Africa and almost 28,000 dollars in America.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, when she called for more recognition for the role of women in Mozambique. I am sure Mrs Machel would greatly applaud those comments as for a long time she has called for greater recognition of the role of women. Clearly the challenges, notably the low adult literacy ratio resulting in a natural skills shortage and the desperate need to increase the school enrolment ratios, as well as the need to reduce the high percentage of the population who live in poverty, remain major challenges to be addressed by the Government. However, there is clear evidence that the Mozambique Government are facing up to these problems but it will take well over a decade to catch up with some of the other African countries, notably Ghana and Uganda. As regards catching up with South Africa and Zimbabwe, that could arguably take several decades, if not 30 years.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that in the run up to the election in the interests of long-term democracy, support should be given for a strong and credible opposition party. 'Even though Frelimo is expected to win the election, many observers believe that Renamo and its coalition with other smaller parties could make the election result far closer than many think will be the case. There is no doubt that for there to be sustainable economic growth there needs to be sustainable political democracy and stability.
Among several of his achievements Mr Chissano has implemented one of the most vigorous privatisation programmes in Africa and sought to reduce further foreign debt exposure combined with controlling public expenditure. Certainly a major boost for Mozambique was the 3.7 billion dollars—the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned a figure of just under 2 billion, but my understanding is that the figure was 3.7 billion dollars—debt relief in July under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative.
The privatisation, particularly of the banks, has paved the way for the opening of the Mozambique stock exchange later this month. While donor assistance played a key role in reversing the downward spiral of the economy in the 1980s and the early 1990s, private investment, particularly by foreign companies from South Africa and Portugal, has ensured a relatively sustainable economic recovery. The two notable projects from South Africa are the opening of the Maputo corridor linking industrial companies in South Africa to the port of Mozambique and the Mozal aluminium smelter which is due to start production in the middle of next year. This increase in private sector inflow should, to a large degree, offset the reduction in future aid inflows into Mozambique.
In conclusion, in addition to the encouraging economic developments unfolding in the country, one of the main challenges for the next millennium in

99
alleviating poverty will be the revival of agriculture so as to narrow the income gap between those who live in the rural areas and those who live in the urban areas. I certainly look forward to hearing what Her Majesty's Government and DFID will continue to do to complement this process. As someone who has lived most of his life in South Africa, my prayer and my hope for the next millennium is that Angola, a country which has been ravaged by civil war but with huge economic potential, will seize the initiative from Mozambique for a lasting peace and the rewards that come with that.
8.6p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I join with those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on raising this important topic. We do well to remember the horrific circumstances which Mozambique faced on achieving its independence. It suffered greatly from the activities of the apartheid government in South Africa and their surrogates, Renamo, which attacked and destroyed everything positive in the country: schools, hospitals, farms and local administration. This, coupled with a severe drought, resulted in mass starvation and economic collapse. It has been estimated that the destabilisation cost the country about 15 billion dollars.
Fortunately, over the past five years there has been an improvement and impressive growth. The country now manages to feed itself and exports both maize and sugar. There has been massive investment in an aluminium smelter which will have a huge impact on the gross domestic product. The GDP has been growing at a rate of 10 per cent. per annum while inflation has been kept low. The currency has stabilised, ending years of depreciation. That is good news, but we have to remember, as we have been reminded during the debate, that Mozambique is still one of the poorest countries in the world and the fruits of recovery are unevenly spread throughout the population. As we have been reminded, the GDP per capita is only 210 dollars per annum.
I wish to press the matter of debt because it is central to the future of Mozambique. Under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative debt will be reduced by 1.7 billion dollars, with repayments down from around 114 million dollars to 73 million dollars per annum. Further debt relief has been promised under the Cologne terms which could reduce payments to 55 million dollars a year. Nevertheless that is still a huge amount of money and the Mozambique Government and civil society have called for the debt to be completely written off. I am aware of and applaud the efforts being made on debt relief by my right honourable friends Clare Short and Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I certainly wish to encourage them to continue to work for a complete debt write-off.
The importance of the rural economy to the people of Mozambique has been stressed. Mozambique's agriculture has had a reasonable spell but farmers' income is dependent on well functioning markets. It is
100
important that those people who are to buy the produce obtain some form of credit at reasonable terms in order to fuel the whole system.
I wish to reinforce the issue concerning the cashew nuts industry. Under the guidance of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the Government in Mozambique have privatised the processing industry. However, following the privatisation, the Bretton Woods institutions demanded that the surtax on the export of unprocessed cashews, which protected the national processing industry, be reduced and eventually removed altogether. As a result of this tariff, almost the whole of the processing industry has had to close down as unprocessed nuts were exported to India, forcing thousands of workers into unemployment.
The Mozambique Parliament, the Assembly of the Republic, voted last month to increase the surcharge. In theory, this jeopardises the debt reduction promised under HIPC and by the major creditors. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will support the decision of the Mozambique Government and that they will work within the IMF and the World Bank to keep debt relief on track.
It often seems that in helping developing countries the world's institutions give with one hand and take away with the other. We recognise the huge poverty of the majority of the population; we recognise that aid is targeted to help the poorest of the poor; but we again give with one hand and take away with the other. For example, the demand that the Mozambique Government introduce charges for water consumption can only do harm in a society where problems with sanitation can lead to increased disease, such as diarrhoea, which can be deadly to the young and vulnerable. Much greater attempts need to be made to understand the circumstances of the country with which we are dealing when trying to impose private sector solutions on developing countries.
I wish to make two other points. First, we need to deal with the major killer in Mozambique; that is malaria. A great deal of research and help is needed to reduce malaria. Secondly, how can we deal with the problem of AIDS, which is becoming increasingly serious? It is estimated that 10 per cent of the population currently have HIV, and it is increasing. How can the developing countries deal with that situation? What can we do to help them deal with this huge problem?
There is one other way in which the Government can help in relation to the economy of Mozambique: they could buy or encourage the international community to buy surplus maize from Mozambique and distribute it as food aid in Angola, where thousands of people face starvation in that war-torn country.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has done us all a service by introducing the debate. The future of Mozambique is strong, positive and optimistic. All of us who wish Mozambique well will hope that our Government will do all they can to help in the future.
8.13 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and with other noble Lords who have spoken. Mozambique well deserves the favours it is receiving currently from the international community. I refer to its status as the latest HIPC to qualify; the encouragement it is receiving from the IMF; its membership of the Commonwealth. and its position as one of the European Union's major aid recipients. The UK alone committed £22 million in bilateral aid last year, placing it close to partners such as Kenya and Ghana.
All this has come from an unusual combination of circumstances. Mozambique has an appalling recent history of bloodshed and colonial neglect. I remember the terror of years of civil war from a short visit to the Church's relief programmes in the 1980s. But it is not sympathy from Europe today so much as the tough conditions that we are offering for our aid, debt relief and trade which now enable us to stand beside Mozambique as donors, potential trading partners and investors.
The cynics say that only the Lack of valuable minerals has saved Mozambique from Angola's fate, but it has other resources: the Maputo corridor; above all, the people of Mozambique, who are determined to return to a degree of prosperity; exports and tourism; economic growth, now close to 10 per cent; and, as we heard, inflation has all but disappeared. Mozambique is a success story; it is off the danger list.
Yet there are shadows, as I discovered during a meeting with Mozambique MPs earlier this year. Some concerned human rights, insecurity and lack of reconciliation; some concerned land ownership and the lack of capital in rural areas. To all of us, the most critical warning sign is the high proportion of people—90 per cent—in extreme poverty, higher than almost anywhere else in Africa; and women's literacy, lower than anywhere else. How will the Department for International Development achieve one of its stated policy aims, an improvement in the condition of the poor?
I asked the noble Baroness this question in a debate this summer: will cur aid programme have the capacity to realise this aim? Or will it, because of the need for skilled personnel and hi-tech programmes, be tempted to remain in the sectors of transport and public services and export-led private investment? The DfID is stretched. While supporting major programmes, such as the Customs service, through the Crown Agents, it is also looking for ways of developing health and social services on the ground and specialised work in sectors such as water resources and demining.
I understand the importance of infrastructure, but I know how easy it is for us outsiders to send more experts and even run the services in the cities, and how hard it is to identify projects in the poorer rural areas, where education and training can take place at an appropriate level, such as the VSO schemes the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, described. The two have to hang together. In Mozambique—as often in post-conflict countries—it is difficult to spend money
102
effectively precisely because of the lack of infrastructure and of trained people. I remember from my visit meeting young graduates who were in such demand from government that they hardly had time to think or sleep.
Here I have a more general question. Technical assistance is a sine qua non—we all see the necessity for it. But how much is the Government doing to train people inside the country. I know that there is a valuable British Council programme, but it is on a comparatively small scale. What is the record of Mozambique trainees after they return? I suspect that many who have been educated abroad go into the private sector. Are we training at too high a level? How much inter-regional training is taking place? Are we doing enough to help the very effective small NGOs, such as the Rural Mutual Aid Association, whose work is described in this month's DfID magazine? What is the outcome of the DfID workshop on land rights held in February?
There is an urgent need to support local institutions, especially in agriculture. I was delighted to read of our Government's support for a rural roads project in Zambezia province. That is just the kind of thing we should support. My visits to Africa always leave me with the impression that any money given to hi-tech large-scale projects—which, we should not forget, help our own economy at the same time—could have been invested in sustainable development.
I have another question for the Minister: how will the Paris Club or the IMF donors ensure that the considerable funds now arising in the form of debt relief will genuinely contribute to the eradication of poverty? Will there be some kind of local monitoring of debt relief such as takes place in Uganda.
I do not belittle progress so far, even though it has come from a low base. The Government have just published their Poverty Action Plan. The IMF reports on the improvement of social indicators. In 1996–1998. the primary school enrolment rate increased from 62 per cent to 71 per cent; coverage for key vaccinations increased from 58 per cent to 77 per cent; primary classrooms have increased by more than 60 per cent. These are encouraging statistics against Mozambique's recent political background.
But to sustain them, as is the case in many African countries, our Government will have to place even more emphasis on improving those skills which directly benefit the poor.
8.19 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for introducing the debate. As noble Lords have observed, the first state visit of Her Majesty to Mozambique will take place on the 15th of next month. We on these Benches have no doubt that that occasion will buttress the good relations engendered as a result of previous ministerial visits, not least that of the Minister this year. Visits to our own shores by President Chissano, other members of his government and by members of Renamo have been just as frequent.

103
I make this point for a simple reason. Good and honest relations between nations are the seed-bed from which trust and healthy dialogue can flourish. Processes of reconstruction and development, upon which the noble Lord's Question concentrates, flow quite naturally from that. Within the general terms of the noble Lord's Question, and while acknowledging that everyone would always wish that more could be done, I believe that the Government's approach to Mozambique is to be commended. Suffice it to say that this is comprehensively and succinctly defined in DfID's Country Strategy Paper for Mozambique, with rural development in the Zambezia province and the customs reform project being of particular note.
As noble Lords have observed, presidential and parliamentary elections are due to take place early in December. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made the point that since the end of the debilitating and destructive civil war in 1992 and the democratic elections of 1994, the country has made great strides in delivering to its people good governance. As the Secretary of State for International Development observed:
"Good governance is a crucial component of the economic policies that benefit the poor".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/4/98; col. 312.]
But last year's municipal elections, with voter turnout of only 15 per cent nationwide, are a cloud on the horizon. Democracy is as much about participation as it is about representation. I ask the Minister to clarify what assistance the Government are giving to Mozambique in this context?
Other noble Lords have quite rightly mentioned debt relief. We on these Benches attach as much importance as the Government to the HIPC initiative. It would have been nonsense for Mozambique to have been excluded from the provisions by virtue of the Paris Club's 80 per cent threshold. The Government's action in offering their pledge of 10 million dollars of additional relief as a catalyst for others to follow is therefore to be applauded. But, despite this success, we hope that the Government acknowledge—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that there are risks associated with pursuing unilateral action; that, in the words of the International Development Committee of another place, this should be,
"reserved for occasional cases where it will unlock relief from other creditors".
Debt relief has many virtues, in so far as it is a mechanism that can inspire sustainable economic management within the nations concerned. But there are two sides to every coin. As other noble Lords have observed, the continuing presence and involvement of the Commonwealth Development Corporation will be critical, particularly as a conduit to attract foreign investment. As of 1998, the CDC had a portfolio invested in and committed to Mozambique of over £50 million and growing. I hope that the Minister can give the House some more up-to-date figures in this context, as well as confirming that the Government are committed to using their influence to facilitate the CDC's capacity to expand yet further in the area.
104
As observed by my noble friend Lord Brentford, this underscores an important aspect of Mozambique's development in recent years, its forging of meaningful links regionally and geopolitically. President Chissano's current chairmanship of the SADC enhances the reputation of his country regionally. Equally, Mozambique's admission to the Commonwealth in 1995 affords her a much wider profile globally, as exemplified by the international conference in May of this year when the signatories to the Ottawa Convention met in Maputo. Indeed, in this context, and like other noble Lords, we on these Benches would welcome the Government's assessment of progress on mine clearance. The benefits of the work of the NGOs and Churches in Mozambique—I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them—should not be underestimated. All of this is important, not only in terms of engendering greater credibility throughout the world, but also in terms of instilling self-belief and self-esteem among the Mozambican people.
I have one final point to make. Having reviewed various pronouncements from the Government as to their future plans for aid, I have emerged somewhat confused. In a verbal answer in July 1998 the Secretary of State stated,
"We are likely to treble our programme over the next few years".
Conversely, the Country Strategy Paper, dated this month, states:
"We envisage doubling the bilateral programme by 2001".
I simply ask the Minister which commitment we should view as the correct one.
I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness, not only to my questions, but to all the many issues that have been raised in this most intriguing debate.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for initiating this important debate about Mozambique's development. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and other noble Lords for their positive comments about the work being undertaken by the British Government in Mozambique.
I agree with the noble Lord that the debate is timely. He referred to the state visit. Her Majesty the Queen, accompanied by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, will pay her first state visit to Mozambique on 15th November, following the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Durban. The visit programme will include meetings with the leaders of the two main parties and the formal opening of UK-Mozambique Co-operation Week and the British Council's new classrooms. There will also be a state banquet.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, specifically raised the question of the benefit to Mozambique of membership of the Commonwealth. Mozambique is the 44th and most recent member of the Commonwealth. The wider benefits of being part

