Sitting of 1 February 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BAXI PARTNERSHIP LIMITED TRUSTS BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BG0
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 8 February.

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday.

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

    Nursing Homes
    Mr. Michael Colvin: What is his estimate of the percentages of costs of the nursing element in nursing homes paid by (a) the national health service, (b) local authority social services departments and (c) patients. [106238]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): About 147,000 people are resident in nursing homes in England. About 9 per cent. are funded by the national health service, about 49 per cent. wholly or partly by local authorities, about 17 per cent. have their care funded from state benefits and about 25 per cent. pay for their own care.
    Mr. Colvin: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. However, as we all know from our constituency casework, once it has been decided that a resident patient is entitled to state aid, the patient tends to become caught in crossfire between the NHS and local authority social services departments over who should pay how much of the nursing element. To avoid all that haggling, should we not lay down in statute what the breakdown should be? Will the Minister consider that?
    Mr. Hutton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the Government's position in December, and explained that we intended to respond more fully to the royal commission's recommendations. In March, we will
    888
    organise a seminar involving all the key organisations and individuals who have a view, so that they can discuss with the Department issues involving the definition of nursing care in this context.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman—as, I think, do all right hon. and hon. Members—that the present system of funding long-term residential care is not acceptable or fair; but it is only reasonable for me to point out to him and his colleagues that they created the system.

    NHS (Pay)
    Mr. Ernie Ross: What steps he is taking to reform the pay system in the NHS. [106239]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We are negotiating with the NHS trade unions on a new pay system for the health service. In the meantime, we have offered non-review body staff an innovative three-year pay package, and we are implementing the recommendations from the doctors' and dentists' review body and the nurses' review body in full.
    Mr. Ross: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the joint statement published by the health departments, management, the unions and NHS staff-side organisations offers a way forward for the NHS after at least 18 years of attack from the last Government? Does he further agree, however, that the real tests of the proposals are whether they are an improvement on what we have now, whether they are easy to understand, whether they are easy to implement, whether they are fair to all staff groups and whether they deliver a genuinely improved service to patients?
    Does my hon. Friend also agree that the proposals give all who are concerned with the health service an opportunity to move forward in a true spirit of partnership?
    Mr. Milburn: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. He is right in saying that too many of the employment and, indeed, pay structures of the NHS date back to its inception in 1948. Today's world is very different: different requirements are placed on the health service, and on NHS staff. It is important for us to combine fairness with flexibility in the way in which we employ doctors, nurses and other health care professionals, and that is precisely what our negotiations for a new pay system are designed to achieve.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: Given last week's report on NHS laboratories, which revealed that 60 per cent. were using unqualified staff, and given yesterday's news that two leukaemia patients in Wales had received each other's test results, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to address the problems and to reassure patients? Will he ensure that biomedical scientists are given a substantial pay increase, and bring them and all other professional and technical staff in the NHS under the remit of the review body? If he does that, will he address the fact that such staff have fallen 30 per cent.

    889
    behind the recommendations of the review body since it was formed, and will he submit evaluations to bring them up to a sensible level at the outset?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, part of the negotiation on the new pay system is designed to reconfigure the coverage of review bodies. Some have argued, I think reasonably, that the groups covered by the two review bodies do not necessarily reflect the fact that team working is now crucial to a modern national health service. We are considering that, and are negotiating with the NHS trade unions to establish a common position. I think it far better to achieve results through partnership and agreement.
    Extra money has been targeted at groups of staff such as medical laboratory scientific officers and cytology screeners who are not covered by the review bodies, where there was evidence of recruitment problems leading to a deterioration in services to patients. The high offers made to those staff for 1999–2000 still stand.
    Mr. Phil Sawford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, partly owing to the recent pay settlement in the NHS, the Northamptonshire health authority currently projects a deficit of £8.7 million for next year? I know that Northamptonshire has received a great deal more money, but the chair of the health authority is due to retire in April, and the chief executive will shortly move to another post. We face the prospect in Northamptonshire of having no chief executive, no chair and no money. Will my right hon. Friend look into that serious matter, which is of great concern to my constituents?
    Mr. Milburn: I do not know about the position as regards the chair of Northamptonshire health authority, or, indeed, the chief executive. Clearly, those are matters that we will have to address. On the question of there being no money, I am slightly surprised by my hon. Friend's view as Northamptonshire health authority and other health authorities have received a substantial growth in the amount of money that they will have for the next financial year, compared with the current financial year.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Does the Secretary of State accept that not only is the 3.6 per cent. increase in nurses' pay well below average wage increases of 4.6 per cent. in the economy as a whole, but that the Government's failure to fund it fully amounts to giving with one hand and taking with the other?
    Mr. Milburn: I do not agree with that view. That view will come as a great surprise to nurses and doctors in the NHS, who, year after year, suffered from their pay being staged, rather than being paid in full.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I ask a question about the pay of dentists? Why is it that the review body that reported a couple of weeks ago found it impossible to compute the average earnings of dentists who are employed wholly or mainly on NHS work because, it said, the necessary information was not forthcoming from my right hon. Friend's Department, or from the British Dental Association? Will he give me an assurance that next year,
    890
    when we get the next report from the pay review bodies, it will be possible for them to compute the average earnings of NHS dentists?
    Mr. Milburn: We do have some figures available, as I think my hon. Friend is aware. He takes a great interest in dentists' salaries. We have some figures about the average earnings of dentists who have a reasonable commitment to the NHS. Those figures are widely available. As he is also aware, this year the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body recommended that we pay a further £20 million to dentists who have demonstrated a real commitment to the NHS. We will, of course, discuss with the profession how best to achieve that.

    Cleft Lip and Palate Units
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on the implementation of the review of cleft lip and palate units. [106240]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): Designated centres have so far been identified in three regions and discussions are continuing to identify the remaining centres.
    Mr. Syms: Today, there has been a luncheon for charter mark winners, one of which is the Poole cleft lip and palate unit. As the Minister wrote to me just before Christmas:
    "The charter mark is recognition for those public service organisations that listen and respond to their users and staff. It is the centre of the Government's programme to improve public services and modernise them for the 21st century."
    Apart from the inconvenient fact that the Government are trying to close the unit, does she not understand the real concern about the clinical standards advisory group proposals, and the concern that there seems to be no clear guidance about what is happening on implementation? If she cannot give me an answer today, will she please write to me and tell me when decisions will be made?
    Ms Stuart: Charter mark awards are made in recognition of public services. Discussions on the reconfiguration of Poole's provisions for cleft lip and palate are about clinical decisions. I have said that three areas have been identified for Poole and the whole of the south-east, including London. The four health authorities are still forming a stakeholder group. Reports are expected at the end of February, but it is important to recognise that although, nationally, some 865 newly born children need such surgery, in Dorset health authority alone, only 10 will need it. All the recommendations from CSAG say that, to deliver the best service, surgeons should deal with about 30 cases a year.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, although we might not have a chief executive or chair of the health authority, we have an excellent consultant in our cleft lip and palate unit at Northampton general hospital, but will she expand her answer to include the future for those that carry out the Delaire technique, such as Bill Smith, who works at the hospital? Parents are concerned that, with the forthcoming changes, that pioneering technique—which concentrates on natural growth and surgery rather than

    891
    plastic surgery—could be phased out. Will she give some hope to those parents that the Government will continue to allow the Delaire technique, and that, where it is being practised, it will continue to flourish?
    Ms Stuart: Different orthodontic and cleft palate surgeons use different techniques. Once the overall national reconfiguration system has been implemented, the posts will be advertised, and it will then be a matter of which types of surgeon are able to provide continuity. No decisions have been made on which techniques will be continued, but the decisions will be based on clinical considerations and on what is best for the treatment of those children.

    NICE
    Mr. Paul Burstow: When he expects the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to issue further recommendations. [106241]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be disseminating its guidance at various times throughout the year. In December, the Secretary of State set out the timetable for this year's work programme, and we expect the next guidance to be issued in the spring.
    Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Will she assure the House that, when NICE's recommendations on targeting the drug beta interferon for multiple sclerosis sufferers are considered, MS sufferers will not be placed in a catch-22 situation, in which everyone is denied access to the drug because it is not possible to identify its principal beneficiaries?
    Yvette Cooper: Obviously, I cannot pre-empt the guidance that NICE will provide on beta interferon. However, we have referred beta interferon to NICE because there is such wide variation across the country in prescribing the drug. We think that that type of postcode lottery is unfair.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that any decisions that the national institute takes will be taken by clinicians, and that they will improve the clinical effectiveness of our health service?
    Yvette Cooper: Certainly the whole purpose of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is to tackle the postcode lottery—in the biggest onslaught on the postcode lottery in the history of the NHS—and to ensure that decisions are taken on the basis of the latest clinical evidence about what works and what is best for patients.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will NICE's evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of beta interferon take account of the cost of domiciliary care or of the required domestic adaptations in the absence of its supply?
    Yvette Cooper: Certainly NICE will be able to take account of all the data that are submitted, and that includes the costs of care and of social services. NICE will be able
    892
    to take into account all those matters when it considers both the cost effectiveness and the clinical effectiveness of beta interferon.
    Mr. David Chaytor: May I tell my hon. Friend about the case of two of my constituents? They were advised by their consultant that beta interferon was the appropriate treatment; invited in for training in the use of beta interferon; but then, only at that point, were told that the budget would not allow them to be issued with the drug. Will she ensure that when NICE produces its guidelines, it will include some guidance to trusts on processes and the information that should be provided to patients well in advance, to avoid the type of disappointment that my constituents experienced?
    Yvette Cooper: I have been informed of the case that my hon. Friend mentions, and I have asked the regional office to provide me with a detailed report on the circumstances of the provision of beta interferon for those patients. I can also tell him that we shall be ensuring that NICE's guidance is available to be followed across the country, to tackle some of the problems that he mentions.