105
of a Commonwealth community will flow to Mozambique, as will other regional implications. Several noble Lords have already referred to the fact that President Chissano has an important regional role as chairman of the Southern African Development Community. He took over the role at the SADC Summit in Maputo in August 1999.
The Government of Mozambique are committed to poverty elimination and are firmly in control of their own development process. Their development priorities include public investment in health, education, water and sanitation, as well as actively supporting strategies to increase agricultural productivity in rural areas. There is evidence from elsewhere in Africa and beyond that sound macroeconomic policies are essential in the fight against poverty. Countries with stable economies tend to grow faster. I am pleased to acknowledge that the Government of Mozambique have been following sound macro-economic policies for over a decade and that their macro-economic policies remain stable. None-the-less, the Mozambique Government remain concerned that high growth is not having an adequate impact on levels of poverty; hence their commitment to using resources released by HIPC to increase spending on activities that help to reduce poverty.
The British Government have been a regular provider of fast dispersing programme aid to Mozambique in recent years, in particular through the provision of direct budgetary support to help the Mozambique Government meet the costs of servicing their debts to international financial institutions. I shall return to debt, relief presently.
Political stability is also important, and I hope that the parliamentary and presidential elections due to be held in early December will further strengthen democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made reference to the importance of those elections, while other noble Lore s have referred to the need for promoting good governance. Our Government are funding the costs of international observers for the elections, which will include the training of local observers and the provision of post-election recommendations to the Government of Mozambique on improving systems for future elections. In addition, we are contributing to a joint EU election observation mission which will co-ordinate with others sent by our EU partners to observe the elections in all provinces of the country. I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that more than 85 per cent of potential voters registered between July and September. I hope that that is a good sign in terms of the numbers who will actually participate in the elections.
The outcome of both the presidential and parliamentary votes could be close but a peaceful and generally fair election is expected. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that a new election law was passed in December last year to address Renamo's concerns over the Jane 1998 municipal elections. The voter registration law was amended to call for new registration for the entire electorate, which took place
106
from July to September this year. These laws will govern the holding of the 1999 general election in December.
The British Government's development assistance programme in Mozambique has as its main aim a poverty elimination focus, in particular by developing programmes in key sectoral areas such as health and education, where the benefits will be felt by the poorest. We envisage a growing programme with more national impact.
I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that our programme will support Mozambique's own poverty reduction strategy and will encourage progress towards the international development targets through four main impact areas: improved economic and financial management; a more effective and efficient public service; sustainable rural livelihoods; and improved quantity and quality of education and health for poor people. To achieve this ambitious programme, partnership with the Government of Mozambique, with civil society and the private sector is essential. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that that partnership is important and that we need to pay tribute to the work of civil society in this area.
I shall now try to address the specific issues raised by noble Lords but in the time available I may not be able to cover all areas. I undertake to write to noble Lords if I do not manage to cover a specific question or issue. My noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, raised the question of debt relief. Mozambique received HIPC debt relief in June 1999. Before receiving HIPC relief, it would have cost Mozambique 2.7 billion dollars to pay off all its official debts in one go. HIPC reduces this sum by 1.7 billion dollars. Mozambique's debts will he cut further by approximately 250 million dollars when the revised HIPC package agreed at the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank is applied retrospectively to Mozambique. This will halve the amount that the Mozambique Government spend on servicing their external debt in comparison to what they were paying in the five years before HIPC. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the Government of Mozambique are committed to spending the domestic resources released by external debt relief on activities which will help reduce poverty in Mozambique. We have developed a country strategy paper following consultation and we are committed to monitoring the effectiveness of our programmes.
Our Government have been a leading supporter of the Government of Mozambique's eligibility for HIPC debt relief. We have contributed approximately £1 5 million to help the African Development Bank meet its costs of writing down its Mozambican debts. We have also used programme aid to help ensure that the Government of Mozambique could meet the costs of servicing international financial institution debts in the run up to HIPC. However, we do not support the call for total debt forgiveness. Concessional resources that are required for HIPC and other forms of

107
development assistance are finite. Cancelling all Mozambique's debts would be at the expense of other poor countries, not all of which are benefiting from the HIPC initiative. While we need to cancel the unpayable debt, we need to recognise that debt of itself is not bad. All countries have debt, and invested wisely loans will enable a country to develop more quickly. Our Government cancelled all Mozambique's aid debts to them in the 1980s.
My noble friend Lady Warwick mentioned the importance of sustainable rural livelihoods. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, is correct. Almost 80 per cent of Mozambicans live in rural areas and most are smallholder farmers. About 71 per cent of the rural population lives in absolute poverty. Improving the returns to smallholders is critical if poverty is to be cut. Mozambique has enormous agricultural potential and there has been a large increase in agricultural output since the end of the civil war in 1992, as returning refugees brought their land back into cultivation. Until recently, most of DfID's assistance has been provided through international NGOs. The largest of those is the World Vision Rural Livelihood Programme in Zambezia which aims to deliver research, extension credit and restocking of livestock to the poorest farmers.
With respect to gender discrimination, as raised by my noble friend Lady Warwick, a key strand of DfID policy is the removal of gender discrimination in all our programmes. Rather than initiating small-scale projects which target women directly, DfID is aiming to mainstream a focus on gender across the different sector activities. I do not have time to go into examples of that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, mentioned transport. A great deal of Mozambique's infrastructure was either deliberately destroyed during the war or deteriorated owing to a lack of maintenance. The Government of Mozambique have sought donor funding for the rehabilitation of key public infrastructure and there have been impressive gains. The school network has been returned to its prewar coverage, the coverage of primary health facilities has expanded and more than half the road network has been rehabilitated, some of that with funds from the British Government.
A number of noble Lords mentioned health. Since the end of the civil war the government's health sector recovery programme has made significant progress in replacing health infrastructure destroyed in the conflict. On the specific question of polio eradication, the Secretary of State for International Development announced an additional £20 million for a programme of polio eradication.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of private sector development and foreign investment. Mozambique has only a small but rapidly developing private sector, based largely in Maputo. The Government of Mozambique have been successful in attracting inward investment. That includes a 1.3 billion dollar MOZAL aluminium smelter which is part funded by the CDC. DfID is considering
108
supporting a multi-donor funded, but Government of Mozambique/private sector-led, programme to help formal sector businesses devise strategies to improve their competitiveness.
My noble friend Lord Hughes raised the specific issue of cashew nuts. There have been criticisms that the conditionality included in these programmes infringes on Mozambique's sovereignty. A Bill has recently been pushed through the Mozambique national assembly awarding a slightly greater degree of protection for the cashew processing industry. I cannot go into the question of land mines now but I will write to noble Lords.
In closing, I want to leave the House with the impression that I gained when I was in Mozambique earlier this year. It is one of the poorest countries in the world but immense hope is felt there—not only among politicians, civil servants and businessmen but ordinary people. Mozambique is an emerging success story. The Government are committed to continuing to support Mozambique's efforts to lift millions of ordinary Mozambicans out of poverty.

Greater London Authority Bill
8.39 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 317 [The Mayor's air quality strategy]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 544WA:
Page 176, line 34, leave out ("likely") and insert ("predicted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 544XA and 544ZA. This small group of amendments relates to air quality strategy. Two of them are relatively unimportant but one is most important.
Clause 317(3)(a) states that the London air quality strategy shall contain information about
"the air quality in Greater London and the likely future air quality in Greater London."
The word "likely" is imprecise and we would prefer it changed to "predicted". This is one of those debates about the meaning of words that the Minister and I will continue to have over the years, if we are both blessed and spared.
Amendment No. 544XA would remove the words
"to be encouraged by the Mayor"
from Clause 317(3)(c), so that it would read
"the measures which other persons or bodies are to take for the purpose of the implementation of the London air quality strategy."
That is more positive than measures that the mayor encourages people to take. Some people might take adversely to encouragement from the mayor. If that provision is removed, they will be obliged to take such steps, which would be a good thing.
Amendment No. 544ZA is more significant than the previous amendments—which, it could be argued, are a matter of taste in the English language. Clause 324 deals with consultation by local authorities with the mayor. Those mentioned are

109
"(a) any local authority in Greater London,
(b) any local authority whose area is contiguous to the area of Greater London."
In any prolonged period of high pressure during the summer, one of the most polluted atmospheres in the country, surprisingly, is coastal Suffolk. That pollution arrives from the Ruhr because in continuous, relatively still conditions and high pressure, that is the way pollution drifts.
If the atmospheric conditions are right, much of the sulphur that is deposited on the ground or is present in the atmosphere in this country arises in the south of France and northern Spain. Again, that is due to atmospheric drift.
Anybody who took the trouble to examine the maps that were produced with great accuracy after the Chernobyl disaster will be aware that radioactive dust from that particular hiatus travelled huge distances, sometimes at heights not far from the ground. Where that appalling dust finally landed was very much a lottery.
Atmospheric movement is unpredictable, so we thought it appropriate to add to Clause 324,
"any local authority other than those mentioned…which shall be otherwise affected."
The result of the movement of atmospheric pollution from London has not yet been sufficiently studied. We can he reasonably confident that it does not stop at the boundaries of those authorities that are contiguous with London. We can be absolutely certain that pollution spreads much further than that.
I accept that there are difficulties in deciding where that boundary might lie, but authorities that may be adversely affected as a consequence of atmospheric movement, when more is known about it, should not be prevented from having a say in matters in which they could have a direct and positive interest. I ask the Minister seriously to consider Amendment No. 544ZA, whatever he does with the two other amendments in the group. I beg to move.
8.45p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, Amendment No. 544YA enables matters that the mayor considers should be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State to be included among the information that the air quality strategy may contain.
In Committee, my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that the mayor might discover during the course of research matters that it would be useful for the Secretary of State to know, and that it would be useful for the public to be aware that the Secretary of State would know about them. The Minister was sympathetic to that suggestion and asked for the opportunity to consider it, with the possibility of returning to the matter at a later stage.
Although the Government have not chosen to take up that opportunity, they have accepted the principle that there might be instances where such a provision would be useful. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, air moves and is in no one's particular domain much of the time. Often, there may be issues
110
that are more relevant to decisions that the Secretary of State can make but the mayor needs to feel that he or she can exert some influence. I look to the Minister for further explanation as to why the Government have not felt able to incorporate an amendment for which they previously had some sympathy.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, each amendment raises a different issue. Amendment No. 544WA would require the strategy to contain information about "predicted" rather than "likely" air quality. If something is likely, it has a high probability of occurring but is not absolutely certain. If something is predicted, that, too, is supported by evidence—so the difference is not that clear. The wording in the clause is the same as that used in the Environment Act 1995, which refers, as does the Bill, to "likely future air quality" in the context of local authorities' air quality management duties. So it is for consistency that we have used the word "likely" in this provision. I have not been convinced that there is any need to change it.
The second of the noble Lord's amendments would require the mayor's air quality strategy to contain information about measures which persons or bodies are to take for the purpose of implementing that strategy, rather than information about measures which the mayor encourages them to take. The Bill already requires the mayor's air quality strategy to contain certain information. Some of that information relates to measures which are to be taken by the authority, by Transport for London, and so on. The words "are to be taken" reflect the fact that in that set of circumstances the mayor can influence the actions of those bodies. In contrast, the amendment would require the strategy to contain information about measures to be taken by persons or bodies over which the mayor has no influence but only the ability to encourage. That is therefore a different category from those relating to the functional bodies of the authority. I trust that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree that the amendment would be inappropriate.
Amendment No. 544YA, tabled by the noble Baroness, would require the mayor to include in the strategy such matters as he or she considers should be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness is correct to say that my noble friend indicated that she thought that there was perhaps an issue here and we took the matter away for consideration. We have taken legal advice and, while not dissenting from the objectives presented to us by the noble Baroness, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
We entirely accept that the Secretary of State will need to be informed of progress in managing air quality in London. But Clause 317 of the Bill already requires the London air quality strategy to include information which will be relevant to the implementation of the strategy, including information relating to the measures that persons or bodies are to be encouraged by the mayor to take for the purposes of such implementation. That provision will allow the mayor to include information about the measures that he or she would like the Secretary of State to take for

111
the purpose of the implementation of the strategy or information that might be needed by the Secretary of State in order to take measures himself to support the strategy. Therefore, the existing provision in Clause 317 covers the point sought by the noble Baroness.
I understand rather better than I did when I read it in black and white on the page the intention of the final amendment. I am not sure that it is in fact geared to the noble Lord's objectives. I understand both the argument that it is not necessarily boroughs within London or authorities immediately contagious to London—I should say "contiguous" to London, although in this context they would possibly be contagious as well! I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord sought to extend the number of boroughs that must consult the mayor to the Ukraine, as appeared at one point. Certainly, pollution arises on the Suffolk coast, for example, which may affect London; and pollution in boroughs down-wind of London may affect authorities beyond London.
But the obligation in this clause is on boroughs which must consult the mayor, not boroughs which the mayor must consult. Clearly, if implications arise from the mayor's air quality strategy that affect other local authorities throughout the UK, the mayor should consult those authorities. He may wish to consult authorities whose situation he believes may detrimentally affect his strategy. But this is a requirement on those authorities to consult the mayor. I am not necessarily suggesting that the noble Lord should think up another amendment at this stage in the Bill, but I believe that he is approaching the matter the wrong way round. I hope, therefore, that he will not pursue the amendment.
I hope that in the light of these explanations, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment and that the other amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, his final point applies equally to areas which are up-wind of London. Am I right in understanding that under the amendment to the Environment Act, areas which are not contiguous to Greater London but which might give rise to pollution that affects London are not required to consult the mayor?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is indeed the case, as it is under local authority legislation more generally. There is no overall requirement for a local authority to consult on the effects of its own air quality strategy except in specific circumstances in relation to particular pollution matters. The desirability of consulting is still there. But, as I say, the amendment would in any case provide a requirement to consult the other way round.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. With regard to the first two amendments in the group, I think I am content. I did not expect either more or less than I received. With
112
regard to the third amendment, if I misinterpreted the clause, then I am at risk. However, I think I shall find it irresistible to attempt to return to the matter.
There is a very real problem. At present, not sufficient is known about atmospheric movement. Atmospheric movement takes place vertically as well as horizontally. What is presumed to be the prevailing wind on the ground is all too often not the prevailing wind at 5,000 or 10,000 feet. That can often be observed by standing and feeling the wind on your face and watching the clouds move in a completely different direction over your head. There is an issue here, and I shall consider it further. Whether I need to do anything about it at Third Reading remains to be seen. I do not wish to make the mayor's life difficult but in regard to atmospheric pollution we all need to be much more conscious of what we are doing and of the fact that it can have a surprising impact in locations that are not the ones we first think of. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 544XA and 544YA not moved.]
Clause 324 [Consultation with the Mayor]:
[Amendment No. 544ZA not moved.]
9 p.m.
Clause 325 [The London ambient noise strategy]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 544A:
Page 179, line 26, leave out ("contain") and insert ("consist of").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 544B, 544C, 544D, 544DA and 544F. I shall refer later to the reason for not moving Amendment No. 544E.
Clause 325 requires the mayor to prepare and publish a "London ambient noise strategy". In Committee, we agreed to look at this clause again. The amendments tabled here are lengthy but are not as dramatic as they seem.
Our purpose is to clarify what is expected from the mayor's London ambient noise strategy so as better to reflect the intentions contained in the White Paper. The amendments also address concerns expressed during earlier stages of the Bill about transport being included in the strategy and consultation with the Environment Agency.
The sharp-eyed among your Lordships will have noticed that a typographical error has crept into Amendment No. 544E. The words "(e) or (f)" in line 1 of subsection (4A) should not be there, because if this amendment were agreed to there would be no paragraphs (e) or (f) in Clause 325(4). I shall not move Amendment No. 544E today and will come back with a correct amendment at Third Reading. We note that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is not in his place. I am sure that he would have enjoyed this moment.
A number of drafting changes limit what the strategy may consist of, remove reference to the spatial development strategy and ensure that the Environment Agency is consulted when the mayor prepares or revises

113
his strategy. We have also provided that the mayor's strategy may contain information about the impact of noise on those living and working in London. By way of background, Amendment No.544E deletes the existing subsection (4) and replaces it with a new form of words that detail the types of noise excluded from the mayor's strategy. They are the matters dealt with by local authorities under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and by local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. This amendment would remove the reference to statutory nuisance so that if a local authority did not, on investigation, consider noise from premises to be a statutory nuisance it would not come within the remit of the ambient noise strategy of the mayor. There is a provision to ensure that noise caused by aircraft and traffic and from a fixed industrial source is not excluded from the strategy.
I turn to Amendment No. 544DA proposed by the noble Baronesses. Lady Hamwee and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. It is our intention that the definition of "ambient noise" in the mayor's strategy should be widened to include all transport. I agreed to consider the wording of the clause when the noble Baronesses tabled amendments in Committee. The amendments now Brought forward by the Government respond to the change tabled here. I therefore ask that that amendment be withdrawn.
I apologise for going into the detail at length but I felt that, having given notice that there would be a further amendment tabled at Third Reading, it would be helpful for noble Lords to read it in advance. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for accepting the point that I raised at the previous stage—Amendment No. 544DA—and dealing with it. I note her observation about noise that is not regarded as a statutory nuisance. I am rather disappointed by that approach. Ambient noise goes much wider than noise which comes from a particular source that is a statutory nuisance. I believe that the aim of the mayor should be to attempt to reduce the overall noise level, whether or not it is a statutory nuisance. Noise is an enormous factor in stress. From these Benches we have said a good deal about the role of the mayor in improving health. I remain unconvinced that the approach contained in Amendment No. 544E, and whatever may be its successor at the next stage, is the right one.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, perhaps I may address two points. I appreciate that Amendment No. 544E is to be amended. First, will the provision cover amplified music? Reference is made to loudspeakers and amplified music. Secondly, as to Amendment No. 544G, no mention is made of helicopter noise. There is a good deal of civil as well as police helicopter activity. Is that covered?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I appreciate that we may not have gone quite as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would have liked, and
114
for that I am sorry. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asks about the control of helicopter noise. It would not be appropriate for the mayor to exercise direct control since airspace planning and air traffic control are specialised tasks. As with other aircraft, the mayor will have the right to be consulted on any airspace changes that are liable to have significant adverse effects on the environment.
A query was raised about amplifiers. I betray my age and ignorance of more modern ways of making sound if I say that I would have thought it impossible to use a loudspeaker without amplification. I am not sure whether it is possible to amplify without the use of a loudspeaker. I believe that both points are covered, but if I am wrong about that I shall write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that Amendments Nos. 544B to 544D should be moved en bloc. However, I point out to the House that if Amendment No. 544D is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 544DA.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 544B to 544D:
Page 179, line 27, at end insert ("and the impact of such noise levels on those living and working in Greater London").
Page 179, line 29, leave out from ("above") to ("on") in line 30.
Page 179, line 36, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) In this section—

"ambient noise" means—

(a) noise related to transport, including road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft and water transport; and

(b) noise of such other descriptions as the Mayor may consider it appropriate to include in the matters dealt with by the London ambient noise strategy.

but does not include noise falling within subsection (4) below; and

"noise" includes vibration.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 544B to 544D en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 544DA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 544E not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 544F:
Page 180, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) In preparing or revising the London ambient noise strategy the Mayor shall consult the Environment Agency.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 544G:
After Clause 325, insert the following new clause—

Greater London Authority Bill

  CONSULTATION ABOUT AVIATION NOISE
  (" .—(1) A person who provides air navigation services shall consult the Mayor about the matters specified in subsection (2) below where it is reasonably practicable to do so.
  (2) Those matters are—

  (a) the proposed alteration by that person of any route used regularly by civil aircraft before arrival at, or after departure from, any aerodrome;

  (b) the proposed addition by that person of any route to be so used;

  (c) any substantial alteration proposed to be made by that person to procedures used for managing the arrival of civil aircraft at any aerodrome,

  where the proposed alteration or addition will have a significant adverse effect on the noise caused by civil aircraft in Greater London.
  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above the reference to a route used regularly by civil aircraft includes a reference to the altitude at which such aircraft regularly fly.
  (4) In this section—

  "aerodrome" has the meaning given by subsection (1) of section 105 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982;

  "air navigation services" shall be construed in accordance with that subsection;

  "noise" includes vibration.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 544G I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 544H. These two additional clauses are designed to implement the commitment in the White Paper that the mayor will have the right to be consulted about any change in departure or arrival routes, or capacity, at airports that may have significant environmental effect, and for his or her views to be taken into account.
  Providers of air navigation services will be under a duty to consult the mayor where the carrying out of these services would have a significant adverse effect on noise or vibration caused by civil aircraft in Greater London.
  The mayor will be added to those organisations to be consulted by aerodromes which have been designated under Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Amendment No. 544G is a clause to introduce a duty on providers of air navigation services to consult the mayor. Amendment No. 544H will amend Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to provide the designation by order of any aerodrome to the same effect.
  As my noble friend said earlier, clearly the air navigation system is responsible for air movements. The amendments provide the mayor with a means of influencing decisions which relate to the strategy on air traffic over London. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest, living in west London, directly under the main flight path into Heathrow. However, it is an interest shared by many people who feel disturbed by aircraft noise in that sector of London. I express disappointment that the clause is relatively narrowly drafted. I should have liked to have seen a somewhat
  116
  tougher provision. At times, the existing noise level is pretty unbearable. People do not feel affected simply by alterations and additions.
  As I understand the clause—no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the provision is merely a right to be consulted. The mayor has no powers which can be brought to bear. Can the Minister also confirm that the clause does not extend to additional movements on a specific route. The amendment refers to the addition of a route. A reference to "new route" might make the provision easier to understand. However, extra volume of traffic on a route is not covered. I hope that I have misread the amendment. I look forward to the Minister's clarification.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government recognise the concerns about aircraft noise across London. We are determined to do whatever is practical to reduce the amount of aircraft-induced noise, in particular from Heathrow. After the phasing out of Chapter II traffic, which will be a major improvement, that becomes more difficult and there are uncertainties. We are doing all we can in relation to that.
  However, it would not be appropriate to give the mayor direct powers in this area, as was made clear by a number of noble Lords and myself in Committee. Clearly the managers of Heathrow would need to take seriously the mayor's views as regards the development of Heathrow.
  The mayor has the right to be consulted about any changes in departure or arrival routes, or any addition to those routes, and any change to the capacity at the airports. Therefore the mayor has some rights to influence over the volume as well as over the direction of aircraft. But it does not mean that the mayor is a party to decisions on the number of aircraft on a particular route at any given time. However, he has the ability to influence those strategic decisions.
  Earl Bathurst: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the mayor will have control over the height of aircraft? The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to numbers, as did the Minister. Much of the noise involves the height of aircraft. Has the mayor the chance to regulate at what height aeroplanes come in over which area of London or elsewhere? Height is not mentioned.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, because the mayor has no direct powers in this respect, the answer is no. That is covered by the civil aviation Acts. There are strict regulations. The noble Earl may feel that they are not always observed. Sometimes heights are deceptive. Nevertheless, there are strict regulations over heights under the Civil Aviation Act and the regulations thereunder. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the CAA in that regard.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 544H:
  After Clause 325, insert the following new clause—

  CONSULTATION AT AERODROMES
  (" .—(1) Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (facilities to be provided by certain aerodromes for consultation with bodies representing local interests) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (2) (persons or bodies to be consulted) there shall be inserted—
  "(3) The reference in subsection (2)(b) above to any local authority includes in relation to the area of Greater London a reference to the Mayor of London acting on behalf of the Greater London Authority.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 545 and 545A not moved.]
  Schedule 25 [The Cultural Strategy Group for London]:
  9.15p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 546:
  Page 342, line 29, at end insert—
  ("( ) In sub-paragraph (4) above "such bodies" shall include bodies with knowledge and experience of the needs of disabled people.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 546, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 548 and 552. I have grouped these amendments together because there is a common purpose behind them.
  I wish to ask the Government what they believe should be the role of the authority, the mayor, and his or her cultural strategy group with regard to the promotion of good practice as it affects access to culture, media, sport and tourism in Greater London—access by those people who have special individual needs.
  I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that everybody loses out when disabled people do not have a chance to con tribute to society. As the Royal National Institute for Deaf People pointed out to me,
  "So often the omission of references to disabled people (in legislation or regulations) arises from pure oversight; and yet if they arc not explicit, the obligations to develop precise mechanisms for consultation and inclusion are not there".
  The RNID goes on to say,
  "Such mechanisms often save money in the long run because they reduce the need for expensive changes later on".
  There was a passing reference in our debate at Committee stage to the matter of access. I believe that this month is a particularly appropriate one in which to discuss such matters. It was at the beginning of October that the second stage of the Disability Discrimination Act came into force. The Act makes it illegal to discriminate against a disabled customer. However, the regulations that kicked in this month require providers of public services to take reasonable measures to change practices, policies and procedures which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.
  There are two other new obligations. The first is that one should provide auxiliary aids and services. The second is that one should provide the service by a
  118
  reasonable alternative where there is a significant barrier to access—something as common sense as reading out a menu to a customer who has problems with sight or reading.
  When I read the August issue of Hospitality Matters, which is the magazine of the British Hospitality Association, I learned that:
  "While some major groups [of hotels and restaurants] have recognised the implications of this, many hospitality businesses are unaware of what action they need to take both now and by 2004 when the Act is fully implemented".
  I note that they are not unwilling to make the changes. It is a matter of not knowing about them. I pay tribute, of course, to all hospitality businesses that have been working so hard to comply with the Act and the changes that came into effect this month.
  The basic problem remains that many businesses in London are simply unaware of the new requirements. I suppose it is hardly surprising, since the hospitality industry itself is necessarily made up of a vast number of small businesses, often family run, who will not have the Disability Discrimination Act on their bedside table as late night reading, or indeed a human resources department to help them.
  My general question behind this group of amendments is: what does the Government expect the authority, the mayor, the cultural strategy group to do about it? For the record, I will very briefly explain the effect of each amendment.
  Amendment No. 546 refers to the way in which the mayor appoints the members of the cultural strategy group. Paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 25 provides that when the mayor appoints members, he or she must first consult such bodies or persons as he or she considers appropriate. My amendment would make it clear that the bodies to be consulted should include those bodies that have knowledge and experience of the needs of disabled people.
  Amendment No. 548 refers to the draft strategy presented by the cultural strategy group to the mayor. My amendment would introduce a new requirement in Clause 329, the clause which states that the cultural strategy group shall put together a draft cultural strategy and present it to the mayor. My amendment would make it a requirement that the draft strategy should promote good practice among service providers to ensure that disabled people are not excluded from the enjoyment of culture, media and sport in Greater London. I claim no virtue out of choosing the wording. I have simply lifted it from the Access Survey which is currently being carried out nationwide by Scope, the organisation for people with cerebral palsy. I felt that if they had got it right, it must be right.
  The final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 552, inserts into Clause No. 331 a duty upon the authority
  "to promote good practice among businesses and community leaders to ensure that disabled people are not excluded from the enjoyment of tourism facilities in Greater London".

  119
  I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the House will accept that we are very sympathetic to the intention behind this group of amendments. It is proper that the needs of disabled people should be considered and taken into account in relation to culture. Of course, the mayor can and, if I dare say so, should take account of the needs of disabled people in that way. The Government are particularly keen that disabled people should not be excluded from facilities and amenities that are accessible to others, nor from the enjoyment of culture which is fundamental to the quality of life of all of us.
  The noble Baroness, in moving the amendment, referred to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and I am grateful to her for quoting the parts of that Act which came into force at the beginning of this month. The point is that it applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Greater London. The cultural strategy group for London and the mayor will be able to make further specific provision for the disabled through the cultural strategy, to which the noble Baroness referred and which is referred to in Amendment No. 548, as part of the overall vision for cultural development in London.
  Noble Lords will recall that throughout the Bill there has been discussion about national policies and about their role in the policies of the Greater London Authority. In developing and carrying out his duties, in this respect as in all others, the mayor must also have regard to policies at the national level. As regards tourism duties, the point clearly made by the noble Baroness about the need for restaurants to be suitable for the deaf and other disabled people. The mayor will need to refer to the tourism strategy, Tomorrow's Tourism, which we published in February and which has been debated in this House on several occasions. The noble Baroness will recall that widening access to tourism opportunities is a key priority in the strategy.
  It is important that all aspects of the tourism experience are made accessible to everyone. In line with the Disability Discrimination Act, the strategy informs the industry of its duty as service provider to make "reasonable adjustments" for disabled people. The noble Baroness quoted the same part of the Act. For that reason, we believe that Amendment No. 552 is unnecessary.
  I turn to Amendment No. 546. I can confirm that bodies with knowledge and experience of the needs of disabled people are, under the existing terms of the Bill, ones from which the mayor may choose to appoint representatives to the cultural strategy group for London. It is precisely because we are reluctant to prescribe the content of the draft culture strategy that we want to leave the possibility that such issues may be included in the strategy. That reply refers to Amendment No. 548. As we have said on a number of occasions, attempts to cover everything in legislation are more likely to lead to important topics being excluded. This is the problem of lists, to which we shall return soon.
  120
  It is not our policy to prescribe all the good things we can expect the mayor to do. It is fundamental that we must leave it to the mayor's discretion. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful for the Government's response because the Minister dared to comment on what the mayor should do. I appreciate that, throughout, the Government have assiduously avoided being prescriptive; so much so that when we on this side of the House have tried to punch the punch-bag of the Bill it has seemed to be full of nothing. However, on this occasion I welcome the Minister's comments that the cultural strategy put forward by the group to the mayor should give proper regard to the requirements of people with special needs and that the mayor, as the Minister dared to say, should have regard to such matters. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 547:
  Page 342, line 31, at beginning insert ("After formal consultation with the members of the Cultural Strategy Group,").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, paragraph 3 of Schedule 25 provides that the mayor shall appoint one of the members of the cultural strategy group to chair it. In Committee, I probed the procedure for appointing the chairman. At present, it is left to the mayor's personal preference. In debate, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, came up with what I thought was a rather practical and helpful suggestion to avoid the cronyism about which the House was concerned. Certainly, his suggestion is the basis of the amendment before the House this evening.
  Amendment No. 547 would leave the appointment with the mayor but would ensure that, before that appointment was made, he would first have to consult formally with the members of the cultural strategy group. That would make the process all the more transparent and give more credibility to the chairman, when appointed. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness has certainly reported the terms of the Bill correctly. The Bill provides that the mayor should appoint one of the members of the cultural strategy group to chair the group. Amendment No. 547 would require the mayor to consult the members of the group before making the appointment. I too recall the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, describing with some passion things that had gone wrong in the British Museum some time ago.
  I recognise that the noble Baroness is compromising on the previous proposal that the group should make its own appointment. But we are talking about a new body—at least in the first instance. It seems to me most likely that the mayor will want to appoint the chair first and then to consult with the chair to appoint the cultural strategy group for London. In other words, the process will take place the other way round, and