    Waiting Lists (Consultants)
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: How many patients are waiting more than 13 weeks for their first referral to see a consultant. [106242]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): At 30 September 1999, 512,000 patients were waiting for more than 13 weeks for a first out-patient appointment following general practitioner referral.
    Mrs. Winterton: Now that we know that there is a growing waiting list for the waiting list, will the Minister abandon the pledge to cut the waiting list by 100,000 and measure success instead in terms of waiting times? Would it not be better to break a pledge than to force the sickest patients to continue to wait the longest for their treatment?
    Mr. Denham: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong on all of those points. We are not going to abandon our target of reducing in-patient waiting lists because as we have brought down in-patient waiting lists, we have brought down in-patient waiting times. Also, we will tackle the problem of out-patient waiting times—which were rising under the previous Government—into which we are investing an extra £30 million this year and an extra £90 million next year.
    There is a big difference between the Government and the Opposition. We are determined not just to invest more in tackling waiting times, but to modernise the system, so that it is not inconceivable—as it was under the Tories—that someone could be offered a convenient appointment or be seen in bright, modern surroundings. The Opposition have a different view. They say that hip and cataract operations will have no waiting times because they will not be available on the NHS. The choice is between the Government, who will invest in modernising

    893
    and tackling waiting times, and the Opposition, who want to remove those common but essential treatments from the NHS.
    Mr. John Austin: Does my hon. Friend recall a report by the Select Committee on Health in 1990-91 which commented on the time spent by NHS consultants in private practice? Will he conduct a review of the impact on waiting lists of private practice work by NHS consultants? Does he agree that if NHS consultants spent more time working in the NHS, waiting lists would be reduced considerably?
    Mr. Denham: Recently, we have reached a heads of agreement with the BMA on a new consultants' contract—the most significant change in that contract since 1948. My view is that we should concentrate on what consultants do in the time that they are paid to work in the NHS. The new contract offers the possibility of ensuring not just that NHS consultants' time is spent effectively in the NHS, but that consultants get professional and proper appraisals, in which their development needs can be met. We will concentrate on investing in consultants to make sure that we get the best deal for the NHS in the time that consultants are paid to work in it.
    Mr. John Burnett: The Minister will know that an inquiry has been set up at Derriford hospital in Plymouth to look into the way in which waiting lists there have been collated. A number of individuals at the hospital have complained to me of incidents of bullying, racism and failures properly to follow disciplinary procedures. Will the Minister extend the remit of the inquiry to cover those matters, and the culture of the trust generally?
    Mr. Denham: Allegations of that sort are serious and must be looked at carefully. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, setting out the allegations made to him, I will look into them and make sure that they are dealt with appropriately. The Government have introduced legislation to protect whistle-blowers to ensure that, for the first time, people are able to bring such matters of concern to the attention of the proper authorities, or to the attention of the public if necessary.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: What can be done to overcome the problem of GPs referring patients constantly to one particular consultant, even though that consultant may have a longer waiting time than others within the same department? How can we ensure that patients have proper access to all the information about the waiting times and waiting lists of every consultant within a department, so that they can make an informed choice about which consultant they wish to be referred to?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes an important point and we are tackling several issues that will help to address those problems. Clinicians have a responsibility to make the appropriate referrals to the right doctor, but there are examples of GPs referring out of habit or past practice, even though another consultant may be more specialised in an area of treatment and it would be more appropriate to refer the patient to them.
    894
    Much work is going on between health authorities, primary care groups, hospitals and individual doctors to ensure that doctors are fully aware of the waiting list position and the alternative referrals that are available. That work, backed up by the work that we have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to do to produce referral guidelines for GPs, will help to tackle the problems that my hon. Friend rightly raises.

    Waiting Lists (Treatments)
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on treatment waiting times. [106243]
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the role of clinical need within his waiting list initiative. [106244]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): As waiting lists fall, waiting times are falling, too. The in-patient waiting list is now 87,000 below the level we inherited. We have made it clear throughout that patients should always be treated according to their clinical priority. Emergencies are always treated immediately and patients who need urgent treatment are given priority.
    Mr. Paterson: If so, why was cold surgery cancelled for weeks on end this winter in Shropshire?
    Mr. Milburn: The NHS did this winter what it does in normal winters.
    Mr. Paterson indicated dissent.
    Mr. Milburn: I would be astonished if the hon. Gentleman could produce a dossier of evidence that showed that in previous winters, when his party was in power, the NHS in Shropshire did not do what it always does, which is to prioritise emergency cases. I would eat my hat even though I am not wearing one.
    Mr. Winterton: As I was the Chairman of the Health Committee when it produced the report that the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) mentioned in his question, I hope that the Secretary of State will take my question seriously. Does he accept that grave concern is felt that, in seeking to reduce the in-patient waiting list, clinical priority is—sadly—being ignored in many cases? He gave a forthright response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), but will he assure me and the House that clinical priority will take precedence in all situations, even if that means that, for a time, the in-patient waiting list increases?
    Mr. Milburn: I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman's views on health. He will know that from the outset we made it clear—by issuing guidance to trusts and to other parts of the NHS—that in tackling the waiting list problems that we inherited, priority should be given to conditions associated with the most severe clinical need. That must be right.

    895
    On the issue of rising waiting lists, the NHS has done this winter what it should always do—it has prioritised emergencies. There are always more pressures on the NHS from emergency admissions in the winter months. The hon. Gentleman knows that and I know that, and I know too that when the waiting list figures for December are published they will probably reflect the fact that the NHS did give priority to emergency cases. I hope that he and his party will welcome the figures when they are published.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not the reality that, with an increasing elderly population and the ability of the NHS to do ever more complex surgery, the demands on health service provision will continue to rise rapidly? The simple fact is that this Government are doing much better at meeting the public's demands than their predecessor did over 18 years.
    Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's views. He is right to say that demands on the NHS, from changes in the demography and the advent of new treatments and technologies, place additional stresses and pressures on the system. The debate in this country is about what form of health care can best deal with those pressures. The Conservatives' answer is that the future for our health care system should rely on more people being made to go private: we say that that is not the answer because it will not work and it is not fair. We say that the best means to secure health improvement for the majority of our citizens is through a modernised and expanded NHS.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: Given that Opposition Front-Bench Members repeatedly describe our spending plans as reckless, can my right hon. Friend give me an idea of how many Tory Members have asked him to reduce expenditure on health?
    Mr. Milburn: None. [Laughter.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Dr. Brand.
    Dr. Peter Brand: The Secretary of State will know that many patients languish in a sort of statistical purgatory while investigations are carried out and decisions to begin treatment are made. Is the right hon. Gentleman collecting information on the number of people who, having been seen by a consultant, are still waiting for a decision about treatment? Does not he consider it unacceptable that the number of patients who seem to be parked in a queue awaiting a decision is not measured at present?
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman will know, from his political and clinical experience, that the Government are taking steps to tackle that problem. We are investing in one-stop diagnosis and testing, precisely to avoid the difficulty that he describes. In the modern age, at the beginning of a new century, it seems to me that it is not beyond the wit of the national health service to provide faster and more convenient care for patients, so that people going into hospital are not passed from pillar to post. We are striving to ensure that diagnosis, results and, where possible, treatment are dealt with in one day. It will take time to reach that objective, not least because we
    896
    have to reorganise how services are delivered. We also need to expand the number of staff available to deliver the new services.

    Health Spending
    Mr. Michael Portillo: What plans he has to increase the proportion of gross domestic product spent on health to the average EU level. [106245]
    Mr. Alan Simpson: What plans he has to raise NHS spending as a percentage of gross domestic product to the level of the United Kingdom's European partners. [106254]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear to the House on 19 January, we are entirely confident that we will be able to sustain increases in funding for the health service to reach the European Union average.
    Mr. Portillo: Do the Government accept that they have disappointed the public because they have promised too much and achieved too little? Did not the Prime Minister make another promise on "Breakfast with Frost", when he said that he would bring UK health spending up to the European Union average? Does the Secretary of State agree that we are now spending less than 6 per cent. of national income on the health service, and that the European average is 8.8 per cent? Will the right hon. Gentleman be specific about which average the Government are aiming for, and over what period of time they will achieve it?
    Mr. Milburn: Welcome to Health questions. If my memory serves me right, the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary to the Treasury for a substantial period during the previous Government's time in office. If anyone is responsible for our funding lagging behind the European Union average, it is he and his cronies.
    Mr. Simpson: It would have been nice if the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) had prefaced his question with an apology to the House. However, in the absence of that apology, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the £11 billion spending shortfall between the UK and our European partners is the real legacy of Tory tax transfers, from public health services to private wealth holders, which took place throughout the Tory Administration? Will he also confirm that the Department of Health has evidence to show that, irrespective of other reasons for admittance to hospital, about 40 per cent. of adults and 15 per cent. of children are admitted because they are classed as malnourished? Is not that a scandalous way to start the 21st century? Does not that fact alone justify my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's commitment to restore UK health spending to the European average?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. It is clear that we must do two things: we must expand the national health service to ensure that it is there when patients need it and, equally significantly, we must tackle the root causes of ill health. The Government have pledged to do

    897
    what no previous Government, Labour or Conservative, have ever pledged to do—to improve the overall health of the population, and to improve the health of the worst off at a faster rate.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Has the Secretary of State seen the report published last week by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which looked at the Prime Minister's pledge to raise health spending to the EU average? It predicted that such a rise would cause a 2 per cent. fall in manufacturing output, a permanent 1 per cent. increase in the inflation rate, and expose the economy to sudden and massive increases in taxation.
    Mr. Milburn: I was going to say that I am slightly confused, but it is the hon. Gentleman and his party who are confused. Just a few weeks ago, Conservative spokesmen were professing support for what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was saying. Our position on this matter is clear: we know that we need to expand resources for the national health service, and that is precisely what we are doing. The question is where the Conservatives stand on the issue. They stand for more private health insurance—more subsidies for the few rather than public services for the many.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest increase in costs in the health budget has been the 35 per cent. increase in the cost of drugs over the past 10 years? Does he further agree that the Government, by setting up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, have already established a great improvement because they have exposed the fact that the vastly overpriced drug Relenza not only has very little effect on the symptoms of influenza, but has a serious side effect on vulnerable patients? Is it not right that the Government look with new rigour at the greedy propaganda of the drug companies?
    Mr. Milburn: I do not want to comment on Relenza, because the drug company itself has done so and has issued what is, in my view, appropriate guidance to the national health service. Just a few weeks ago, Conservative Members were urging us to reverse the NICE decision on Relenza. Well, thank heavens we did not listen to them.
    I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend on some of the issues that he raised, but I am not one of those who believes that the national health service should be spending less on drugs. I believe that probably we should be spending more on drugs if we can prove that the new drugs coming on to the market are clinically effective, cost effective and will in very many cases replace more invasive and expensive forms of treatment. That is good for patients and, overall, it is probably a good deal for the taxpayer.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: As the Secretary of State was unable to give any firm commitments to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) on European Union averages of gross domestic product spending, perhaps we can look closer to home.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that national health service spending in Scotland is approximately 7.5 per cent. of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent.
    898
    in England and Wales? In other words, the Government spend more than £900 per head on the NHS in Scotland, compared with £746 per head in England and Wales. As the First Minister boasted last week to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, in Scotland there are 51 consultants per 100,000 of the population, compared with 39 in England; there are 75 general practitioners per 100,000 of the population, compared with 56 in England; and there are 808 nurses per 100,000 of the population compared with 620 in England. Should the people of England and Wales be prepared to put up with that? Are the Government prepared to accept that? If not, why did the comprehensive spending review settlement widen rather than narrow the gap?
    Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about these apparent differentials between spending in England, Wales and Scotland, why did his Government not do something about them for 18 years?