  121
  not in the way suggested by this amendment. That is the approach normally adopted when setting up new bodies, at least in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It seems to work well. It does not seem to smack too much of cronyism, and it seems to provide chairs who have something significant to contribute and groups with which they can work. If the amendment were passed, the procedures would be reversed. The mayor would have to make the appointments first so that he could consult the members.
  However, it may be that the mayor will wish to take soundings from the members already appointed, and it will be open to the mayor to do so. As I said before, we are giving the mayor the power to appoint somebody who has authority and experience over a wide range of cultural fields. It should be for the mayor to decide how he makes that appointment and whether to consult the group, but there will be no obstacle to that happening.
  I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that our proposals are more flexible and would provide the safeguards she seeks.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. The Government's flexibility could be abused, though not indeed, of course, if my noble friend Lord Archer were elected as the mayor to implement this proposal. There is always the worry that future candidates might act in a different manner. However, I take to heart the Minister's remarks about perhaps putting the cart before the horse, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 329 [The Mayor's culture strategy]
  [Amendment N. 548 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 549:
  Page 181, line 3, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to the generality of the duty imposed by subsection (1) above,").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment. with the leave of the House, I shall speak briefly also to Amendment No. 550 to which I have added my name but which will be spoken to far more expertly by my noble friend Lord Teviot. Both amendments refer to Clause 329(5).
  In Committee, we considered several amendments which tackled what your Lordships considered to be the deficiencies of. subsection (5). That subsection describes the policies that may be contained within the culture strategy. Concern was expressed from all sides of the House that the list omitted some vital policy issues. The Government were, however, keen to keep the list in its current form. At that stage, the noble Lord, Lord Whitey, held out some hope that the addition of only ore policy issue might. be accepted by the Government—that of archives. That was at col. 1716 of Hansard. I took careful note of what the
  122
  Minister said. My noble friends and I have taken great care subsequently to table only those amendments to Clause 329 which might meet his requirements.
  Amendment No. 549 was suggested to me by the Open Spaces Society as a practical and rather pragmatic way forward. I thank it for its assistance. The society has expressed its thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his assurances in Committee that the GLA will have adequate powers to deal with the matters of open spaces and recreation. Those matters are of concern to the society as well as to the public at large.
  In a letter to the Minister it pointed out that it is extremely important that the eventual Act, together with the accompanying explanatory notes, should be reasonably clear to intelligent people who wish or need to understand the work of the authority and its possible effect on their own interests without the need to take specialist advice.
  The society still believes that the categories set out in Clause 329(5) cannot be considered to be a truly balanced list. However, it accepts and understands the Government's dislike of adding several further items. Therefore, the society offers a solution. It points out that another formula has been used in similar circumstances in previous legislation. That formula is the basis of this amendment. It is an amendment which I believe would make the coverage of subsection (5) more intelligible.
  I also refer briefly to Amendment No. 550 in the name of my noble friend. In Committee I argued strongly in support of the text of the amendment—an admirably short text of just one word. Therefore, I shall not abuse Report stage procedure by simply repeating those arguments in full. However, I bellieve that my noble friend's amendment has great merit. I am aware that the Government are sympathetic to Amendment No. 550. I hope that they will be able to give my noble friend good news today. I beg to move Amendment No. 549.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Teviot: My Lords, in following my noble friend, I add only that there has been an extra piece of news between Committee stage and now. In Committee I spoke at length on the amendment. I received a good response from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and appreciated every word that he said. In a recently published report, Archive to the Millennium, by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, this amendment was specifically included and warmly supported.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand from what was said by the noble Baroness that her purpose in moving Amendment No. 549 is to ensure that we achieve our objective of seeing that the list of topics that may be included in the culture strategy remains exemplary and that no proper topics are excluded from the consideration. I am happy to repeat that it is our intention that in Clause 329 the list of topics is exemplary. However, we have taken legal

  123
  advice on this matter, and the advice is that that is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
  As the noble Baroness knows, we have resisted additions to the list because it is already very long. However, I now propose to make one very small exception. Amendment No. 550 adds only one line and only one word. I confirm what was said by my noble friend Lord Whitty; that is, that we regard archives as an important part of the cultural life of the nation and we wish to raise the profile of archives. That is why we have included them among the strategic responsibilities and in the name of the new museums, libraries and archives council. London in particular is the home of many unique and important archive collections which play a vital role in defining the capital city's cultural identity.
  Therefore, we have listened to what was said in Committee and in another place. We have reached the conclusion that we should acknowledge the weight of sentiment expressed on this matter and include archives in the illustrative list of subjects which may be contained in the cultural strategy for London.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for tabling the amendment, and we shall accept it. The effect will be to insert archives on a new line as a separate sub-heading underneath library services. I am sure that the House will understand that we should be very reluctant indeed to make further additions to the list because that might well be interpreted, however incorrectly, as implying that the list should be seen as exclusive.
  As I said, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press Amendment No. 549.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am grateful that the Government took legal advice regarding Amendment No. 549. I will not press that amendment. However, I thank the Minister for his remarks about the archives. I am sure that such remarks will be heard with great pleasure, not only within but outwith this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 550:
  Page 181, line 11, at end insert—
  ("( ) archives;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 551:
  Page 181, line 28, at end insert—
  ("( ) In this Act, references to the culture strategy include, except where the context otherwise requires, a reference to the culture strategy as revised.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 330 [Grants by the Mayor for museums, galleries etc.]
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 551ZA, I must inform the House that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 551A tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 551ZA:
  Page 181, line 29, leave out ("pay grants") and insert ("provide financial or other assistance").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 551ZA I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 551A to 551C. In introducing the government amendments in this group I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness for tabling Amendment No. 551A and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who made this proposal in Committee.
  The changes will extend the authority's power to pay grants to cultural institutions in London under Clause 302, permitting the authority to give assistance in a way other than financial.
  I said in Committee that we would consider the proposal. We have done so and agree that it is a useful addition to the powers of the mayor. We prefer a slightly revised wording. Our amendments, therefore, differ in that way. There are also some minor consequential amendments the effect of which will be to introduce the extended power originally sought. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we thank the Minister for taking the point on board. As regards Amendment No.551 B, what is the rationale for inserting a reference to "financial assistance" rather than "financial or other assistance"? This provision deals with making a grant or financial assistance subject to conditions. It does not seem to me that other assistance should necessarily not have conditions attached to it.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is entitled to an answer. The references to financial assistance apply to grants only, in line with tourism provisions. Does that make sense to the noble Baroness?
  Baroness Hamwee: No, my Lords.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nor it does to me. I shall write to the noble Baroness. I can assure her that there is nothing malign in the change of wording.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 551B and 551C:
  Page 181, line 31, leave out ("grant under this section may be made") and insert ("financial assistance under this section may be provided").

  125
  Page 181, line 36. leave out ("repayment of the grant") and insert ("the making of repayments in respect of the financial assistance").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 331 [Duty of the Authority to promote tourism]:
  [Amendment No. 552 not moved.]
  Clause 334 [Interpretation of this Part and exercise of Authority functions]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 552A:
  Page 183, line 29, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Chapter").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are technical amendments. We have inserted a chapter heading which does not require amendments but, having inserted it, we want to refer to the chapter rather than to the whole parts of the Bill.
  I take this opportunity of reminding the House of something that I said in Committee. We intend to provide an explicit full power for the cultural strategy group for London to act on behalf of the authority in respect of all the functions under Part X. This is a technical amendment but it will have to await Third Reading. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 553:
  Page 183, line 29, at end insert—
  (""improvement in tourism amenities and facilities" means a measured improvement in customer service;").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Greater London Authority has a duty imposed on it by Clause 331 to,
  "encourage the provision and improvement of tourist amenities and facilities in Greater London".
  Amendment No. 553 would define "an improvement" as being a measured improvement and not one simply left to guesswork and the personal preferences of members of the authority.
  One might ask how such a measurement could be made. The London Tourist Board has already supplied the answer. During the summer the LTB published its London Customer Service Monitor (not the most attention-grabbing headline in the world) which is a fascinating read. It is a report about what the people who live and work in London really think about the service we receive in hotels, pubs, museums and transport—the whole range of services covered by this part of the Bill. An important aspect of the work being carried out by the London Tourist Board is that it is updating that research over the next eight months so that there will be a comparative picture of service standards in London building up over that time. That is the kind of work that is essential if the authority is to carry out its duty effectively to encourage improvements in services.
  Do the Government agree that that is a useful method of measurement and one that should and could be adopted by the authority, or do they have some other method in mind for proving that improvements have actually taken place? I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid I am not able to be so sympathetic to this amendment. It adopts a prescriptive and very restrictive approach to improvement in tourism amenities and facilities.
  The effect of Amendment No. 553 is to define "improvement" in tourist amenities as meaning a measured improvement in customer services. The noble Baroness asked whether we felt that was a useful definition. It is a useful definition, but if we accepted the amendment it would be the only definition; it would be exclusive. In other words, measured improvements in customer service would be the only sense in which tourism amenities and facilities could be said to have improved.
  We do not feel it is appropriate to restrict the definition of "improvement" of tourist amenities and facilities in that way. That is because it is not just tourist amenities and facilities which are under the control of our policies, but anything which is used by tourists. We cannot readily measure improvements in customer services for things which are used by tourists. Suppose, for example, we improve the pavements. Tourists use them; they are better off. But what is the measured improvement in customer service?
  In any event, as I said earlier, in developing and carrying out such duties the mayor must have regard to policies at the national level. They include the tourism strategy, Tomorrow's Tourism, which sets out the key themes for the tourism industry, including the need to develop and spread quality. Ways in which that can be achieved include the need to have a trained and motivated workforce; to provide products that suit customer needs; and to provide better information for customers. All of those initiatives lead to an improvement in customer service. Therefore we do not need a separate amendment of this kind, since improvement in customer service is included at the national level and must be taken into account by the mayor in developing his strategies. I hope I have persuaded the noble Baroness that there is no advantage in our accepting this amendment.
  9.45 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am, of course, disappointed that the Government cannot be quite "so sympathetic" towards this amendment. I understand they are arguing that it would be too restrictive. However, with regard to the Minister's remark about tourists using pavements, I believe that there are ways of measuring such improvements and not just flippantly saying that not so many people fall over. It is possible that some councils are better than others at putting in dropped curbs or studs for those who are partially sighted and those without sight. There are indeed measured improvements that one can make. I have listened to the Minister's response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 553A:
  Page 183,1ine 38, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Chapter").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 553B:
  After Clause 334, insert the following new clause—