    Meningitis
    Judy Mallaber: If he will make a statement on the progress of the meningitis vaccination programme. [106246]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The introduction of the new meningitis C vaccine is progressing very well—immunisation for 15 to 17-years-olds is largely completed, and babies have been receiving the vaccine since November. We are on target to offer the vaccine to everyone under 18 by the end of the year. We are the first country in the world to have introduced a national programme for the new meningitis C vaccine, and we are implementing it a year ahead of schedule.
    Judy Mallaber: I warmly thank the Department of Health and the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for providing the new strain C vaccine, in advance of the full immunisation programme, to the village of Ironville in my constituency. It has, tragically, suffered a uniquely high incidence of meningitis, with a so far unexplained series of outbreaks over the past three years.
    Will my hon. Friend note that four of the five confirmed strain C cases in Ironville—including the last death, Colin Whitehead—could be confirmed only by the polymerase chain reaction test, and that that also applies to 53 per cent. of the cases in southern Derbyshire?
    I understand that only through using that test can the necessary evidence be found on which to base proper medical intervention, as has happened in Ironville. Will my hon. Friend undertake to consider the policies of the Public Health Laboratory Service on future charges for PCR tests and assess their potential impact on the control of this absolutely terrifying disease?
    Yvette Cooper: I welcome my hon. Friend's concern about this issue. She has worked extremely hard on the problems it has caused in her constituency. I am aware of the point she makes about the PCR test; we want to ensure that people working in the field have access to that

    899
    important test. I shall raise the issue with the PHLS. Officials have already held meetings with the service and I shall do so in March.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister assist in the cases of older young people—especially those in their late 20s? We heard of the tragic case of the young rugby player who went to hospital and was, regrettably, misdiagnosed, with fatal consequences. If there was sufficient evidence that those people would also benefit from the vaccine, would the Government consider extending the vaccination programme to that older group?
    Yvette Cooper: Certainly, we will take advice about other groups from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. At present, we are on target to immunise everyone aged under 18. The situation is unusual because we are rolling out a new vaccination programme as quickly as possible. In those circumstances, we are obviously prioritising those groups that are at the highest risk.

    Drugs (Funding)
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What plans he has to provide resources for drugs recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [106247]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): New drugs and treatments are constantly being introduced to the NHS. The cost of those treatments—whether or not they have been referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—is met from the rising resources allocated to health authorities. Those resources increased by 6.6 per cent. this year and will increase by 6.8 per cent. next year. NICE guidance will tackle the different local interpretations of evidence that have led to unacceptable variations in access to treatment and care.
    Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that drugs, such as Taxotere, which is extremely effective in advanced breast cancer, and Taxol for ovarian cancer, are not being spread throughout our population? Many women are not being given the right to be prescribed them. Does he agree that we need to allocate more resources to that matter? If NICE finally comes to its senses and realises that those drugs are effective, will my hon. Friend supplement the budgets of health authorities which want to use those drugs to treat everyone who would benefit from them?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend will understand that it would be wrong for me to comment on topics that are under proper consideration by NICE. However, in general the problem is often one of different local priorities—different views of the evidence. The whole point of referring key drugs to NICE is to provide consistent guidance through the NHS to identify those drugs that are both clinically effective and cost effective, and which represent a good use of NHS resources. When NICE produces such approved guidelines, we expect NHS organisations systematically and consistently to take account of them. Clinical governance and the Commission for Health Improvement will help to ensure that.
    900
    We are keen that clinically effective and cost-effective treatments are spread more quickly throughout the NHS than they have been in the past. The issue of authoritative guidance from NICE will help to ensure that and will tackle the unacceptable variations to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have raised in the House and in correspondence the relative unavailability in Lincolnshire of beta interferon. He will understand that we all welcome the reference of beta interferon to NICE. However, does he realise that the problem is the lack of resources in Lincolnshire? Unless he is willing—in the event of a positive recommendation from NICE—to put more resources into the authority's budget, it will not be possible to give expression to the institute's recommendation.
    Mr. Denham: Again, it would be wrong for me to comment on a particular drug that is being considered by NICE, but I have two things to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The system that has led to very uneven availability of this drug and others was introduced by the previous Government. The existing guidance on the use of beta interferon was introduced by the previous Government, and that is where the problem originated. It is precisely because we do not find such a situation acceptable that we have set up NICE, and we have referred several drugs to it.
    I believe that people locally are taking different views of the evidence, which leads to differences in the availability of different treatments. When we have guidance from NICE, that will be consistent and authoritative and we would expect people taking decisions to take full account of it.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: In welcoming NICE, which will put an end to the Tory racket of postcode prescribing, is my hon. Friend aware that there are a great many rising expectations of NICE, and that if NICE strikes a drug that many believe is of use off the list that is available on the NHS, that will greatly disappoint many people? Is he, in his discussions with NICE, drawing its attention to the need to make more drugs available, not fewer?
    Mr. Denham: NICE is aware of the resources that are available to the national health service. It is aware that those resources are rising and that spending on drugs has increased faster than the resources available to the national health service.
    The good news for my hon. Friend is that NICE is taking its decisions in the context of a Government who are committed to investing in the national health service and to increasing that investment, because we certainly want to ensure that clinically effective and cost-effective treatments which are a good use of those resources are made available in the national health service. That is so very different from the record of the Conservative Government, who introduced a system of postcode prescribing which determined what sort of treatment a person could obtain. The Conservatives now have a new

    901
    policy—they want to do away with the previous one and simply tell people that they can obtain treatment only if they can afford to pay for it.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the problem to which the Minister refers, but what answer would he give to the lady who wrote to me to say that she had taken part in randomised testing, at the end of which, after she had found benefit from the treatment, she was told by the doctor that she had been taking not a placebo but beta interferon, but that, because of the restrictions, it was unlikely that she would be able to get it in future? Surely the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was emphasising an issue that needs to be addressed, namely, to provide effective treatment throughout the country.
    Mr. Denham: One of our problems is that the results of proper drug trials are sometimes interpreted differently by different clinicians and different health authorities, which can lead to a difference in the pattern of provision. The great advantage of NICE is that it brings together leading clinicians within an organisation that draws heavily on the expertise not just of clinicians, but of managers and of patients' groups, in order to make an authoritative assessment of the evidence emerging from those trials.
    I believe that that will be a great strength to the national health service, because it will mean that the advice that is available to decision makers is based on the best evidence about what works clinically, is cost-effective and is a good use of NHS resources. I hope that that will mean that those patients who may be in the position that the hon. Gentleman's constituent describes get treatment if that treatment is clinically effective and cost-effective for them.

    NHS (Acute Beds)
    Mr. Harry Cohen: If he will make a statement on the number of acute beds in NHS hospitals. [106248]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): Acute beds have remained broadly stable under this Government at around 108,000. Even so, there is a view that in some places hospital bed reductions may have gone too far or alternative services may not have been put in place. That is why the national beds inquiry was set up. It is now nearing completion and its findings will be published shortly.
    Mr. Cohen: Is the Minister aware that local NHS chiefs have said that more beds are needed in my health area, Redbridge and Waltham Forest, and that the Association of Community Health Councils has said that more beds are needed nationally? Under the previous Government, 40,000 NHS beds were cut. In September 1998, the present Government set up the national beds inquiry. Is it not time that it reported, and that the Government responded to it? Is it not the case that we need more beds—not only acute beds, but mental health and intensive care beds? I hope that the Government will not go to sleep on this issue.
    Ms Stuart: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have no intention of going to sleep on anything, unlike previous
    902
    Conservative Governments who, over 30 years, never conducted any systematic research into the use of beds. [Interruption.] We have done so, but the last systematic inquiry into the use of hospitals and beds happened under Enoch Powell.
    It is not just a question of beds and the use of beds—we needed to make sure that we considered the use of hospitals as a whole system and that we examined the use of day-care beds for elective surgery, the use of acute beds and the use of beds for critical care. The latest information arrived in December and we are processing and analysing the data. We shall publish the report shortly.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Acute beds need nursing staff to care for the people in them. How does the Minister intend to tackle the problem of nurse recruitment, given that the Labour Government's campaign has been less than successful? The United Kingdom Central Council nursing register continues to fall. It shows that 12 per cent. of those on the register are over the age of 55 and that fewer than 20 per cent. are under the age of 30, thus creating an age timebomb. How does the Minister intend to tackle that problem?
    Ms Stuart: Unlike the previous Government, we responded to the need for nurses not by cutting nurse training places, but by increasing them. Since the Government came to power, 2,500 extra places for training have been created, 2,500 nurses have returned to the profession and we have also trained extra doctors. That is forward looking. We have not cut services and then tried to blame someone else for that.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my hon. Friend agree that nobody with any credibility will listen to the criticisms made by Conservatives Members about acute bed numbers or the number of nurses in the system? Does she agree that the problem of acute beds is the result not only of the 40,000 beds that were cut under the previous Government, but of developing a belief in the health service that increased efficiency would always reduce the number of beds? Therefore, if the inquiry suggests that we have too few acute beds in the system, will the Government act on its findings as a matter of urgency?
    Ms Stuart: Of course, techniques change and the use of beds has to be assessed. That is why the national beds inquiry will consider the matter. There has been an increase in elective surgery and something like half of all elective surgery now takes place in day-care units. The important point is that we shall examine the system, modernise the NHS and respond to strategic needs. We will not say that the answer to long-term problems is the private sector and privatising the national health service.
    Dr. Liam Fox: During the past year, how many intensive care beds have been created?
    Ms Stuart: I am aware that on a previous occasion I told the House that some 100 critical care beds have been created. I am delighted to say that that figure is not correct.

    903
    When comparing March 1999 and 17 January 2000, the true figure is 122 critical care beds. Information on their precise location and other details has been placed in the Library.
    Dr. Fox: That was an interesting answer, but to a different question. I did not ask about critical care beds; I asked about intensive care beds. In the last health debate, the Secretary of State said that he had managed to identify eight; in his letter to me of 6 January he said that there were 100; on "Breakfast with Frost" the Prime Minister said that there were 60; and when my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) asked about the number of additional intensive care beds that had been created in each NHS trust in 1999 he was told:
    "Information is not available in the form requested."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 103W.]
    Given that all those answers cannot be correct, which ones were untrue?
    Ms Stuart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the position. However, if he is really interested in patient care, he will look at the figures published in the latest research, which was verified on 17 January. If he is interested in the truth, he will look at that rather than scoring cheap points that do not benefit any patients at all.
    Dr. Fox: Imagine the audacity of the House of Commons in wanting information from a Minister! These Ministers could not ask for water if they were thirsty. Is not the truth that information that the Government do not like is denied, distorted or withheld? Like the Home Secretary's numbers, the Health Secretary's intensive care beds are complete fantasy. Will the Minister guarantee that by this time next year there will be an increase in the number of intensive care beds as well as critical care beds, and that those figures will be published monthly by trusts throughout the country? We could all then know the truth—we certainly cannot take the Government's word for it.
    Ms Stuart: The hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind about what kind of backseat driver he wants to be. Does he want to keep saying, "Give us information faster and faster", or does he want reliable information that is analysed properly? Information, such as that produced by the national beds inquiry, is being analysed properly and will then be made available, and other information will be made available more quickly. Surely we should give out appropriate information at the right time and in the right place when it is most useful for management decisions.

    Primary Care Trusts
    Mrs. Diana Organ: What progress he is making with the development of primary care trusts. [106249]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Excellent progress has been made towards primary care trust development, with 68 primary care groups proposing to make applications to become
    904
    63 primary care trusts this year. Of the 19 applying for an April 2000 start, 17 will become operational in April and the other two will start in October 2000.
    Mrs. Organ: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of primary care trusts and groups has led to increased effectiveness and efficiency in the use of NHS resources? However, in Gloucestershire several primary care groups that want to develop into trusts face funding problems due to Gloucestershire health authority's funding difficulties last year. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give to the primary care group in the Forest of Dean that it will receive sufficient funding in future to be effective, efficient and successful and to consider being developed into a primary care trust?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right about the advantages of primary care groups and trusts. From April, we shall devolve about £20 billion to those organisations, which is three times the amount devolved to front-line clinicians by the previous Government's fundholding plans. That will enable services to be developed more efficiently and effectively.
    On the question of Gloucestershire, my hon. Friend will know that following last year's increase of 5.5 per cent. in the health authority allocation, this year's allocation has gone up by 6.31 per cent., which is a significant increase. However, it is for local people to determine the size and shape of primary care trusts, taking into account the views of all the people in the local health system. That means that the right balance must be struck locally between the need for an organisation that can stay in touch with the communities that it serves, and the need to keep management costs well under control to make sure that money is spent on patients, not bureaucracy.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Minister confirm that the introduction of primary care groups has resulted in patients now having to go to the hospital selected for them by their primary care group? The last vestiges of patient choice have been abolished, and patients, with the agreement of their GP, are no longer allowed to be referred to another hospital with a shorter waiting time or with a better success rate for the operation concerned.
    Mr. Denham: No. The right hon. Gentleman needs to pay a little more attention to what is happening in the national health service. Nothing that we have done removes clinicians' right to make the appropriate referral for a patient. Indeed, a legal change in their position would be required to remove that right.
    The unplanned system introduced by the previous Government was bureaucratic, expensive, unfair and uneven, and we have got rid of it in the interests of patients, doctors and NHS resources, because it is better to make sure, through proper planning and commissioning of services, that patients can get the service that they want at the highest quality and at their closest local hospital. If we contrast our vision of making sure that services are of a high quality and provided as close to patients as possible, with the right hon. Gentleman's vision in which a few patients chase all over the country trying to get on the lists of a handful of doctors, we all know which one patients prefer.

Hearing Impairment
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What plans he has to improve NHS services for people with a hearing impairment. [106251]
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): We will start a project in England later this year to trial digital hearing aids for national health service patients. The project will form a key part of our plans to develop modern NHS hearing aid services.
Mr. Savidge: I welcome that reply as I am aware from my local health authority area of the urgent demand for
906
hearing aids. I am certain that new technology can play a vital role in meeting that need. If the pilots are successful, do the Government intend to extend the availability of digital hearing aids throughout the NHS?
Mr. Hutton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is no doubt that digital programmable hearing aids are successful—they work. We have to ensure that that technology is available to NHS patients who use audiology services in local trusts, and we intend to do so in a major development and major modernisation of hearing aid services. I am delighted that the Royal National Institute for Deaf People has given it such a warm welcome.

Harold Shipman
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Madam Speaker I wish to make a statement about the Harold Shipman case. Harold Shipman is the general practitioner from Hyde, Greater Manchester, who, the House will know, was found guilty yesterday at Preston Crown court on 15 charges of murder, and of forging the will of one of his patients. I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service is considering further charges. The police have investigated a total of 136 cases.
The whole House and, indeed, the whole country will have been shocked to hear the detail of those dreadful crimes. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will want to join me in offering our deepest condolences to all the relatives and friends of the people who died at the hands of Harold Shipman. Those relatives and friends have endured the ordeal of a lengthy public trial with quiet dignity. Our sympathies today are with those families.
We now know that Harold Shipman murdered at least 15 women patients. They had placed their trust in him as their local GP. He abused his position of trust in a way that was callous, systematic and determined. As Mr. Justice Forbes, the judge presiding in the trial, said yesterday, he murdered each and every one of his victims by a calculating and cold blooded perversion of his medical skills. It is almost beyond belief that a doctor could act in this way.
The relationship between individual doctor and individual patient is built upon trust. The Shipman case must not be allowed to erode the bond that rightly exists between our first-class family doctors and the families whom they serve. GPs in this country, almost without exception, are hard working, honest and trustworthy. It is almost universally agreed that we have one of the finest family doctor services in the world. In my view, it is imperative that we protect that reputation, even as we learn the lessons of the Shipman case.
It is of course true that a determined criminal can defeat the best-regulated organisation in pursuit of his purpose, but we must be confident that we do indeed have the best systems for regulation and self-regulation firmly in place. There is no doubt that those systems have to be strengthened and changed. Not only did Harold Shipman manage to perpetrate those appalling crimes, but he managed to get away with them for years without being discovered.
Members of Parliament and members of the public will want to be reassured about whether these awful events could have been foreseen and avoided, whether the early signs could have been detected sooner, and whether action to halt Harold Shipman could have been taken earlier. It is to answer those and other questions in a careful and considered way that I intend to establish an independent inquiry into the issues raised by the murder of patients by Harold Shipman.
I am establishing the inquiry using the powers that I have as Secretary of State as defined in section 2 of the National Health Service Act 1977, and with the support of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The inquiry will be comprehensive and inclusive. The victims' relatives in particular will be able to present their views
908
and experiences to the inquiry. The report of the inquiry will be made public. I am publishing the terms of reference for the inquiry today; a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Given the issues of confidence raised by the Shipman case, the inquiry must act thoroughly and speedily. It will report in the autumn. It will be chaired by Lord Laming of Tewin, the former chief inspector of social services.
The inquiry's primary purpose will be to make recommendations on how best patients can be safeguarded in future. It will look at the role played by all the agencies involved in the Shipman case, including the coroner, the registrar, the police and health services. It will examine all relevant issues, including the measures needed to safeguard against the risks of isolated professional medical practice, GPs' access to controlled drugs and the role of the NHS tribunal.
We have received and noted the West Pennine health authority's internal report on the Shipman case. Last night, the health authority announced the suspension of its GP adviser. The health authority report will no doubt be considered by the inquiry but, equally, the inquiry will also be charged with properly scrutinising the role and conduct of the authority itself.
It will also be important that the General Medical Council's involvement in Harold Shipman's case is examined by the inquiry, that lessons are learned and that recommendations for reform are made. The GMC must genuinely exist to protect patients. It must be truly accountable and it must be guided at all times by the welfare and safety of patients.
The House will know that the Government and the medical profession are already taking action to modernise regulatory structures and to deal with poor performance wherever it occurs in medicine. The GMC is developing proposals for assessment and revalidation of all doctors' licences to practise at five-yearly intervals. To strengthen and underpin this, in November last year, the chief medical officer produced recommendations in his report, "Supporting Doctors, Protecting Patients", to identify and deal with the small minority of doctors whose performance or behaviour gives cause for concern.
The report proposes that there should be annual appraisal of all doctors, including family doctors. Until now, there has been no such system. It proposes that health authorities should have the power to suspend GPs when the circumstances indicate that patients may be at risk. They do not have that power at present. Finally, it proposes that participation of GPs in external clinical audit should in future be mandatory. It is not mandatory at present. The detail of the proposals is still being consulted on. We need to press ahead as quickly as possible with them.
In parallel, the Government intend that the system of clinical governance should apply to all doctors. It will promote high standards of care and introduce accountability in a way that has not existed in the past. Isolation in which an individual doctor's pattern of practice is hidden from view will become a thing of the past. The new system will in turn be monitored by the new independent Commission for Health Improvement.
Our proposals will provide safeguards against the rare doctor who poses a grave and immediate threat to patients' safety. In the process, they will improve GPs' accountability without preventing them from getting on with the job of treating, and caring for, their patients.