  TRAFALGAR SQUARE
  (" .—(1) The functions of the Secretary of State under section 2 of the Trafalgar Square Act 1844 (care, control, management and regulation of the Square and its ornaments etc) are transferred by this subsection to the Authority.
  (2) In that section, the words from "by and out of such Monies" to "by Authority of Parliament" shall cease to have effect.
  (3) The functions transferred to the Authority by subsection (1) above shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 553C, 553D and 576NA. These amendments make provision for the transfer of day-to-day responsibility for Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the GLA. Both squares will remain Crown land. The mayor will be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the fabric of the squares—that is to say, cleaning, lighting and structural repairs to statues—and for controlling and licensing use; for example, giving permission for rallies and events, advertising and filming on Trafalgar Square.
  Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square are public places of great historical and cultural importance to London. They both have a role in the life of the whole nation. It is appropriate that the mayor should have responsibility for them. The transfer of the squares is considered essential to the implementation of the "World Squares for All" master plan project, on which the mayor will take the lead. This is a flagship project, which demonstrates how, through careful traffic management and some pedestrianisation, we can redress the balance between vehicles and pedestrians, improve the historic environment and give these great squares back to Londoners and visitors to enjoy.
  I should like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's strong commitment to the World Squares project and to seeing the proposals developed and implemented as soon as possible. Perhaps I may also add a personal note. As chairman of the GLC central area planning and transport board in the mid-1970s, when the "Three Squares" project was started—comprising Leicester Square, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square—I was able to see through the Leicester Square part but was frustrated as regards the other two squares. Therefore, I have a particular personal interest in seeing that this project goes through.
  Given management responsibility for Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square, together with the responsibility for strategic routes including Whitehall, the mayor will be able to champion the World Squares scheme and ensure that a consistent management regime can be established through the project area.
  The Bill gives the GLA the power to make by-laws applicable to the two squares, for which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be the confirming authority. These will replace the existing parks and other open places regulations. The funding currently provided by the Culture Secretary for the care and maintenance of Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square will be transferred to the GLA. The mayor will be able to seek the expert advice and assistance of English Heritage and other bodies in making arrangements for the specialised maintenance of the squares and the monuments in them.
  It is intended to lay further amendments on Third Reading to give the mayor new enforcement powers (which the Culture Secretary does not have) equivalent to those of Westminster City Council, the neighbouring local authority, to control illegal trading in the squares. This will enable the mayor to deal effectively with the longstanding and ever-increasing nuisance caused by illegal traders in Trafalgar Square and to prevent such problems arising in Parliament Square. However, anyone looking at the square in its current state will realise that there is not much scope for illegal vendors, or anything else.
  The intended further amendments will also give the Culture Secretary the power to issue guidelines to ensure the effective care, control, management and regulation of the squares. The intention is to issue guidelines initially to reflect current policy for managing in particular Parliament Square. This approach recognises the national significance of the squares and provides a policy steer without constraining the mayor's discretion to carry out his or her new responsibilities. The mayor, and any other person or body exercising the mayor's functions, will be required to take the guidelines into account when exercising any duties or powers with respect to the squares.
  It is envisaged that the mayor will make contracts and arrangements with other organisations in respect of most of these functions. For example, Metropolitan Police constables and officers of Westminster City Council could undertake policing functions in the squares, the latter specifically in relation to unlicensed traders. It is intended to lay a further amendment to ensure that it will be beyond the scope of the mayor's powers to engage private persons or organisations such as private security firms to undertake policing functions.
  However, any decisions on whether a particular march, rally, assembly or demonstration should take place in the squares are to be taken by the mayor—consulting others such as the Home Office—and not delegated to one of the other organisations I have just mentioned. The Government believe it is right to ensure that decisions affecting the longstanding tradition of public access to Trafalgar Square for demonstrations and rallies should be taken by a democratically elected authority. We intend to lay a further amendment at Third Reading to give effect to this requirement.
  The House authorities have confirmed that the inclusion of Parliament Square will not render the Bill hybrid because the transfer of responsibility relates only to Crown land and no private interest is involved. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, these are significant new clauses transferring the management responsibility for Trafalgar and Parliament squares from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the Greater London Authority. As the Minister has remarked tonight, both Parliament and Trafalgar squares are of national importance, part of our national heritage and part of our being. When visitors from the rest of the UK come to London for the first time, they make a beeline for the squares and carry away with them memories and perhaps photographs that last for ever.
  The importance of Trafalgar Square was very much in our minds last week because of Trafalgar Day. Yet despite the importance of this amendment I am rather dismayed that the Government are asking the House to pass it today in its half-finished form. As the Minister said, further amendments will be laid next week at Third Reading. These amendments were laid by the Government only on Friday. I had some slight prior knowledge of the amendments thanks to the courtesy of civil servants whom I telephoned last week to find out what on earth had happened to one or two amendments that the Government had flagged up in Committee but which seemed to have died in the wings somewhere along the line between Committee in July and Report in October. I was informed that one of the two amendments might not appear today and would probably appear at Third Reading but that other amendments were waiting in the wings that were far more significant than those I was inquiring about on the telephone. The civil servants said nothing improper at all; everything was absolutely within the rules. I was relieved that the regional policy branch was up to date in its work but I was dismayed that the House was not to be made aware of everything that was going on until such a late stage.
  Last week the Minister gave me his word—which he has kept in full—that he would give a proper explanation today. Therefore I shall not discuss each and every aspect of the amendments that he is to propose next week. I shall refer to one aspect of those and to some aspects of the amendment that he has laid today. I welcome what the Minister said with regard to changes to the law which will hit those unscrupulous people who are "ripping off" tourists—there is no other way to put it—by selling hot dogs, burgers, you name it, from unlicensed trolleys that they wheel around. Suspect food is certainly being sold to unsuspecting tourists. I am sure that we on this side of the House would welcome any moves to try to prevent that continuing. Such rogue traders only give the licensed tradespeople a bad name. After all, restaurants, cafés and fast food outlets all have to follow serious regulatory regimes on hygiene issued by environment departments. These rogue traders can do pretty much
  130
  as they like and "hoof off '—I beg noble Lords' pardon; that is unparliamentary language. I should say that they make a quick exit.
  I am aware of a court case earlier this year which makes it very difficult to apprehend people selling such food on Crown land. As I understand it, the court decided that it is only the owner of the trolley—I cannot think of another word for it—who can be prosecuted, not the person selling the food. It is of course very difficult to find out who the owner is.
  Turning from what is in the amendment to what seems to be missing from it, the Minister has assured us that there will be a transfer of resources. Will that be each year, year on year, with the normal increase in spending awards, or will it be a one off payment?
  The Minister referred to demonstrations and that the responsibility for saying yea or nay as to whether a demonstration may be held will be transferred to the authority, to the mayor. Have the Government carried out any assessment of what the impact will be of this transfer of power from central government to, in effect, the GLA? He mentioned policing and other matters. Will there be any change in the way in which demonstrations are allowed, or will the rules remain the same as those which currently pertain, bearing in mind that it is always very difficult to ensure that these rules are enforced?
  In Amendment No. 553D, subsection (2) relates to penalties for contravening by-laws. Will the penalties be at the same level as is currently the case? At present, one is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. Will the current level of penalty continue?
  Have the Government taken into account how long it takes to introduce by-laws? I have received a very helpful note from Westminster City Council on the matter. It suggests that a more effective approach would be for the Bill to provide that the management of the squares should become subject to the powers and duties of the London local authorities legislation. That would immediately and effectively solve the problem and also ensure quick action to tackle some of the current difficulties.
  These are significant amendments. I am disappointed that they have reached us at such a late stage. I look forward to seeing the amendments at Third Reading. I hope that they will make imperfect amendments slightly better.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am very unhappy with the amendments. I know that the noble Lord has a great interest in world squares. That is a good thing; I do not dissent from it. He said that Leicester Square is a success. As I understand it, it is managed by Westminster City Council.
  Going back to my day, we had to remove the pigeon droppings many times every day from Leicester Square. It is an enormous problem in Trafalgar Square. When I was chairman of the local health committee we tried giving these feral pigeons contraceptive pills. Unfortunately they did not work, as we can see, and the pigeons developed a taste for them. We then paid

  131
  someone to take all the spare pigeons out of London. That was not much use because they all flew straight back in.
  Pigeons are a great health hazard and people find them very unpleasant. There are some people who misguidedly believe that they are doing some great kindness by encouraging the birds. The only person who really wants to encourage them is the man selling the pigeon food. I was very sorry when the man who trapped the pigeons and sold them to restaurants was arrested and stopped from doing so. I thought that at least someone was doing something.
  The day-to-day management of the square is important. I can understand the noble Lord's point that there needs to be permission to hold a rally or other event in the square, but it would be very practical if the day-to-day management of Trafalgar Square—and, to a certain extent, Parliament Square—was carried out by Westminster Council. What will happen if it is hemmed in by a big walled area surrounded entirely by Westminster with only the square as the exception? The situation has always been unsatisfactory in terms of the square's management and control. Nowadays, the authorities are better able to control the sale of illegal or unpleasant food.
  Westminster has a very good licensing system. In my day the council would not issue anyone a licence—I do not know why they allowed illegal trading. The authority was absolutely opposed to licences. However, since then the system has been changed and licences are issued. Vendors must prove that they are of good character and they must meet the basic requirements. It would be much more practical for the council to deal with the problem. As I understand it, the Greater London Authority is intended to be a strategic authority rather than an operational one. If it embarks on setting up street cleaning services and other tasks—I take the noble Lord's point that such matters could be contracted—it seems to me that the process will be that much more circuitous and less efficient than if the day-to-day management was given to the local authority and all the other powers were retained by the council.
  My noble friend made an important point on by-laws; how quickly would they be produced and would they be effective? Those points are important and can be dealt with fairly quickly. However, I am concerned to learn that yet another set of amendments will be brought forward. I am not happy with the ones before us, and if yet more are added, that will concern me even more. I am not in favour of the amendment.
  10 p.m.
  Earl Bathurst: My Lords, with reference to the comments of my noble friend as regards pigeon droppings in Trafalgar Square, can the Minister confirm that if his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be involved,
  132
  will shooting syndicates be formed for the squares to clear up the pigeons? I should be glad if he could confirm that point.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her welcome to the amendments. At the beginning of her speech she wondered whether they had died. It was not so much that the amendments had died, but that they were struggling towards birth. The litter—if I may describe the point in terms of animal husbandry rather than those of waste management—is not yet complete. For that reason, we shall have to bring forward further amendments at Third Reading.
  The noble Baroness asked me whether the resources to be transferred from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be moved on a continuing basis. The answer to that question is yes. In regard to the impact on demonstrations and rallies, the noble Baroness is right in thinking that the initial guidelines will describe the current practice for granting permission for such demonstrations. We all recognise that this is rather like Speaker's Corner. It is an essential part of our liberty in this country that there should be rallies and that there should be control of rallies only if there is real risk of public disorder. That is why the power to grant permission for rallies and demonstrations should not be given to any body other than a democratically elected authority.
  The noble Baroness also asked whether the penalties for contravening by-laws will continue in their present form. I can confirm that the answer to her question is that they will. One of the reasons for issuing guidelines to describe current practice, to which the mayor shall have regard, is that, as the noble Baroness rightly observed, it can take a long time to establish new bylaws. At the instigation of Westminster City Council, the noble Baroness asked me whether the London Local Authorities Act could be used. However, that is a local provision and thus could not apply to Crown land.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, took me back to the 1970s and the situation regarding Leicester Square. It was because of the relationship between the Greater London Council, on which she and I both served, that it was possible to manage Leicester Square by agreement between Westminster and Camden Councils. But as the noble Baroness may have noticed, there is now no Greater London Council. That is why we have to make these different arrangements.
  As to the day-to-day management of the squares, the amendments make it clear, and the Bill will make it clear, that contracting on issues such as cleaning and maintenance can and certainly will go outside. Other things being equal, it is common sense for them to go to Westminster City Council. But as some parts of the responsibility, including control of the statues, has to stay with the mayor, because these are of perhaps not strictly strategic but certainly London-wide importance and national importance—indeed, international importance—it seems better to make the transfer here and then to contract specific duties back to Westminster City Council.

  133
  The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, referred to the continuing involvement of the DCMS. It will be in the form of the guidelines which I described. The noble Earl can speculate as he wishes as to what those guidelines will contain. I was rather amused by his example of how to deal with pigeons. None of us has succeeded anywhere else in doing it. As for pigeons, the Secretary of State will have no continuing involvement. It will be a matter for the mayor. I am sure that the Secretary of State is very pleased to have that taken out of his hands.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he accept that I did not agree with the amendments? The approval I was showing was for the fact that I agree that Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square are of national importance. I certainly agreed with the noble Lord's comments with regard to that. I did not in any way imply that I believed that the amendment carries out something that is necessary or welcome in itself. The noble Lord will, I hope, have taken note of the dismay that I expressed with regard to the late tabling of the amendments and to the fact that they have been tabled in a half finished form.
  Has the Minister also taken note of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Gardner with regard to the fact that the House is not in a position at the moment to give proper scrutiny to the amendments because other matters are outstanding which will come forward next week? In view of those matters, will the Minister withdraw the amendment at this stage and simply bring back the amendments at a later stage on Monday when they can been seen in their complete form in the round with the other amendments to which he has already spoken today?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the last thing I would wish to do is t o put any words into the mouth of the noble Baroness. I accept what she says about her reservations about the content of the amendments. I certainly agree with her that it would have been better if we had been able to produce all of them before that. However, these amendments are not in themselves defective. They are valuable. We made the decision that it was better to put them forward now for debate rather than to save all the amendments until the last ones were available at Third Reading. If we made the wrong decision, I can assure the House that it was made with the best of intentions—to ensure that there was as much proper debate as possible and that we gave notice of the content of the amendments which we will introduce next week. It was with the best of intentions that we took this action. In the circumstances I think it is best that we pursue these amendments now—on the basis that they are themselves complete and perfect rather than have them stillborn, if I may return to my previous metaphor.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I make a final plea to him to reconsider. Many amendments to the Bill have been put down and questions have been left unanswered because the amendments came in late and we did not have the
  134
  opportunity to consider them. Nor has the Minister had the opportunity to answer questions properly. We have discussed those matters at great length. I understand that the amendments were put down on Friday and that the Government need the other amendments as part of a package—despite the Minister's comment that they are complete in themselves.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may be aware that the Under-Secretary of State and the Chief Whip discussed with the House earlier the fact that many of the amendments that should deal with people working for the GLA have not even been drawn up. So far as Third Reading on Monday is concerned, those amendments will not be ready—which probably means that Third Reading will extend to Wednesday. There is no shortage of time. We have discussed the amendments at length and it would be much better policy for the noble Lord courteously to withdraw the amendments so that we can deal with the whole issue on Third Reading.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot accept that argument. I made clear in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we sent the amendments to her and all noble Lords who had expressed an interest in this part of the Bill on Thursday—although the amendments were only put down for publication on Friday. I made it clear also that the amendments are sufficient in their own right and serve a useful purpose. I was trying to be helpful in giving as much advance notice as I could of further amendments.
  The amendments have been available for debate. Any noble Lords who wanted to question their content could have done so, yet nobody has done so within the rules of Report stage. I have answered all questions— none of which struck me as being particularly antagonistic. Under the circumstances, it would better to proceed with the amendments. They will be printed and if noble Lords have second thoughts and want to amend them, they can do that—which they could not do if the amendments are withdrawn now. We can consider the related amendments on Third Reading, without wasting additional time. I hope, on mature consideration, that that meets with the approval of members of the Opposition Front Bench.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 553C:
  After Clause 334, insert the following new clause—

  PARLIAMENT SQUARE
  (" .—(1) The land comprised in the site of the central garden of Parliament Square (which, at the passing of this Act, is vested in the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport) is by this subsection transferred to and vested in Her Majesty as part of the hereditary possessions and revenues of Her Majesty.
  (2) Nothing in subsection (1) above affects—

  (a) any sewers, cables, mains, pipes or other apparatus under that site, or

  (b) any interest which was, immediately before the passing of this Act, vested in London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries.

  (3) The care, control, management and regulation of the central garden of Parliament Square shall be functions of the Authority.
  (4) It shall be the duty of the Authority well and sufficiently to light, cleanse, water, pave, repair and keep in good order and condition the central garden of Parliament Square.
  (5) The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by this section are in addition to any other functions of the Authority.
  (6) In consequence of the preceding provisions of this section, any functions of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of section 22 of the Crown Lands Act 1851 (duties and powers of management in relation to the royal parks. gardens and possessions there mentioned), so far as relating to the whole or any part of the central garden of Parliament Square, shall determine.
  (7) Subsections (3) and (4) above shall have effect notwithstanding any law, statute, custom or usage to the contrary.
  (8) Any functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by virtue of this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
  (9) In this section "the central garden of Parliament Square" means the site in Parliament Square on which the Minister of Works was authorised by the Parliament Square (Improvement) Act 1949 to lay out the garden referred to in that Act as "the new central garden".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 553D:
  After Clause 334, insert the following new clause

  BYELAWS
  (" .—(1) The Authority may make such byelaws to be observed by persons using Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square Garden as the Authority considers necessary for securing the proper management of those Squares and the preservation of order and the prevention of abuses there.
  (2) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with any byelaws under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
  (3) The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by this section are in addition to any other functions of the Authority.
  (4) Any functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by virtue of this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
  (5) In this section—

  "Trafalgar Square" has the same meaning as in the Trafalgar Square Act 1844;

  "Parliament Square Garden" means the central garden of Parliament Square, within the meaning of section (Parliament Square) above.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 554 to 556 not moved.]
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 556ZA:
  After Clause 337, insert the following new clause—

  THE SUPERANNUATION ACT 1972: DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS
  (".—(1) The Minister for the Civil Service may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, delegate to any person the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, so far as relating to employees of any of the bodies specified in section 337(1) above.
  (2) A person to whom the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 is delegated under subsection (1)(a) above may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may determine, authorise the exercise of that function by, or by employees of, any person.
  (3) Where a person is authorised under subsection (2) above to exercise the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to him (or an employee of his) in. or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function shall be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by the person who authorised him.
  (4) Subsection (3) above does not apply for the purposes of—

  (a) any criminal proceedings against the authorised person (or any employee of his); or