909
To reinforce the steps that are already in train and those that the inquiry may recommend, I believe that there are certain immediate actions that the Government need to take in the light of the Shipman trial.
First, the way in which the NHS tribunal works means that the health service would continue to pay Harold Shipman for about another month following his convictions for murder. That is inconceivable. I am acting urgently to make sure that it does not happen. Similarly, the powers that I have as Secretary of State allow me to remove pension entitlements from those recipients who have seriously damaged public confidence in the NHS. I am today giving notice that I am considering removing Harold Shipman's pension entitlements.
Secondly, despite his convictions for murder, Harold Shipman today is still a registered doctor with the General Medical Council. The public will now expect the GMC to give its most urgent attention to removing Harold Shipman from the register of medical practitioners.
Thirdly, there is at present nothing to require a family doctor to disclose a past criminal conviction or a previous professional censure to prospective partners or to a health authority. In the 1970s, Harold Shipman had a conviction for obtaining and misusing a controlled drug. He had a record with the General Medical Council, yet that did not lead anyone to monitor him more closely than any other doctor. That, too, will now change.
I can tell the House that we shall be requiring doctors to disclose criminal convictions and action taken against them by a professional regulatory body, whether in the UK or abroad, before they can be appointed to medical lists.
Fourthly, we intend to make it compulsory for GPs to report deaths in their surgeries and other serious incidents to health authorities. At the same time, we are working with the Office for National Statistics to find new and better ways of monitoring deaths of GPs' patients.
Fifthly, I have asked the chief medical officer to commission and oversee a clinical audit of Harold Shipman's past practice. The audit will examine the pattern of deaths, certified causes of deaths, prescribing of restricted drugs, and the relevant medical records. Any concerns highlighted by the audit will be drawn to the attention of the relevant authorities.
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is setting up an urgent review to consider how to improve death certification and make more effective the checks undertaken before cremation and burial. The review will also consider whether there should be a role for coroners in monitoring the proper procedures after death. The consideration and findings of this review will, of course, be made available to the inquiry that I announced today.
We owe it to the relatives and friends of those murdered by Harold Shipman to identify and implement whatever steps are necessary to prevent a repetition of the terrible events witnessed in Hyde. Harold Shipman was a determined serial killer. He preyed on some of the most vulnerable members of our society. He broke the trust of his patients in the most dreadful way imaginable. Having betrayed the trust of his own patients, Harold Shipman should not be allowed to break the trust that exists between family doctors and their patients.
910
The action that I have outlined today is intended to strengthen that bond of trust. It expresses the Government's determination to apply the lessons of the Shipman case to ensure that patients have the protection that they deserve.
Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy in making it available to the Opposition in advance.
As a former general practitioner, and as a current member of the Royal College of General Practitioners, I feel nothing but horror and disgust at the actions of Harold Shipman. I find it incomprehensible that any doctor who had the trust of his patients could behave in such a way. I am sure that that view is shared not only by the public but by the entire medical profession.
I extend the sympathy of all Opposition Members to the families of the victims. They are the ones who have to live most immediately with the results of Harold Shipman's wickedness. However, as a GP, may I say that it was Harold Shipman who was found guilty, not the medical profession or general practitioners? We need to keep a sense of proportion in this debate, and I am grateful that the Secretary of State made such a well-balanced statement.
We welcome the public inquiry. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give an undertaking that its findings will be debated in the House as soon as the House returns from the summer recess.
I welcome the statements on pay and pension in relation to Harold Shipman, which I am sure those outside the House will regard as sensible. I agree that there are lessons for the General Medical Council. Immediate removal from the register in cases such as this is simply common sense. I agree that there should be better reporting of deaths in GPs' surgeries and better monitoring of the deaths of GPs' patients. However, we should not expect too much of such figures because there would have to be a great difference between a GP's figures and the norm to reveal a substantial discrepancy.
I welcome the review of the coroner's role in monitoring procedures after death. I agree that doctors from home and abroad should be required to declare criminal convictions and any actions taken by a regulatory body. Will that require primary legislation? How will that be policed? Policing will be the most difficult aspect of such a measure.
I want to make one or two constructive suggestions. Should not the principle of requiring doctors to disclose criminal convictions be extended? Surely health authorities and other employing authorities should have a legal duty to check references for doctors from the United Kingdom and abroad.
Any doctor can sign part 2 of a cremation form for a colleague. There should be better controls; for example, doctors should be specifically trained to sign a part 2. Doctors who will do that in future should at least take a course. Perhaps someone other than a GP who has specialist knowledge should sign part 2 of cremation forms to ensure increased public confidence in that process.
The Secretary of State mentioned controlled drugs. Surely it should be an offence not to hand back drugs that are taken from the relatives of a patient after death. It is

911
common for doctors to take them and throw them away, but we need to ensure that procedures are in place to maintain public confidence. Hoarding controlled drugs is not acceptable.
Questions must be asked about the future of single-handed practices. Many of us in the primary care system have not wanted to face up to that question previously. However dedicated the individual GPs, questions must be asked about single-handed practices' auditing and ability to provide modern health care. The Secretary of State would be supported by the Opposition in considering that matter constructively.
The Secretary of State said that our GPs, almost without exception, were hard working, honest and trustworthy. I am grateful for the fact that there has been no knee-jerk response about regulation, and that the responsibility for regulation will remain principally with the profession in line with the law.
The Secretary of State said that no system could prevent one evil individual from carrying out such acts as those of Harold Shipman. He asked whether they could have been stopped or foreseen. I am sure that the question that he, like the House, wants to ask is, "How can we ensure that it cannot happen again?"
Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and his constructive comments. I agree about the need to try to retain a sense of balance. It is important to learn and apply the lessons as rapidly as possible. All hon. Members, in partnership with the medical profession, should make the necessary changes to protect patients and the best interests of the overwhelming majority of doctors, who are hard working, trustworthy and honest. Many of the changes that I have described will have the support, and command the confidence, of the medical profession.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a debate on the findings of the inquiry. That is a matter for the business managers, but I am amenable to discussing the issues when the inquiry has reported in the autumn. I expect it to report at the end of September; its findings will be made public.
On figures and mortality statistics, the Shipman case has thrown into sharp relief the fact that our method of collecting, using and monitoring figures is susceptible to allowing a callous, evil and cunning individual to slip through the net. We must address that rapidly; we are in discussions with the ONS. It is not true to claim that the figures that were available in Hyde, and probably to the West Pennine health authority, were not susceptible to interpretation. Clearly, the mortality rate among Harold Shipman's patients was higher than average; it was excessive among his elderly women patients.
As to ensuring that criminal convictions and professional censures are made available to employers and health authorities, we have the basis of that in the criminal records bureau, which was established under the Police Act 1997. We shall consult the medical profession about how we can use that to achieve what we want to achieve. Controlled drugs and the training of doctors are both very important issues. Reform of the system for registering death and signing off burial and cremation certificates is long overdue. That is now crystal clear, but it is properly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the review that he has established, which will report as
912
quickly as possible. It, in turn, will be fed into the inquiry. If the inquiry decides to make further recommendations, so be it. We shall look on them favourably.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to the future of single-handed practices. Like him, I think that that is an extremely difficult issue. There are about 3,000 single-handed GPs in this country and an awful lot of small practices—often in inner-city or isolated rural communities—provide a valuable service to tens of thousands of patients. Those patients, in my view, have the right to expect precisely the highest standards of care and no difference between the standards of care provided by a single-handed GP or a GP in a large practice. We must ensure in future that there are proper methods to enforce those standards, wherever a GP practises, and effective monitoring of them, too.
Mr. Tom Pendry: Will the Secretary of State accept from me that his statement goes a long way to give comfort to my constituents in Hyde and, in particular, to those whose lives have been shattered by the actions of that evil man? The whole House will join my right hon. Friend in expressing our sincere condolences to those who have been affected by a doctor whom they trusted, but who betrayed their trust. Does he agree that the bond between doctor and patient is very precious? I hope that the inquiry that he is setting up will go some way to restore that particular bond and the faith that we have in that relationship.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend said that my constituents who have been affected by the case will have access to the inquiry. I believe that that will be well received in my constituency. He covered some of these points, but I hope that his inquiry will acknowledge the need to change the monitoring of death certificates and recommend tighter control of the dispensing and collecting of drugs by GPs; the introduction of new procedures to suspend and, if necessary, dismiss GPs; the placing of any criminal records of GPs in the hands of the health authorities; and the monitoring of registered deaths. Anything short of that will not satisfy my constituents or, I believe, the nation.
Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been very active in his support for the relatives of the victims of Harold Shipman. He has also been in regular touch with me about the case. I can confirm that the inquiry will be accessible to the relatives and friends of the victims, which is appropriate and right. We have to find the best way of achieving that access and of ensuring that change happens, as we all want and, I believe, as the relatives want. They want at least a tad of good to come from all this. We must make sure that the inquiry is open and accessible, and yet can get on with its job and report as quickly as possible. He referred to the suspension of GPs. As he is aware, we do not have such powers. I think that many will conclude that perhaps we should have them in the future.
Mr. Nick Harvey: I, too, express shock and horror at these dreadful crimes, and echo the sympathy already extended to the families—and, indeed, to the many other families of former patients of Harold Shipman who are now wondering anxiously whether the deaths of those patients were also suspicious.

913
I welcome the statement, and thank the Secretary of State for giving notice of it. I also welcome his announcement of an inquiry, and of the Home Secretary's review of death certification procedures. Is it not the case that some of the welcome appraisal measures mentioned by the Secretary of State will identify incompetent doctors, but will not necessarily show up evil doctors?
Let me take up a point that has already been made. The requirement that a doctor should disclose convictions or professional censures is all very well, but what if the doctor does not do that? Would it not be better for the system to be the other way round, and for health authorities to be required to perform full checks and searches before appointments are made; and would it not be better for the checks and searches to be extra thorough in the case of those who are to practise as single-handed general practitioners?
On the question of controlled drugs, would it not be possible in this high-tech age for pharmacists' registers to be monitored, and to check for any anomalies in doctors' prescribing? The role of the General Medical Council has been mentioned. Is it not essential that the GMC not only does a good job for patients, but is seen to do so? Might it not be in the interest of public confidence for the issue of a lay majority on the GMC to be considered again?
Finally, in regard to death certification, may I echo the suggestion of many that the requirements and, indeed, the payments of signatories be reviewed? Is it not also clear that we now need a coroners service that is sufficiently professional, and resourced adequately enough to be able to collect and monitor data effectively, and spot any irregularities early?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. Let me begin with his last point. Part of the review by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will involve examining the role and functions of the coroners service, and deciding what measures are needed to strengthen it. There are important lessons here for both the coroners service and the registrars service. Given the amount of information that comes their way, both coroners and registrars should be in a position to take an overview of what is happening in a particular locality—of, for instance, the rate and type of deaths, and the cluster of mortality statistics. That did not happen in this case, and I think the inquiry should consider why it did not happen, not necessarily in order to penalise anyone but to learn some lessons, and to ensure that we get the arrangements right for the future.
As for Harold Shipman's past practice, I said in my statement that the chief medical officer would undertake an audit. It will be an audit of all Harold Shipman's past practice, and the deaths that occurred during his time as a GP over two and a half decades. I think that that is the right thing to do: I think that the public, and former patients of Harold Shipman, deserve that reassurance. The chief medical officer will appoint expert clinicians to lead the process, and we will try to ensure that the audit is undertaken and completed as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned pharmacists and controlled drugs. That is a terribly difficult area, and it is perhaps now clear that some of the practices, processes and procedures need to be examined again. The problem
914
arises when a GP collects a controlled drug from the pharmacist, says that he is going to prescribe it to a patient and does not do so, or prescribes only part of it. We need a system that can deal with such potential problems, without denying the flexibility that GPs sometimes need. They may need access to controlled drugs if, for example, there has been a road traffic accident.
We must try to get the balance absolutely right. I do not pretend for a moment that it will be easy, but it is right for us to examine the issues now. As I said in my statement, I think that the inquiry will want to look very closely at the role and conduct of the General Medical Council, how it is constituted and its structures, processes and procedures.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Those of us who know Lord Laming are well aware that he will do a thorough and sensitive job.
May I press my right hon. Friend on three key issues that I think should be included in the inquiry? He mentioned the role of the coroner. Will the inquiry examine the wider role of the coroners office in evaluating local trends in reported deaths? It seems astonishing that no one in the area where Shipman practised spotted what was going on. That is a key point, which we need to look at urgently.
Can we look not just at the role of the GMC, but at its wider relationships with other health bodies, which are crucial to understanding what went wrong in the 1970s? I remain to be convinced that the problems that occurred then could not reoccur. I support the comments by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, on a lay majority on the GMC, which would bring increased public confidence.
As my right hon. Friend will probably be aware, in October, the Select Committee on Health produced a report of direct relevance to those issues. The Government have not responded to that yet. I hope that they will, bearing in mind some of the issues arising from the Shipman case.
As well as, obviously, addressing the issue of single-handed practices, will the inquiry look at the relevance of the independent contractor status of GPs, which has some direct connection to the issue of accountability and standards?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I apologise for the delay in responding to the Select Committee's report. Clearly, we need to do that, and will respond in due course.
My hon. Friends's first question was about the coroners service. The answer to that question is yes. On the GMC's constitution and the way in which the GMC relates to the broader national health service, I am sure that that will be a matter for the inquiry and that it will look carefully at the GMC's role. As the Government have always made clear, professional self-regulation is under test. There is broad agreement now that professional self-regulation has to be more accountable, more open and more modern. The inquiry will look at how that can best be achieved in the light of the Shipman case.
I broadly take the view that independent contractor status has served the NHS pretty well over the past five or so decades. It is important that there are alternatives

915
for GPs, particularly newly qualifying younger GPs who sometimes might want not to go into a practice and become a partner, but opt for the salaried route. As a matter of policy, we have been determined to open that as an option, but it is important that GPs, as they come through, train and come into the NHS, have a real choice about their future career and about the employment structure that best suits them.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Secretary of State accept that his decision to put in place an inquiry is entirely welcome and that his choice of Lord Laming, with whom I have worked, will command support and confidence among Members on both sides of the House? Will he accept the thanks to him from Members on both sides of the House for his differentiation between one evil man and the broad mass of GPs who serve their constituents and their patients with dedication, professionalism and care? Perhaps he would consider using existing communication mechanisms to draw to the individual attention of GPs throughout the country his supportive words, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and other right hon. and hon. Members.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry will look at the role of the police relative to Dr. Shipman? What police force will conduct that part of the investigation on behalf of Lord Laming?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am particularly grateful for his support for Lord Laming, with whom I know that he worked closely during his period at the Department of Health. I am sure that he is right to say that GPs will be looking at, and listening carefully to, the comments in the House today. Rightly, they will want to feel that their interests are being protected alongside those of the patients. Although it is sometimes tempting to differentiate between the interests of patients and those of GPs, I prefer to think that, if we can make some changes, that will benefit both GPs and patients. I am sure that his sentiment—that the overwhelming majority of family doctors will be as appalled as hon. Members are about the activities of one evil GP—is absolutely right.
We have to ensure that it does not happen again, and that, together, we—the Government, the other parties in the House and the medical profession—take the appropriate action and get on with it. In my view, the worst thing that could happen would be to pretend that it can be business as usual; it cannot. We cannot stick our heads in the sand or pretend that this awful set of events has not happened, because it has. We must take whatever action is necessary to ensure that it does not happen again.
We have not contemplated bringing in an outside police force, which is more properly an issue for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, alongside Lord Laming, expert assessors—one from a medical background and one from a legal background—will be charged with examining the role played by the various statutory agencies, including police, in the investigation of the Shipman case.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the public inquiry will examine not
916
only the role of the General Medical Council in this dreadful affair, but its current responsibilities and whether there have to be any changes?
Mr. Milburn: Yes, the inquiry will. I am sure that the GMC itself will have heard, and I hope will respond positively to, the views that have been expressed today in the House, and I think that it will recognise that there are some important lessons to be learned about how it behaves in such situations. The Government stand ready to listen not only to the inquiry's recommendations, but to the views of the GMC on how its performance could be reshaped after the Shipman case.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the possibility of trying Dr. Shipman for other offences. Will he keep in mind the fact that, in view of everything that has been said in the past 24 hours, it will be very difficult to give him a fair trial?
Although it must be right to strip Dr. Shipman of his pension entitlements, will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the separate position of his wife? It must be fair to consider her separately.
It is obviously right to hold an inquiry, but will the right hon. Gentleman be cautious about scapegoating? The truth is that great evil, like great good, is not all that easy to recognise. Furthermore, a propensity to take drugs is not the same as a propensity to kill.
Mr. Milburn: I certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the issue of scapegoating. Obviously, there are questions to answer in the matter, and that is right and proper. The case has been an horrendous set of events and, with the great benefit of hindsight, it is crystal clear that something was going enormously wrong with Harold Shipman's practice. Ultimately, the agencies that are constituted in statute are accountable to the House, and it is right that they should account for how they performed and dealt with a set of very difficult and complex matters in Greater Manchester. That is part of the purpose of the inquiry.
I stress again, however, that I really do not want the inquiry simply to turn into an investigation of past events. We already have a public inquiry, we have had a lengthy and difficult court case and we have had a trial. It is right that the inquiry should investigate the failures that may well have occurred in the systems, but it should also look forward and make positive recommendations about how we can strengthen and change those systems for the future.
I have to bear in mind the issue of pension requirements and Harold Shipman's wife. I have a judicial role in pension forfeiture, and I shall perform my duties accordingly.
Ms Chris McCafferty: I commend my right hon. Friend on his statement and particularly welcome the inquiry. He will be aware that Harold Shipman practised medicine in Todmorden, in my constituency, for some years. It was thanks only to the efficient and effective checks and balances that his partners had in place that his drug misuse was discovered and that he was subsequently prosecuted.

917
Like many hon. Members, I am particularly concerned that the West Pennine health authority was not aware of Harold Shipman's convictions while he was a GP in Todmorden. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that this case highlights the importance of robust systems to monitor not just the death rates of GPs, but the quality of care that they are giving to patients. Will my right hon. Friend place a statutory duty on the GMC to be proactive in informing health authorities of all relevant information that relates to medical personnel, and consider whether GPs should have salaried status within the NHS, and all the accountability that that brings?
The facts revealed by this case have caused grave concern to my constituents also. Although there are no immediate concerns or suggestions that Harold Shipman started his activities in Todmorden, some of my constituents have concerns about relatives who were his patients. Will my right hon. Friend urgently establish a helpline to help those who are concerned about those matters, to dispense and gather information and to help alleviate worries? That would be very welcome.
Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point about the majority of GPs. In Todmorden and in Hyde, fellow GPs of Harold Shipman blew the whistle. We should not lose sight of that. A fellow GP in Hyde first raised suspicions about Dr. Shipman's practice and the excess levels of deaths among his largely elderly female patients. My hon. Friend is right to say that it was a fellow GP in her constituency who raised suspicions about the fact that Harold Shipman was forging prescription forms and had illegally obtained controlled drugs—in this case, pethidine. That is an important lesson to bear in mind as we consider the future of general practice and the role of individual GPs.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the crucial issue is not just better monitoring of mortality statistics, although that is needed. I was heartened to see the comments from Dr. John Chisholm, the chairman of the GPs' committee of the BMA. The BMA and the doctors themselves recognise that there must be greater accountability in terms of how GPs perform. That is a welcome recognition, and provides us with the basis to reach sensible agreements, to make progress and to ensure that we do not see a repetition of this sort of tragedy in future.
My hon. Friend referred to helplines. I will consider that issue. I know that, in Hyde, the health authority has worked closely with Victim Support, which has provided an absolutely sterling service to the relatives and friends of victims. They have that sort of help and support, and I will look into whether it is possible to extend that.
Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the inquiry, the establishment of which I greatly welcome, will not be limited to the narrow question of trying to prevent a recurrence of this incredibly wicked but, one hopes, incredibly rare occurrence of a medical practitioner deliberately killing healthy patients, but will be able to look more broadly at what may be a greater risk—of death through the incompetence, carelessness and negligence of doctors, both in hospitals and in general practice—
918
through improved monitoring of their performance and the success rates of their treatments, with possibly even the publication of data about those things?
Mr. Milburn: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that we will publish mortality statistics for the first time. It is a contentious issue, as he will recall from his time in office when the previous Government published the statistics in Scotland. We have extended that to England and I believe that that is the right thing to do. The issue is complex but, in the final analysis, the patient has the right to know. The patient is the recipient of what is a public service. The public pay for it and use it, and it is right and proper that the public should know what level and standard of service they are receiving. We may even need to go further than we have in the publication of such information.
As to the scope of the inquiry, it is right and proper that it should concentrate on the implications of the Shipman case. I have no doubt that it will have wider repercussions that will be considered by the inquiry team and reflected in its recommendations.
Dr. Howard Stoate: As a GP, I have been horrified and appalled by the havoc wreaked by that callous and brutal murderer. Patients and doctors will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially his affirmation that trust is the cornerstone of the doctor-patient consultation. Without that trust, it would be difficult for doctors to do their work. I would hate to see a knee-jerk reaction to what has happened, and I welcome the long-term inquiry that he mentioned and the fact that he will consider carefully and calmly any recommendations, especially on death certification and the availability of controlled drugs. As my right hon. Friend is aware, without drugs such as morphine, doctors would not be able to save as many lives as they do. Will he ensure that the report is considered carefully when it is published and that we do not rush into any premature decisions that might do more harm than good?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. We have tried to strike a balance today by taking action where appropriate and where there is an obvious gap in the processing systems. I hope that we have got the balance right. At the same time, I wish to empower the inquiry to examine the structures more broadly and to consider the specific lessons that can be learned. I have no doubt, given the chairmanship of Lord Laming, that the inquiry will undertake its proceedings carefully and sensitively, especially given the feelings of the relatives of the deceased. When it produces its recommendations, the Government will need some time to consider the implications and we will then report back to the House.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the contents of his statement and on the sensitivity with which he delivered it and has answered questions. Does he agree that the peculiarity of this case, even compared with the cases of other serial murderers, is that there was no obvious financial, or apparent sexual, motivation for the crimes committed? Is it not to the credit of the police that, as soon as a financial motivation was drawn to their attention, they managed to investigate the case so thoroughly and unravel it so comprehensively? While I endorse what has been said

919
about the need to discover who has made mistakes in the past, does the Secretary of State agree that, on the surface at least, the police—once alerted—appear to have done a first-rate job?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He will be aware that in the judge's summing up yesterday in Preston he praised the performance of the local police in what was a difficult and lengthy investigation. Credit is of course due to the police, as it is to the relatives of the victims. In particular, I pay tribute—it is difficult to find the words to do so—to the daughter of Mrs. Grundy because, without her intervention and early investigation, I fear that Harold Shipman would have continued his killing ways.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I echo the expressions of condolence to the families and friends of all those murdered, and I offer the sympathy of the House to all those in Tameside who are uncertain about what happened to their relatives or friends. I wish to press my right hon. Friend to consider carefully the appointment that he will shortly make to the chairmanship of the West Pennine health authority. Will he try to ensure that, through that appointment, he gives new direction to the health authority to try to restore confidence to all those people in Tameside and Oldham who use its services? Will he try to make sure that that new appointment gives a new direction to the health authority that will help to restore confidence to all those people in Tameside and Oldham who use its services?
Mr. Milburn: We will give proper and due consideration to that appointment when it comes up. Inevitably, the health authority is in the spotlight at the moment, and it has acted to suspend its GP adviser. The health authority has produced its own internal report, which we at the Department of Health have received and which the authority published at its press conference last night. However, it is also appropriate that the inquiry considers the role and conduct of the authority, alongside that of the other statutory agencies, such as the police, the coroners service, the registrars service, and others.