  (b) any contract between him and the person who authorised him, so far as relating to the function.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 564, 564A and 565. The first amendment makes two changes to the Superannuation Act 1972, which is the legislation governing the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The amendment provides for responsibility for the operation of the CSPS, the GLA and each of its functional bodies to be delegated to the bodies themselves or other such persons within each body as the Minister for the Civil Service deems appropriate. In addition, the amendments provide for the GLA and its associated bodies to sub-contract administration, although there is no obligation to do so.
  Noble Lords with sharp eyes may have noticed the cross-reference in sub-paragraph (2) to "subsection (1)(a)", which does not exist. That is a typographical error, for which I apologise. We checked with the House authorities, who confirmed that the meaning and intent is clear. If the amendment is passed, that error will be rectified in the next printing of the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 564 and 565A are both technical amendments, to change references to "Corporation of London" to "Common Council". We went over that ground earlier. Amendment No. 564A adds a Minister of the Crown to the list of successor bodies in Clause 351(2) to which the property, rights and liabilities of existing bodies listed in Clause 351(3) can be transferred. The intention is that the property, rights and liabilities of the London Ecology Unit, the London Planning Advisory Committee and the London Research Centre will be transferred to the Secretary of State at their abolition, prior to transferring to the GLA on 8th May. This amendment provides the necessary powers for that to occur.
  The first of these amendments relates to pensions, and the noble Baroness mentioned that the pensions of those who work for London Underground will be transferred to the private sector as part of the public private partnership. That is a different issue to the one covered here. We have been unable to table amendments for Report and it is our intention to do so for Third Reading, which may require some adjustment to the timetable. That is a matter for the usual channels, as the noble Baroness and I have discussed. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 556A not moved.]
  Clause 342 [Provision of information, advice and assistance by functional bodies]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 557:
  Page 186, line 22, leave out ("subsection (2) below") and insert ("the following provisions of this section").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 558 to 563.
  Amendments Nos. 557 to 563 fulfil the Government's commitment to tidy up the mayor's power to obtain information, advice and assistance from the functional bodies. The effect is to limit the duty to supply information, advice and assistance to that which the mayor may reasonably require for exercising her or his functions. The amendments also simplify the Secretary of State's power, by order, to make appropriate arrangements to protect privacy and confidentiality. We anticipate that the arrangements will be based on Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 558 to 563:
  Page 186, line 24, leave out ("require") and insert ("request").
  Page 186, line 24, at end insert—
  ("( ) The information, advice or assistance that may be requested under subsection (1) above is such in formation, advice or assistance as the Mayor may reasonably require for the purpose of discharging functions of the Authority which are exercisable by him.").
  Page 186, line 26, leave out ("confidential").
  Page 186, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
  Page 186, line 31, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
  ("(c) impose further limitations on the exercise of the powers conferred on the Mayor by subsection (1) above.").
  Page 186, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 343 [Research and collection of information: London Research Centre etc.]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 563.A:
  Page 187, line 15, at end insert—
  ("(3A) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the Authority to make, or assist in making, arrangements whereby information falling within subsection (3B) below which is in the possession of the Authority is made available to any of the bodies and persons mentioned in subsection (3)(a) to (c) above.
  (3B) The information which falls within this subsection is—

  (a) information collected, or the result of any investigation carried out, by the Authority under subsection (1)(a) above, and

  (b) information collected, or the result of any investigation carried out, other than by the Authority which has been transferred to the Authority by virtue of an order under section 351 below or a scheme under section 352 below.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a loophole that we have noticed in the provisions at Clause 343 of the Bill. The clause provides the Secretary of State with a fall-back power enabling him to instruct the GLA to make research data that it has collected available to others, in recognition of the
  138
  important role it is inheriting from the LRC. However, the current provisions do not extend to research work carried out by predecessor bodies but inherited by the GLA. The amendment makes clear that the Secretary of State's power should extend to enabling him to instruct the GLA to make available information transferred to it under the transfer provisions at Clauses 351 and 352 of the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 563B:
  After Clause 346, insert the following new clause—
  ("Overseas assistance

  OVERSEAS ASSISTANCE
  .—(1) Section 1 of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (power of local authorities to provide advice and assistance overseas) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted —
  "(6A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the Greater London Authority shall be treated as having skill and experience as respects a particular matter if—

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

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

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

  (3) In subsection (9)(a) (authorities given power to provide assistance) after "Wales," there shall be inserted "the Greater London Authority,".").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment provides for the GLA and the LDA to be able to provide assistance under the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act, meeting assurances given by Ministers earlier in the passage of the Bill.
  Similar provision is not needed for TfL, which already has the power to offer such assistance under paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 to the Bill, or for the police or fire authorities, which are already covered by existing legislation. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 563C:
  After Clause 347, insert the following new clause—

  THE LONDON PENSIONS FUND AUTHORITY: FINANCE
  (" .—(1) For each financial year the London Pensions Fund Authority ("the LPFA") shall prepare—

  (a) a statement containing a draft budget for the LPFA. for that financial year and specifying the amount of any levy which the LPFA proposes to make on any class of authority in respect of that year by virtue of any levying bodies regulations; and

  (b) a statement of the LPFA's strategic plans and objectives for that financial year and the two following financial years;

  and shall submit those statements to the Mayor on or before 31st December in the preceding financial year.
  (2) If—

  (a) the Mayor gives the LPFA any comments on a statement submitted in accordance with subsection (1)(a) above, and

  (b) those comments are given on or before 31st January immediately following the submission of the statement,

  the LPFA shall have regard to the comments in setting its budget for the financial year to which the statement relates.
  (3) In this section—

  "levying bodies regulations" means regulations (at the passing of this Act, the Levying Bodies (General) Regulations 1992)—

  (a) made under section 74(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and

  (b) having effect in relation to the LPFA by reason of a levying power which the LPFA would have, apart from section 117 of that Act;

  "levying power" means a power to make a levy conferred by or under any Act other than the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (at the passing of this Act, the power conferred by article 4 of the London Government Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) Order 1989);

  "net expenditure", in relation to the LPFA, means all expenditure and costs incurred by the LPFA less receipts (if any), but excluding—

  (a) any expenditure or costs payable out of, or

  (b) any receipts which fall to be credited to,

  the superannuation fund maintained by the LPFA under regulations under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972.
  (4) This section has effect in relation to financial years beginning on or after 1st April 2001.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause to complete the framework for fulfilling the commitment in the White Paper to bring the London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA) under the control of a democratic London-wide authority. Clause 348 already transfers to the mayor the Secretary of State's functions in relation to appointments to the board of the LPFA, remuneration of board members and the provision of annual reports and other information. This new clause gives the mayor a role in commenting each year on the budget and strategic plans drawn up by that body. I regret that some further minor and consequential amendments to Part III of the Bill will need to be introduced at Third Reading in relation to the auditing and accounts of the LPFA. I apologise for the fact that those amendments are not ready today. I ask noble Lords to accept the principal clause set out in this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 351 [Transfers of property, rights or liabilities]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 564 to 565:
  Page 192, line 26, leave out ("Corporation of London") and insert ("Common Council").
  Page 192, line 29, at end insert—
  ("( ) any Minister of the Crown or government department;").
  Page 192, line 35, leave out ("Corporation of London") and insert ("Common Council").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 565A:
  Page 193, line 12, at end insert—
  ("( ) To the extent that an order under subsection (1) above makes provision for or in connection with the transfer of property, rights or liabilities to the London Development Agency from—

  (a) the Urban Regeneration Agency, or

  (b) the Commission for the New Towns,

  section 38 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (relief from Corporation Tax) shall apply in relation to the order as if it were a transfer scheme within the meaning of that section.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 565A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 565B, 570VA, 570WA, 570XA, 575ZA and 577AA. This group of amendments deal with the tax status of the functional bodies and are aimed at ensuring that transfers made under the Bill are tax neutral.
  Amendment No. 570XA exempts TfL, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority from paying income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Amendments Nos. 565A and 565B make transfers from English Partnerships or the Commission for New Towns to the London Development Agency subject to appropriate relief from corporation tax under Section 38 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. Amendment No. 575ZA provides for tax-neutral transfers between London Transport and TfL, and during any preceding reorganisation of LT, as well as the tax-neutral establishment of arrangements under the PPP. Amendments Nos. 570VA and 570WA exempt transfers undertaken by or under the Bill from stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax.
  This group of amendments will ensure that TfL, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority have the same tax regime as local authorities and retain the existing tax status of their predecessor bodies. In the case of TfL, all of the activities that it inherits from its various predecessor bodies will be put in the same tax position as prior to those changes. The changes will also ensure that transfers made as a result of the Bill will not give rise to any tax charge. Any liability to tax arising from transfers made under the Bill will reduce the resources available to the GLA and the functional bodies to provide services. The approach I have set out avoids unnecessary cost to the public purse and tax demands that would be of benefit to no one. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may ask two questions on Amendment No. 570XA. Subsection (2) refers to two sections of the different taxes Acts for the purpose of which the bodies set out will be treated as local authorities. Are there any tax provisions other than Section 519 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act and Section 271 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act from which local authorities are exempt? Are there any other exemptions for local authorities which do not apply to Transport for London, the MPA and the LFEPA?

  Secondly, TfL is treated as a local authority for the purpose of those two enactments. What happens to its subsidiaries? Do the group provisions which apply

  141
  under the taxes Act mean that subsidiaries of TfL are also exempt; or will they be treated as normal commercial companies?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I understand the position in relation to subsidiary organisations, the pre-existing situation will not be altered; or in so far as it is altered it will be altered in relation to subsidiaries also. The alteration in the tax status of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the fire authority is not provided for under these clauses. The amendments provide for the two authorities to be exempt from paying tax in the same way that the Metropolitan Police were, and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority is now. The receiver for the Metropolitan Police and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority both fall within the ambit of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act and the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act as major precepting authorities. They therefore do not pay tax in the normal sense of local authority trading accounts.
  The subsidiaries would be subject to the normal tax arrangements on trading. But that situation is not altered by the changing status in these clauses. There is no need to change the tax status, for example, of the London Development Agency because the taxes Acts apply to that in the same way as they do to RDAs generally. It is only these two authorities for which we have to make explicit provision. Subsidiaries and everything else remain "as is".
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the issue of subsidiaries is difficult. I envisage developments under the Local Government Act in which best practice suggests that certain functions at present undertaken by one or other of those authorities might be better undertaken by a hived-off management buy-out of that part of the organisation which might then become a proper commercial operation. One needs a careful definition of where that boundary might lie. Can the Minister put my mind at rest so that the whole House can be satisfied that the definition is sufficiently clear and there will not be a problem with it at some point in the future?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I may need to take further advice on this response. However, it seems to me that the additional provisions that the Local Government Act will make to look at the option of hiving off into another body will depend somewhat on the status of the other body. If it were a limited company, for example, either partially or jointly owned between local authorities, whether in London or anywhere else, that limited company would be subject to the normal taxation regimes. Other hybrid organisations which may be at arm's length to the local authority would be subject for most purposes to corporation tax. They would clearly be VAT registered and they would therefore be subject to most tax circumstances.
  I do not think, therefore, that the situation in London would be in any sense significantly different from that of local authorities who are operating under the increased flexibility that we have to provide under the local government legislation.
  142
  The same would, of course, apply to TfL, which is not in quite the same position as other local authorities. If it hives off businesses into separate subsidiaries, it will effectively have to constitute them as separate companies, which will themselves be taxable.
  So far as concerns VAT, which is perhaps the other interest here, the Government intend to bring the GLA, the Metropolitan Police, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and TfL within the scope of Section 33 of the VAT Act by regulation. That would mean that those bodies would be able to recover VAT on their non-business activities in the same way as local authorities do more generally. The LDA will not be included and will not be able to recover VAT, which will result in a similar situation as far as concerns the London Development Agency to the provisions in the RDA Act for the other regional development agencies.
  I hope that that goes some way towards clarifying a complex tax position. If noble Lords have any further queries, we can no doubt cover them either tonight or in writing.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 352 [Transfer Schemes]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 565B:
  Page 193, line 37, at end insert—
  ("( ) To the extent that a scheme under subsection (1) or (2) above makes provision for or in connection with the transfer of property, rights or liabilities to the London Development Agency from—

  (a) the Urban Regeneration Agency, or

  (b) the Commission for the New Towns,

  section 38 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (relief from Corporation Tax) shall apply in relation to the scheme as if it were a transfer scheme within the meaning of that section.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 354 [Pensions]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 566 and 566A:
  Page 195, line 25, at end insert—
  ("( ) the Mayor or an Assembly member,").
  Page 195, line 33, at end insert—
  ("( ) An order under subsection (1) above which makes provision by virtue of subsection (3)(b) above in relation to persons who are or have been employees of the Metropolitan Police Authority shall only be made—

  (a) after consultation with the Metropolitan Police Authority, and

  (b) with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service.").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 356 [Continuity]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 567 to 570:
  Page 198, line 8, leave out ("done by") and insert ("made or done by or in relation to").
  Page 198, line 12, leave out ("done by") and insert ("made or done by or in relation to").
  Page 198, line 18, after ("anything") insert ("made or"). Page 198, line 20, after ("been") insert ("made or").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment 570VA:
  After Clause 356, insert the following new clause—

  STAMP DUTY AND STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX
  (" .—(1) Neither stamp duty nor stamp duty reserve tax shall be chargeable on, or in respect of,—

  (a) a transfer instrument;

  (b) an instrument or agreement which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by a Minister of the Crown as made in pursuance of a transfer instrument; or

  (c) an instrument or agreement which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by a Minister of the Crown as giving effect to a preparatory reorganisation, to the extent that the instrument or agreement is so certified.

  (2) No instrument or agreement which is certified as mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above shall be taken to be duly stamped unless—

  (a) it is stamped with the duty to which it would, but for that subsection, be liable; or

  (b) it has, in accordance with section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with any duty or that it is duly stamped.

  (3) Section 12 of the Finance Act 1895 shall not operate to require—

  (a) the delivery to the Inland Revenue of a copy of this Act, or

  (b) the payment of stamp duty under that section on any copy of this Act,

  and shall not apply in relation to any instrument on which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, stamp duty is not chargeable.
  (4) In subsection (1) above, "transfer instrument" means—

  (a) an order under section 351 or 354 above; or

  (b) a scheme under section 352 above.

  (5) In subsection (1) above "preparatory reorganisation" means the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—

  (a) from London Regional Transport to any of its subsidiaries,

  (b) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to London Regional Transport,

  (c) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to another such subsidiary, or

  (d) from a Minister of the Crown to London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries,

  preparatory to any provision made or to be made by or under this Act.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 570WA:
  After Clause 356, insert the following new clause—

  STAMP DUTY: INSTRUMENTS UNDER LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT ACT 1984
  (" .—(1) Section 64 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (stamp duty) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (7)(a) (which, among other things, provides an exemption in relation to transfers in pursuance of a scheme made under section 9(6) in compliance with a direction of the Secretary of State under section 10)—

  (a) after "or to a transfer made in pursuance of" there shall be inserted ", or otherwise in connection with,";

  (b) after "section 9(6) of this Act" there shall be inserted "(i)"; and

  (c) after "under section 10 of this Act; or" there shall be inserted—

  "(ii) in preparation for, or in pursuance of, a PPP agreement, within the meaning of Chapter VII of Part IV of the Greater London Authority
  144
  Act 1999 or a contract falling within paragraph 6(2) of Schedule (Taxation provisions) to that Act; or".