Points of Order
4.21 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I gave you advance notice of this point of order, which concerns an apparently well-sourced piece in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It is entitled "Prescott cuts housing quota", and it mentions a meeting today of the Fabian Society. Apparently, the Deputy Prime Minister intends to make some major pronouncements about his policy for new house building in the south-east, in the light of the report by Professor Crow and his team. The article states that the right hon. Gentleman apparently will increase very significantly the number of new houses to be built in the south-east, over and above the number already recommended by Serplan. Clearly, that will be of enormous concern to many people in the south-east, and to their elected representatives.
Have you had any request from the Deputy Prime Minister for an opportunity to make a statement in the House today? If not, do you agree that the right hon. Gentleman has shown a cavalier disrespect for the House?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by any Ministers that they are seeking to make a statement today on that issue. I certainly never make any comments on newspaper reports. I think that that is always wise, and a good line for any Speaker, Back Bencher or Minister to follow.
Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished yet. I very seldom get a chance to speak in the House and, when I do, I am certainly not going to be interrupted by a Back Bencher on what may well be a bogus point of order when it comes.
However, the serious point is that Ministers and the House know that I am strongly of the view that policy announcements should be made in the House in the first instance. I very much hope that my comments will be borne in mind when Ministers finally reach a conclusion on this matter.
Now, Mr. Paterson, I will hear your point of order—and it had be better a good one, too.
Mr. Paterson: May I refer back to Question 6 in Health questions, Madam Speaker? The Secretary of State said that he would eat his hat if I could provide documentary evidence to back up the question that I had put to him. Page 63 of 22nd edition of "Erskine May" clearly states that
"it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
I quote from a letter from the Shropshire local medical committee, which represents all the general practitioners in the county. The letter states:
"no bed was available in Shropshire to admit acutely ill patients",
s even though
"this was a fairly normal winter, with the sort of seasonable rise in activity that is predictable and which should be coped with as a matter of routine."

921
Would it be possible to call the Secretary of State back to the House, so that he can accurately answer my question, and possibly eat his hat at the same time?
Madam Speaker: I am not sure about any demonstration of hat eating, but the hon. Gentleman will know that I do not have the authority to call the Secretary of State back to the House. The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State a question earlier, and I suggest that he tries to rephrase the matter and bring it to the attention of the House in general by means of questions or an early-day motion.

Retail Packaging Recycling
4.25 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that certain retailers shall provide free of charge a collection point for any packaging materials sold or supplied by them; and to require them to recycle or safely dispose of such materials.
Six weeks ago, hon. Members were rushing around the shops, buying last-minute Christmas presents for their family, friends and relatives. Five weeks ago, hon. Members were busy opening their stockings and unwrapping the gifts and presents given them by their family, friends and relatives. And four weeks ago, the refuse collection services of various local councils were rushing around Britain collecting a huge volume of cellophane, polystyrene, cardboard, bubble pack, plastic bits and bobs, paper and bags from hon. Members. This week, hon. Members have the chance to support my Bill, which will help to stem the flood of the unwanted and unnecessary packaging that filled their living rooms on Christmas day and their dustbins on Boxing day.
The Bill has a simple aim, and it seeks to achieve it in a straightforward way. It uses a well-tried and effective mechanism—the market—which I hope will find favour on both sides of the House, to achieve a much desired result. The power to do this will be put in the hands of ordinary consumer—of shoppers. It does not require a regulatory body or special powers to be given to a statutory authority.
The Bill's aim is to reduce the unnecessary over-packaging of products bought by consumers. That excess packaging has a very short life. We take it home, rip it off and stick it in the bin. Much of the packaging defies recycling by conventional methods. There are a lot of mixed materials bonded together, cardboard and plastic bonded together and multiple plastic products that cannot be separated. Quite often, the resulting materials are bulky and uncompressible.
In short, excess packaging presents an environmental nightmare. So why does it happen, why is it getting worse and who wants this packaging mountain? Well, it is not the waste disposal authorities; it is not the bin men who collect it; it is not the customer, whose dustbin is overflowing, and it is not the retailer. The retailer does not telephone the manufacturer and say, "Please send more polystyrene and cellophane with your products." The marketing people are responsible. That is a term of abuse in many areas, and I have to say that this marketing blitz is a catastrophe for the environment.
I have mentioned some of the problems that arise when the packaging is used and goes into the formal waste stream. There is a further problem of when it is used and goes into the informal waste stream—or the ditch and the hedge, as we call it in professional circles. As far as packaging goes, the less of it there is, the better.
How does the Bill help? It will place an obligation on retailers—those trading from larger premises—to take back from their customers any packaging that they have supplied to them. Larger retailers will have to provide a point where packaging can be taken or handed in. The retailer will then recycle it or safely dispose of it, which is often not so easy.
The experience of Switzerland and Germany, where similar legislation is in place, is that retailers soon tell wholesalers to cut down on the junk that is being sent

923
with the products they are selling. The wholesalers tell the manufacturers, and the manufacturers soon get the message. Products in those countries tend to have less junk packaging than in the United Kingdom, and there is no reason why this Bill should not produce the same result.
The Bill will not cost anybody anything; it produces savings at every step. There is less cost for the manufacturer in providing the packaging and less cost for the wholesaler in transporting it; less hassle for retailers, less rubbish in the dustbins of hon. Members and of other consumers and, of course, less waste in landfill sites throughout the country.
It is my privilege to introduce a Bill that is benign in all respects—free of cost and supported on both sides of the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. David Chaytor, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Norman Baker and Mr. Alan Simpson.

RETAIL PACKAGING RECYCLING
Mr. Andrew Stunell accordingly presented a Bill to require that certain retailers shall provide free of charge a collection point for any packaging materials sold or supplied by them; and to require them to recycle or safely dispose of such materials: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 March, and to be printed [Bill 56].
Orders of the Day
  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  Financial Services and Markets Bill
    New Clause 4

      AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT REVIEW OF RULES MADE UNDER PART IX
      ".—(1) Within three years of any rules (other than rules which impose fees) being made under this Part the Authority must carry out a review of such rules to determine whether they continue to be appropriate for the purpose for which they were made.
      (2) If, following such a review, the Authority concludes that the rules in question should be changed in a way which is, in the opinion of the Authority, significant the Authority must make new rules and the provisions of section 127 shall apply to them.
      (3) If, following a review, the Authority concludes that the rules in question should be approved in the form then in force, or in a form which does not differ from such rules in a way which is, in the opinion of the Authority, significant, it must publish a statement of its conclusions in the way appearing to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.
      (4) The statement of the Authority's conclusions must be accompanied by—

      (a) a cost benefit analysis;

      (b) an explanation of the purpose of the rules;

      (c) a schedule of the changes (if any) proposed to be made to the rules;

      (d) a statement of the Authority's reasons for believing that the rules continue to be compatible with its general duties under section 2; and

      (e) a statement that representations about the rules may be made to the Authority within a specified time.

      (5) Before approving any rules to which subsection (3) applies, the Authority must have regard to any representations made to it in accordance with subsection (4)(e).
      (6) If the rules are approved by the Authority, it must make a statement as to the representations (if any) made to it and its response in general terms.
      (7) If the rules approved by the Authority differ from the rules under review (taking account of the changes referred to in subsection (4)(c)) in a way which is, in the opinion of the Authority, significant—

      (a) the Authority must publish a statement of the differences; and

      (b) the statement must be accompanied by a cost benefit analysis.

      (8) 'Cost benefit analysis' means an estimate of the costs together with an estimate of the benefits that will arise if the rules under review are approved.
      (9) Rules approved under this section shall be deemed to be made on the date on which the rules are approved.".—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.31 pm
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 5—Relationship between guidance and rules issued by Authority—

      925
      "(1) If a person behaves in a way which complies with general guidance he shall not be regarded, for the purposes of this Act, as contravening any rule.
      (2) The Authority may give guidance (which is not general guidance) to the effect that compliance with the guidance by the person or persons to whom the guidance is expressed to be given shall not be regarded, for the purposes of this Act, as contravening any rule.
      (3) 'General guidance' has the same meaning as in section 130.".
      Amendment No. 35, in clause 110, page 50, line 20, at end insert—
      "(c) make provision prohibiting or restricting or otherwise regulating the carrying on by an authorised person of any regulated activity at or from an establishment maintained by him outside the United Kingdom unless:

      (i) he is carrying it on with or for a person in the United Kingdom, or

      (ii) both of the conditions set out in subsection (7) apply.

      (7) The conditions are that—

      (a) his registered office (or if he does not have a registered office, his head office) is in the United Kingdom; and

      (b) in the view of the Authority, the provision is desirable in order to—

      (i) protect the reputation of the financial system (as defined in section 3(2)) or of authorised persons or a class of authorised persons, or

      (ii) prevent authorised persons carrying on the activity in a way which is likely to jeopardise the integrity or the solvency of the firm.".