  (3) After subsection (7) there shall be inserted—
  "(7A) Any reference in subsection (7)(a) above to a transfer includes—

  (a) a reference to an agreement for a lease or underlease; and

  (b) a reference to the grant of a lease or underlease."").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 570XA:
  After Clause 356, insert the following new clause—

  TAXATION
  (" .—(1) The following bodies, namely—

  (a) Transport for London,

  (b) the Metropolitan Police Authority, and

  (c) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

  shall each be treated as a local authority for the purposes of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) below.
  (2) The enactments are—

  (a) section 519 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (exemption of local authorities from income and corporation taxes); and

  (b) section 271 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (exemption of local authorities from capital gains tax).

  (3) In sections 170 to 181 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (groups of companies) references to a company do not apply to Transport for London.
  (4) Schedule (Taxation provisions) to this Act (which makes further provision about taxation) shall have effect.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 357 [Regulations and orders]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 570YA to 570A:
  Page 198, line 43, at end insert—
  ("(c) section (Organisation of probation service in Greater London)(1) above, or").
  Page 199, line 5, after ("section") insert ("(Organisation of probation service in Greater London)(1) or").
  Page 199, line 34, at end insert—
  ("Paragraph 8A of Schedule 13;").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 571 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 572 and 573:
  Page 199, line 38, at end insert—

  (" section (Limit on salaries of members of other public bodies);").
  Page 199, line 39, at end insert—
  ("section (Restriction on exercise of certain powers other than through a limited company);").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 573A:
  Page 199, leave out line 42.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 573B and 577A. In my internal note, these are grouped together under the heading "Stray consequentials". I beg the pardon of the House in having strayed myself from the normal clear structure of these amendments which noble Lords will undoubtedly have noted throughout the course of this Bill.
  Amendment No. 573A leaves out one line from the clause and is consequential to other government amendments made at Report stage, which provide for TfL to be able to make transfer schemes from a distribution of property, rights and liabilities among TfL and among TfL's subsidiaries and the potential PPP companies.
  Without these amendments, Clause 148 enabled the mayor to make such transfer schemes. The mayor's powers were, however, subject to restrictions. The mayor would not have been able, without the Secretary of State's consent, to make such transfer schemes if they would have had the effect of disposing of operational railway or tramway land or of contracting out Underground train and station operating services.
  The Secretary of State's consent under Clause 148 was to have been given by order. The text which is the subject of this amendment had the effect of making such orders subject to the negative procedure of this House by including it in the list which, in Clause 357, provided at a different point of the Bill, would be subject to negative procedure.
  As a result of amendments agreed earlier, Clause 148 has been deleted from the Bill. There is therefore no need for a reference to it in Clause 357. Hence, the first amendment deletes that reference.
  Amendment No. 573B is consequential to the amendment moved earlier, Amendment No. 465. Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 465 provides that the Secretary of State may modify by order subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause. This amendment is required to ensure that there can be parliamentary scrutiny of any such changes.
  Amendment No. 577A adds a definition of "certify" to the interpretation of the clause. It indicates that "certify" shall mean,
  "certify in writing; and related expressions shall be construed accordingly".
  I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 573B to 574:
  Page 199, line 43, at end insert—
  ("section (Restrictions on disclosure of information)(4);").
  Page 199, line 43, at end insert—
  ("section (Organisation of probation service in Greater London)(1);").
  Page 200, line 5, at end insert—
  ("paragraph 7(3) of Schedule (Transport far London transfer schemes);").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 575:
  After Clause 358, insert the following new clause—

  POWER OF MINISTERS OF THE CROWN TO MAKE REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS
  (" .—(1) Any power conferred on a Minister of the Crown by this Act to make regulations or an order or to give a direction shall cease to have effect on 1st April 2006 unless previously exercised.
  (2) If a power has ceased to have effect pursuant to subsection (1) it may at any time be revived by order made by statutory instrument laid in draft before each House of Parliament.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I appreciate that we are near the end of the Bill, but it may be worth spending three or four minutes on this amendment. As we have indicated throughout, we believe that the Bill is far too much characterised by the controlling hand of central government. I have heard it described in the following way. We have the London boroughs and by and large they will continue to do what they do; we have central government and by and large they will continue to do what they have been doing; and then we will have the Greater London Authority, which needs a Bill several inches thick to explain what it cannot do.
  That may be putting it a little harshly, but only a little. The Bill is riddled with the opportunity for the Secretary of State to make directions. We welcome the prospect of London having its strategic government, but we would welcome it more if the hand of central government were less evident.
  The new clause provides that where the Bill confers on the Minister the power to make regulations or an order, or to give a direction, it shall cease to have effect on 1st April 2006 unless it has previously been exercised. It is not as draconian an amendment as it might appear because we have added a second limb. This provides that any such power can be revived by order made by statutory instrument laid before both Houses of Parliament.
  We proposed a similar amendment to the recent Local Government Bill in connection with the capping of local authority expenditure. One of the arguments made against us was that capping, as the regime now applies, needs the affirmative resolution of the House of Commons. The powers to which this amendment refers have no such safeguard. We appreciate that such a clause as this would be to a large extent symbolic because of the power of revival which we have included. Nevertheless, it would be a welcome symbolic move for the Government to recognise that the reserve powers which they have provided throughout the Bill to deal with—and we have used this terminology a good deal—what is "just conceivable" might be put onto a slow flame on the backburner and, we might hope, be killed off entirely—to mix my references. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the principle of this amendment is one with which we agreed on the Local Government Bill, when it was a Bill. It is now an Act and does not contain this clause, which is rather sad. The Bill is rather less for having a lacuna in it in that regard. I believe that this provision would be worth while in this Bill and in all probability in almost every other Bill that goes through the House. The Minister

  147
  might think that a little extreme. That said, I believe that the amendment is worth supporting. It has my support in principle, and my heart is with the noble Baroness, even if, I suspect, the Minister is going to answer in his usual, thoroughly positive way, that he cannot put up with it.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, at this hour of the night I have absolutely no idea why noble Lords opposite feel that they have to go on about this for so long.
  We have been here before. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, came preciously close to advocating that at some time in the not-too-distant future we should have another GLA Bill. I believe that there will not be many takers for that among those who have been involved with this process over the past few months.
  To be serious, the powers within this Bill are necessary, but they are in the background. The fact that they are not used does not mean that they do not have an influence on the situation. They are there in order to protect in extreme circumstances the interests of other public bodies, the London boroughs, and ultimately the London taxpayer and maybe other taxpayers from the actions of the authority and the mayor. They are not intended for the Secretary of State to interfere and to get his fingers into every aspect of the mayor's policy and the assembly's proceedings. It is a responsible and complicated balance, and one to which we have given a good deal of thought and which is different in different parts of the Bill.
  I do not feel that if we were to adopt this procedure, certainly on this Bill—I shall not address the other Bills to which the noble Lord was thinking of applying it—we should rapidly be in a situation where that balance was lost. We believe that the Secretary of State still has a residual role to ensure that the interests of London more widely are protected. We hope that none of those powers will ever have to be used in the way that the noble Baroness fears, but we need them there to ensure that the whole balance operates. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue this last amendment on Third Reading.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not at all surprised by that response. We are at a point where I suspect the Government and we shall not see eye to eye. I do not intend to pursue the amendment now. I am not sure what I shall do on Third Reading. My noble friend Lord Tope asked me earlier today how long I thought it would be before we were faced with a GLA (Amendment) Bill, because, given the complexity of this Bill —as the Government know better than we do from the number of amendments which they are still considering—it is only too likely that there will be something wrong here that needs amendment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, so as not to take noble Lords by surprise or be too much in a
  148
  rush, or in case any noble Lord wishes to raise a point, I should indicate that the amendments that I am about to call are before Schedule 27, in Schedule 27 and in Clause 361.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 575ZA:
  Before Schedule 27, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE TAXATION PROVISIONS
  PART I

    TRANSFERS FROM LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT TO TRANSPORT FOR LONDON
    Interpretation
    1. In this Part of this Schedule—

    "qualifying transfer" means a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by virtue of a transfer instrument;

    "successor" means the body to which property, rights or liabilities are transferred by virtue of a transfer instrument;

    "transfer date", in the case of any transfer, means the date on which the transfer takes effect;

    "transfer instrument" means—

    (a) an order under section 351 or 354 of this Act;

    (b) a scheme under section 352 of this Act; or

    (c) an instrument or agreement which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by London Regional Transport as made in pursuance of such an order or scheme;

    "transferor" in relation to any qualifying transfer, means the body from which the property, rights or liabilities in question are transferred by virtue of the transfer instrument in question.

    Chargeable gains: general
    2.—(1) For the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, where there is a qualifying transfer—

    (a) from London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries,

    (b) to Transport for London or any of its immediate subsidiaries,

    the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities to which it relates shall be deemed, in relation to the successor as well as the transferor, to be for a consideration such that neither a gain nor a loss accrues to the transferor.
    (2) For the purposes of this paragraph a company is an "immediate subsidiary" of Transport for London if—

    (a) it is a subsidiary of Transport for London; but

    (b) it is not a subsidiary of another company which is a subsidiary of Transport for London.

    Group transactions
    3.—(1) For the purposes of section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (company ceasing to be a member of a group) where, by virtue of a qualifying transfer from London Regional Transport or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London, a company—

    (a) ceases to be a member of the same group of companies as London Regional Transport. But

    (b) becomes a member of a group of companies whose principal company ("the new principal"), whether it is the company or not, is a subsidiary of Transport for London,

    149
    the company shall not under that section be treated, in consequence of having so ceased, as at any time having sold, and immediately reacquired, any asset acquired from a company which is or has been a member of the former group.
    (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, where sub-paragraph (1) above applies, or but for subsection (2) of section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 would apply, as respects any acquisition of any asset and the company that acquired the asset ceases to be a member of the same group of companies as the new principal, that section shall have effect as if—

    (a) that asset had been acquired from the body which is the new principal; and

    (b) the company had been a member of the same group of companies as that body when it was so acquired;

    and where, for the purposes of that subsection, this sub-paragraph applies as respects more than one of a number of successive acquisitions of any asset, the fact that each is to be treated as an acquisition from the same person shall be disregarded.
    (3) Where—

    (a) any asset has been acquired by any company ("the leaving company") from another company,

    (b) both of those companies cease at the same time to be members of the same group of companies as the new principal, and

    (c) those companies are associated companies both immediately before and immediately after that time and at the time of the acquisition of the asset by the leaving company,

    sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply as respects the acquisition of the asset by the leaving company.
    (4) Expressions used in this paragraph and in section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 have the same meaning in this paragraph as in that section.
    Capital allowances
    4.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any qualifying transfer of relevant assets—

    (a) from London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries.

    (b) to Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries.

    (2) In this paragraph "relevant assets", in the case of any qualifying transfer, means assets by reference to which capital allowances may be or have been made to the transferor.
    (3) Where this paragraph applies in relation to a qualifying transfer of relevant assets—

    (a) there shall be made to or on the successor in accordance with the Capital Allowances Acts all such allowances and charges as would, if the transferor had continued to carry on its trade or other activities, have fallen to be made to or en the transferor in respect of those assets; and

    (b) the amount of any such allowance or charge shall be computed on a just basis as if—

    (i) the acquisition of those assets by the transferor had been their acquisition by the successor for the purposes of the trade (if any) to be carried on by the successor on and after the transfer date;

    (ii) the successor had been carrying on its trade (if any) at the time of that acquisition; and

    (iii) everything done by or to the transferor in respect of those assets had been done by or to the successor (but so that the qualifying transfer itself, so far as it relates to any assets in use for the purpose of the trade, shall not be treated as giving rise to any such allowance or charge).

    (4) The amounts falling to he taken into account in relation to the transferor as expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made shall be reduced, in relation to
    150
    accounting periods beginning on or after the transfer date, by such amount as is just, taking into account the successor's entitlement to capital allowances under sub-paragraph (3) above.
    (5) The transferor's entitlement to capital allowances for its accounting period in which the transfer date falls shall be reduced by an amount which is just.
    (6) In the case of a qualifying transfer of relevant assets to Transport for London—

    (a) in consequence of subsection (1) of section (Taxation) of this Act, no allowances or charges are to be made to or on Transport for London by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) above; but

    (b) sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) above shall have effect in relation to the transferor as if paragraph (a) had been omitted from that subsection.

    (7) If any dispute arises as to the amount which is just for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3), (4) or (5) above—

    (a) the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the transferor or the successor may refer the dispute to the Secretary of State; and

    (b) on any such reference, the amount which is just shall be such amount as the Secretary of State may determine with the approval of the Treasury.

    (8) Neither—

    (a) section 343(2) of the Taxes Act 1988 (company reconstructions without change of ownership), nor

    (b) section 77 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 (successions to trades: connected persons),

    shall have effect by virtue of a qualifying transfer in relation to which this paragraph applies.
    (9) Except as provided by this paragraph, a qualifying transfer in relation to which this paragraph applies shall be taken for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts not to give rise to—

    (a) any writing down allowances under section 3 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990;

    (b) any balancing allowances or balancing charges under section 4 of that Act;

    (c) any balancing allowance under section 24(2)(b) of that Act;

    (d) any balancing charge under section 24(5) of that Act;

    (e) any qualifying expenditure being deemed to be incurred for the purposes of section 25 of that Act; or

    (f) any disposal value being deemed to be received for the purposes of section 24 of that Act.

    Preparatory transfers
    5.—(1) Paragraph 4 above shall have effect in relation to a preparatory transfer of relevant assets as it has effect in relation to a qualifying transfer in relation to which that paragraph applies.
    (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a "preparatory transfer" is a transfer of property, rights or liabilities—

    (a) from London Regional Transport to a subsidiary of London Regional Transport,

    (b) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to London Regional Transport, or

    (c) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to another such subsidiary,

    by virtue of an instrument, or in pursuance of an agreement, which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by London Regional Transport as made in preparation for, or in pursuance of, a qualifying transfer falling within sub-paragraph (3) below.
    (3) A qualifying transfer falls within this sub-paragraph if it is a transfer of shares in a company which—

    (a) immediately before the transfer is a subsidiary of London Regional Transport; but

    (b) as a result of the transfer becomes instead a subsidiary of Transport for London.

  PART II

    PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS
    Interpretation
    6.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule—

    "PPP scheme" means a transfer scheme made in preparation for, or in pursuance of, a PPP agreement;

    "predecessor", in relation to any relevant transfer, means the body from which the property, rights or liabilities in question are transferred by virtue of the PPP scheme in question;

    "private sector company" means a company which is not a public sector operator;

    "relevant transfer" means a transfer of any property, rights or liabilities by virtue of a PPP scheme;

    "transfer date", in the case of a relevant transfer, means the date on which the transfer takes effect;

    "transfer scheme" means a scheme made under or by virtue of section 9(6) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984;

    "transferee", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the body to which the property, rights or liabilities in question are transferred by virtue of the PPP scheme in question.

    (2) Any reference in this Part of this Schedule to a PPP agreement includes a reference to a contract—

    (a) which is not a PPP agreement, by reason of the condition in subsection (7) of section 185 of this Act remaining to be satisfied (whether or not the condition in subsection (5) of that section also remains to be satisfied); but

    (b) as respects which London Regional Transport certifies to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—

    (i) that the contract is intended by the parties to become a PPP agreement; and

    (ii) that such one or more of the parties as may be specified in the certificate are intended to become PPP companies.

    (3) In the case of a contract falling within sub-paragraph (2) above, any reference in this Schedule to a PPP company includes a reference to any company in respect of which the certificate under paragraph (b)(ii) of that sub-paragraph is given.
    (4) Except where the context otherwise requires, expressions used in this Part of this Schedule and in Chapter VII of Part IV of this Act have the same meaning in this Part of this Schedule as they have in that Chapter.
    Revenue nature of payments under PPP agreements
    7. Any payment made by a relevant body to a company in pursuance of a PPP agreement shall be deemed for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts—

    (a) in the case of the relevant body, to be an expense of a revenue, rather than a capital, nature (and deductible accordingly in computing profits under Case I of Schedule D); and

    (b) in the case of the company, to be a receipt of a trade carried on by the company (and taxable accordingly under Case I of Schedule D).

    Chargeable gains: the share transfer to the private sector company
    8. For the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, where pursuant to a PPP agreement there is a transfer of shares of a PPP company—

    (a) from London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries,

    (b) to a private sector company,

    the transfer shall be deemed, in relation to the private sector company as well as the transferor, to be for a consideration such that neither a gain nor a loss accrues to the transferor.
    Chargeable gains: company leaving the LRT group
    9.—(1) For the purposes of section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (company ceasing to be a member of a group) where, by virtue of a transfer of shares or an agreement to transfer shares from London Regional Transport or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to a private sector company, a company ("the transferred company") which is or is to be a party to a PPP agreement—

    (a) ceases to be a member of the same group of companies as London Regional Transport, but

    (b) becomes a member of a group of companies ("the A group") of which the private sector company is a member (or becomes a member by virtue of the transfer or agreement to transfer the shares),

    the transferred company shall not under that section be treated, in consequence of having so ceased, as at any time having sold, and immediately reacquired, any asset acquired from a company which is or has been a member of the former group.
    (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, where sub-paragraph (1) above applies, or but for subsection (2) of section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 would apply, as respects any acquisition of any asset and the company that acquired the asset ceases to be a member of the A group. that section shall have effect as if—

    (a) the asset had been acquired from the principal company of the A group; and

    (b) the company had been a member of the A group when it was so acquired;

    and where, for the purposes of that subsection, this sub-paragraph applies as respects more than one of a number of successive acquisitions of any asset, the fact that each is to be treated as an acquisition from the same person shall be disregarded.
    (3) Where—

    (a) any asset has been acquired by any company ("the leaving company") from another company.

    (b) both of those companies cease at the same time to be members of the A group. and

    (c) those companies are associated companies immediately before and immediately after that time and at the time of acquisition of the asset by the leaving company,

    sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply as respects the acquisition of the asset by the leaving company.
    (4) Expressions used in this paragraph and in section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 have the same meaning in this paragraph as in that section.
    Capital allowances: general
    10.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any relevant transfer—

    (a) from London Regional Transport to a subsidiary of London Regional Transport,

    (b) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to London Regional Transport, or

    (c) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to another such subsidiary,

    which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by London Regional Transport as made in preparation for, or in pursuance of, a PPP agreement.
    (2) A PPP scheme which provides for a relevant transfer in relation to which this paragraph applies may include provision for amounts of expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made to the predecessor in relation to anything—

    (a) to which the transfer relates. and

    (b) which is specified, or of a description specified, for the purpose in the PPP scheme,

    to be allocated to the transferee and treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts, as respects periods beginning on or after

    153
    the transfer date, as expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made to the transferee instead of to the predecessor.
    (3) Where an amount of expenditure is allocated under subparagraph (2) above to the transferee then, subject to subparagraph (4) below, there shall be made to or on the transferee in accordance with the Capital Allowances Acts all such allowances and charges as would have fallen to be made to or on him had he incurred expenditure of that amount on the transfer date in the acquisition, for the purposes of a trade carried on by him, of anything falling within paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (2) above.
    (4) For the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts, only such amounts (if any) as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the PPP scheme providing for a relevant transfer shall be allocated to the transferee in respect of expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) above in relation to anything to which the transfer relates.
    (5) The allocation in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) above of an amount of expenditure to the transferee shall affect the amounts falling to be taken into account in relation to the predecessor as expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made only so far as necessary to give effect to a reduction of any such amount by a sum equal to so much of that amount as is so allocated to the transferee.
    (6) If the PPP scheme in question so provides, then, notwithstanding sub-paragraph (5) above,—

    (a) the predecessor shall be entitled, for its accounting period in which the transfer date falls, to allowances, determined in accordance with the PPP scheme, in respect of the amount so allocated, but

    (b)for that purpose that amount shall be treated as reduced to the amount which bears to it the proportion which that part of the accounting period which falls before the transfer date bears to twelve months;

    and a PPP scheme which makes any such provision may also make provision for or in connection with the making of an adjustment, determined in accordance with the PPP scheme, in relation to the transferee's entitlement to allowances.
    (7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8) below, the provisions of a PPP scheme providing for the determination of any amount which for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) above is to be allocated, in the case of any relevant transfer, to the transferee may include provision—

    (a) for such a determination to be made by the Secretary of State in such manner as may be described in the scheme;

    (b) for any amount determined to be calculated by reference to such factors, or to the opinion of such person, as may be so described;

    (c) for or in connection with the making of any related determinations under sub-paragraph (6) above; or

    (d) for a determination under those provisions, or under subparagraph (6) above, to be capable of being modified, on one or more occasions, in such manner and in such circumstances as may be so described.

    (8) The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the making or modification of a determination of any such amount as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (7) above.
    (9) Neither section 343 of the Taxes Act 1988 (company reconstructions without change of ownership) nor section 77 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 (successions to trades: connected persons) shall have effect by virtue of a relevant transfer in relation to which this paragraph applies.
    (10) Except as provided by this paragraph, a relevant transfer in relation to which this paragraph applies shall be taken for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts not to give rise to—

    (a) any balancing allowance under section 24(2)(b) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990;

    (b) any balancing charge under section 24(5) of that Act;

    154

    (c)any qualifying expenditure being deemed to be incurred for the purposes of section 25 of that Act; or

    (c) any disposal value being deemed to be received for the purposes of section 24 of that Act.

    Leases and easements
    11.—(1) This paragraph applies where by or under, or otherwise in connection with, a PPP agreement a relevant body—

    (a) enters into an agreement to grant to a company a lease of, or an easement over, land which consists of or includes the whole or any part of a relevant site; or

    (b) grants such a lease or easement to a company.

    (2) In this paragraph "relevant site" means —

    (a) an industrial building or structure, within the meaning of Part I of the Capital Allowances Act 1990; or

    (b) land which, in relation to any fixture, within the meaning of Chapter VI of Part II of that Act, is the relevant land for the purposes of that Chapter.

    (3) Where this paragraph applies, the relevant body shall be deemed for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts to have such an interest in the relevant site in question as is sufficient for the agreement or grant to confer an appropriate interest on the company to which the lease or easement is, or is to be, granted (and the agreement or grant shall accordingly be taken for those purposes to confer such an interest).
    (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) above, an "appropriate interest"—

    (a) in the case of a relevant site falling within sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, is such an interest in the industrial building or structure in question as is, or is capable of being, for the purposes of Part I of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 the relevant interest (within the meaning of that Part) in relation to capital expenditure incurred by the company; or

    (b) in the case of a relevant site falling within sub-paragraph (2)(b) above, is such an interest in the land in question as constitutes for the purposes of Chapter VI of Part II of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 an interest in land (within the meaning of that Chapter) by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d), as the case may be, of section 51(3) of that Act.

    (5) In this paragraph—

    (a) any reference to granting a lease or casement includes a reference to purporting to do so; and

    (b) any reference to a grant, or to a lease or easement, shall be construed accordingly.

    (6) In this paragraph "lease" includes underlease.
    Machinery and plant
    12.—(1) Nothing in—

    (a) section 51(1) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990, so far as preventing a person being entitled to an allowance in respect of machinery or plant treated as belonging to another person,

    (b) section 52(2) of that Act, or

    (c) section 60 of that Act,

    shall, by reason only of any provision made by or under a PPP agreement, affect the entitlement of any company to capital allowances in respect of capital expenditure incurred by it.
    (2) Where, in accordance with any provision made by or under a PPP agreement, any machinery or plant in respect of which a company has been entitled to allowances under Part II of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 falls to be transferred, on the expiration of the term of the PPP agreement, from the company to a relevant body, the disposal constituted by that transfer shall be deemed for the purposes of that Part to be for a nil consideration, notwithstanding section 26(1)(f) of that Act.
    Sale and leaseback
    13.—(1) Neither section 779 (limitation on tax reliefs) nor section 782 (leased assets: special cases) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall apply to any payment which falls to made under a PPP agreement.
    (2) Section 781 of that Act (assets leased to traders and others) shall not apply to, or by reason of, any such payment.").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Schedule 27 [Enactments repealed]:
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 575A to 576NA:
    Page 346, line 45, column 3, leave out from ("(2)(d)") to end of line 50 and insert (", (3)(d) and (4).").
    Page 347, leave out lines 12 to 16.
    Page 347, line 16, at end insert—

    ("1999 c. 22.

    The Access to Justice Act 1999.

    In Schedule 10, paragraph 40.")

    Page 347, line 20, at end insert—

    ("10 & 11 Eliz. 2 c. 46.

    The Transport Act 1962.

    Section 67(2A).

    Section 67(15)(b).

    In section 67(16), the words "and London Regional Transport".")

    Page 347, line 30, at end insert—

  PART IIA

    THE TRANSPORT USERS' COMMITTEE
    Chapter

    Short title

    Extent of repeal

    1974 c. 7.

    The Local Government Act 1974.

    In section 25(1), the word "and" preceding paragraph (d).

    Page 348, line 24, at end insert—

    ("1980 c. 66.

    The Highways Act 1980.

    Section 90E(3).")

    Page 348, line 38, column 3, at end insert—

    ("In section 73(1), the words "in their area".")

    Page 350, line 21, at end insert—

    ("50 & 51 Vict. c. 45.

    The Metropolitan Police Act 1887.

    The Whole Act.")

    Page 350, column 3, leave out line 24 and insert—

    ("The whole Act.")

    Page 350, column 3, leave out line 45 and insert—

    ("In section 4(2), the words ", or of the metropolitan police force,".")

    Page 350, line 52, at end insert—

    ("1968 c. 27.

    The Firearms Act 1968.

    In section 57(4), paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.")

    Page 351, line 10, column 3, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").
    Page 351, line 10, column 3, at end insert—

    ("offices of Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, officer or servant employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and")

    Page 351, line 15, column 3, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").
    Page 351, line 15, column 3, at end insert—

    ("offices of Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, officer or servant employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and")

    Page 351, line 28, at end insert—

    ("1982 c. 36.

    The Aviation Security Act 1982.

    Section 26(4). In section 29(2)(a), the words from "(or," to "metropolis)". Section 29(3). In section 30(3)(c), the words from "or, if that area is the metropolitan" onwards. In section 31(1), the definition of "members of the metropolitan civil staffs".")

    Page 351, column 3, leave out line 35 and insert—

    ("In section 97, in subsection (1), the words "employed outside the metropolitan police district" and subsection (4).")

    Page 352, leave out lines 6 to 8.
    Page 353. line 17, column 3, at end insert—

    ("In Schedule 1, paragraphs 5, 8(4) and 10(4).

    In Schedule 3, paragraph 1(6)(b) and the word "or" preceding it.

    In Schedule 5, paragraph 1(6)(b) and the word "or" preceding it.")

    Page 354, line 21, at end insert—

    ("1844 c. 60.

    The Trafalgar Square Act 1844.

    In section 2, the words from "by and out of such Monies" to "by Authority of Parliament".")

    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 361 [Interpretation]:
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 576P to 577C:
    Page 200, line 26, at end insert (", unless the context otherwise requires,").
    Page 200, line 27, at end insert—

    (""advisory committee" and "advisory sub-committee", in relation to the Assembly, shall be construed in accordance with section (Assembly committees and subcommittees)(4) and (5) above;").

    Page 200, line 29, a: end insert—

    (""certify" means certify in writing; and related expressions shall be construed accordingly;").

    158
    Page 200, line 31, at end insert—

    (""company" means any body corporate).

    Page 201, line 1, at end insert—

    (""GLA road" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see sections 329(1) and 14D(1) of that Act);").

    Page 201, line 1, at end insert—

    (""GLA side road" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see sections 124A(9) and section 142(1) of that Act;").

    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 577D not moved.]
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 578 and 579:
    Page 201, line 18, at end insert—

    (""ordinary committee" and "ordinary sub-committee", in relation to the Assembly, shall be construed in accordance with section (Assembly committees and subcommittees)(1) above;").

    Page 201, line 43, leave out ("by the Assembly in consultation with the Mayor") and insert ("under and in accordance with section (Standing orders of the Authority) above").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 362 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 580 and 581:
    Page 202, line 30, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (8) below,").
    Page 202, line 30, at end insert—
    ("(8) Any amendment or repeal made by this Act shall have the same extent as the enactment to which it relates.").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Climate Change Levy: CHP
  Climate Change Levy: CHP
  Kosovo: Policing
  Kosovo: Policing
  Chevening Scholarships and the Baltic States
  Chevening Scholarships and the Baltic States
  NATO: European Security and Defence Identity
  NATO: European Security and Defence Identity
  Moldova
  Moldova
  Sanctions Regimes
  Sanctions Regimes
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Armed Forces: Redresses of Complaint
  Armed Forces: Redresses of Complaint
  US National Security Agency: Menwith Hill
  US National Security Agency: Menwith Hill
  WTO Negotiations: ACP Supplying States
  WTO Negotiations: ACP Supplying States
  Sovereignty above National Airspace
  Sovereignty above National Airspace
  Hospital Doctors: Suspension
  Hospital Doctors: Suspension
  Passenger Rail Franchising
  Passenger Rail Franchising
  Train Paths: Allocation Policy
  Train Paths: Allocation Policy
  Road Network: Expenditure Evaluation
  Road Network: Expenditure Evaluation
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Environment Council, 12 October
  Environment Council, 12 October
  Slaughterhouses Licensed to Export Meat to the EU
  Slaughterhouses Licensed to Export Meat to the EU
  Tuberculosis Incidents on Farms
  Tuberculosis Incidents on Farms
  The Countryside: Financial Support
  The Countryside: Financial Support
  Visually Impaired Peers: Facilities
  Visually Impaired Peers: Facilities
  All Our Futures: Government Response
  All Our Futures: Government Response