      Amendment No. 50, in clause 110, page 50, line 20, at end insert—
      "(6A) The Authority shall not make rules imposing requirements or restrictions on the conduct of business with, or on the marketing of investments or investment services to, persons outside the United Kingdom unless the scope of those rules has been prescribed in an order made by the Treasury.".
      Amendment No. 51, in clause 111, page 50, line 42, at end insert—
      "(6) The Authority may not make rules relating to any non-regulated activity unless the scope of those rules has been prescribed in an order made by the Treasury.".
      Amendment No. 8, in clause 112, page 50, line 43, after "person", insert—
      "who is authorised under this Act to accept deposits".
      Amendment No. 230, in clause 129, page 59, line 5, after "rules", insert—
      ", statements of principle or codes".
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are still considering the important principles underlying the Bill. Later, we shall discuss amendments that are more technical. However, this group of new clauses and amendments relate to the scope of the Bill and to the rule-making powers of the Financial Services Authority.
      The FSA derives its power largely from that ability to make rules. As we are aware from previous debates, those rules will not be approved by Parliament, so we are, in effect, devolving the law-making task to an outside body. That is why it is important that the Bill should limit such power. It is also right that the House should ensure that the rules made by the FSA are, as far as possible, appropriate for the objectives that we set it. The rules must not exceed those objectives and must constantly be tested against them.
      926
      New clause 4 would ensure that the authority reviews the rules within three years. Such a review would establish whether the rules were still appropriate. Many of the rules are new and comparatively untested. Indeed, many are still evolving—the authority is consulting on its rule-making task.
      Furthermore, the market is always changing, so it is right constantly to test whether rules are still appropriate, or have been rendered obsolete or unworkable by the passage of time. The new clause would require the authority to undertake a cost-benefit analysis for each rule. The authority is already required to do so for new rules, but not for the existing rules that have been grandfathered into the Bill and are continued. We need to subject new and existing rules to a cost benefit analysis, and to do so within three years.
      This matter is of great importance to the City and to the financial services industry generally, especially, perhaps, small firms and independent financial advisers, who are often on the receiving end of regulations that they may not always feel to be appropriate or necessary, and which are always expensive to apply. If we are worried about the intrinsic expansionary tendency in the regulatory system, we need to set up countervailing forces wherever we can, to try to restrict the regulatory authority to what is efficient and effective.
      Mr. John Bercow: Is not my right hon. Friend effectively advocating, via the authority, the operation of a form of sunset regulation, which, as we know from the empirical evidence, works very well at both state and federal level in the United States?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am extremely attracted to the concept of sunset clauses. My hon. Friend mentioned America, where they are common. The rules that we are considering here are passed not by Parliament, but by the Financial Services Authority, so he may have it in mind to impose that concept on the authority. That concept is not in the Bill at the moment, but it may deserve further consideration by the authority.
      For my part, for the purpose of new clause 4, I am focusing perhaps more narrowly on trying to build into the Bill a countervailing pressure to ensure that the phenomenon known as regulatory creep meets its match in a requirement on the authority continually to examine its rules, with a view possibly to repealing them, along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, or at least amending them, or, if it does not decide to do either of those things, to explain why not. That would achieve many of the desirable objectives of a sunset clause without introducing that concept.
      It is not just the health of the domestic industry that we are concerned about in this regard. We are also anxious to ensure the international competitiveness of the financial services industry in the United Kingdom. Higher regulatory burdens and excessive costs could drive a very successful United Kingdom industry overseas.
      For all those reasons, we want to subject the rules continually to the cost-benefit analysis procedure. That is not to say that we do not need rules; we certainly do, and they must be clear and must be enforced. We all want a regulatory system that is effective and efficient. A balance must be maintained. That is what a cost-benefit analysis does—it seeks to ensure that the benefit of a rule outweighs the cost.

      927
      The Government have accepted that such an analysis should be carried out for new rules, so I believe that they will be attracted to new clause 4, which would extend that requirement to the existing body of rules, and give the FSA some time to carry out a review, because that requirement must be met within three years.
      The new clause requires the authority to publish the information as part of a statement of conclusions, having carried out the work. That would be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis, an explanation of the purpose of the rules under scrutiny and a schedule of any proposed changes. The authority would also have to supply a statement of its reasons for believing that the rules continue to be compatible with its general duties and—very importantly—it would have to provide a statement that representations about the rules in question could be made to the authority by market traders and firms in the industry generally. That would be a reasonable requirement to impose on the authority. As I said, it would be in line with what is already required for new rules.
      New clause 5 would make it clear that the general guidance given to the Financial Services Authority could be relied on. That is a separate and most important concept. It is designed to ensure that someone who believes that he has complied with published guidance and rules should be guilty of no offence. That seems perfectly obvious, but there is great nervousness in the industry about someone being caught unawares for breaking an FSA rule or unintentionally breaching a more general principle in the Bill. That is a particular risk that we run with the concept of market abuse, which does not build in sufficiently the concept of intent.
      Someone could be guilty of market abusive behaviour without intending to do so. That possibility has created severe misgivings not just within the regulated community, but more generally. The market abuse provisions apply to the public as well, so any member of the public could be guilty of market abuse even if he does not fall to be directly regulated under the Bill. When people and firms seek to protect themselves by seeking guidance from the authority or by complying with published guidance from the authority, they should be entitled to rely on that. In so far as they comply with the guidance, they should be certain that they are guilty of no offence.
      The general guidance concerned is defined in clause 130, so there is no difficulty with definitions. I believe that the Government are sympathetic to new clause 5 because it would provide a form of natural justice. It would make it clear that the guidance issued by the authority provided a safe harbour for market operators and the public.
      The amendments relate more to the scope of the Bill. Amendment No. 35 would restrict the authority's ability to make rules to regulate non-United Kingdom businesses—businesses that are carried out from an establishment outside the United Kingdom. The restriction would not apply if the business concerned carried out business on behalf of someone in the United Kingdom or if it had a registered office in the United Kingdom and it was necessary to regulate it to protect the financial system. There are limits and restrictions on our proposal.
      Without the safeguard in the amendment, the authority can impose rules on outside and overseas businesses just because they derive from the United Kingdom,
      928
      even though they are likely to be regulated abroad. That is a form of double regulation that will put our firms at a competitive disadvantage. It is objectionable in principle to subject firms or individuals to a form of dual regulation.
      Amendment No. 50 similarly addresses extraterritorial regulation by the authority over the marketing of investments to people outside the UK. It would require those rules to be prescribed in a Treasury order. Again, we would not put a complete block on such extraterritorial regulation; we would simply require it to be more explicit and to form part of a Treasury order that I should like to see approved under the positive resolution procedure.
      4.45 pm
      At the moment, there seems to be a dichotomy in the Treasury's approach. Powers are being given to the FSA to regulate products offered abroad; that is to say, products put on sale by UK businesses. That is a country-of-origin approach, which if generally accepted would be beneficial to this country.
      If there were a reciprocal arrangement, a product or service approved under this country's regulatory powers could be offered to other countries on the continent or to America without further regulation. Customers, consumers and authorities in those other countries would rely on the fact that the FSA was—at least, it should be—a world-class regulator, and they would have certainty about our products and services because they had been regulated in this country.
      That would be a good, desirable system, but the Government rather spoil their case by giving the authority powers to regulate here products and services offered from other countries. That is country-of-destination regulation. If other regulatory authorities take the same view, we will end up with dual regulation. Authorities in countries such as France are probably rather doubtful about the benefit to them of accepting financial products and services offered by the City of London without a further regulatory barrier. Their attitude will be reinforced by the knowledge that we insist, in the Bill, on regulating products offered to this country from abroad.
      The Government need to sort out exactly where they stand on that issue; otherwise, we shall put our industry at a competitive disadvantage by putting it in jeopardy of double regulation.
      Amendment No. 51 would limit the scope of the authority in relation to non-regulated activities. That, too, is an important issue of principle. The Bill is, or should be, about regulating commercial activities that fall within a definition. The Bill is widely drawn, so that definition is necessarily extremely wide; it encompasses banking, dealing in all kinds of investment and giving investment advice about a range of products and services. However, it should stop there.
      I am concerned that, in addition to those activities, the authority can extend its remit to unregulated activities, which could include every conceivable form of commercial activity. For example, clause 38 states that in giving permission to an authorised person to carry on his activity, the authority can impose requirements about activities that are not regulated. The FSA could therefore authorise a company to deal in investments or services that constitute regulated activities, but in addition it could regulate any of the company's other activities without any restriction.

      929
      While clause 38 is about giving permission to people or firms to engage in such activities, clause 111 concerns the FSA's rule-making duties. It allows the FSA to make rules not only on regulated activities, but on just about anything else. That could constitute a dangerous extension of the Bill's scope to pretty well anything.
      The explanatory notes, which the Government issued some time ago, described the way in which the Bill had been designed to set limits on the FSA and its duties, obligations and powers. Yet in the important matter of scope—what can be regulated and what sort of rules can be made—there are no limits; the FSA can stray into non-regulated activities of any sort. Amendment No. 51 requires that that be done only if it is prescribed by a Treasury order. It is a reasonable amendment that does not ban the activity altogether, but merely requires the Treasury to introduce an order for the House to pass by affirmative resolution, so ensuring that there is a genuine opportunity for debate.
      Clause 112 allows the authority to impose on firms what can only be described as ad hoc financial requirements, in addition to its rules. The FSA can do that without issuing a warning notice. Amendment No. 8 would restrict that power to deposit takers. That, too, is a reasonable amendment, because the powers to impose such financial requirements already exist: they have been held by the Bank of England, which has similar powers over deposit takers. Our amendment would bring the Bill into line with the pre-existing situation, which has worked perfectly well.
      The amendments are important because they deal with the rule-making powers of the authority and so go to the heart of the FSA's functions. Perhaps equally important is their effect on the scope of the Bill. If the amendments are made, we shall at least know the limits of the powers that we are granting to the authority.
      Mr. Howard Flight: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has said, this debate is about many important issues of principle. We raised those issues in Committee; Ministers said that they would address some of them, but it seems to us that they have not done so.
      I have discussed the provisions of new clause 4 with the FSA, which has expressed the view that it would like to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of all its rules. However, because it is not practical to do that when the legislation is enacted, the FSA believes that it should be done over time, as laid down by the new clause.
      I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—that our proposals contain an element of the sunset principle, in that the FSA would be required to phase out rules that had gone out of date or become uneconomic in cost-benefit terms. Hon. Members will have seen the FSA paper on risk management and its task of balancing the cost-effectiveness of rules, the importance of the territory they cover and their impact.
      The industry is concerned about the costs of regulation, but there is no easy formula whereby those costs can be controlled. The Opposition suggested an amendment to limit fee increases to increases in the retail prices index,
      930
      but I do not think that that is a practical approach. Instead, we propose an internal control mechanism, governed not by total costs, but by economic efficiency.
      New clause 5 deals with issues of safe harbour and guidance. The FSA has told everyone that the Bill provides a safe harbour through its approach to guidance, and that it will use guidance to put into practice the same arrangements as are found in the United States, in terms of no action letters. However, that is not what the Bill provides for. There is a gap between what the financial community, especially international groups operating in the UK, are being told and what the Bill prescribes.
      My right hon. Friend has focused on territoriality and on the FSA creeping into non-regulated territories. As for territoriality, I cannot understand why the Treasury has been peddling the line that it has adopted. It seems unacceptable that United Kingdom businesses that are operating overseas should be subject to double and different regulation when they are marketing their products in other countries. That is not current practice, and an argument may be advanced by other regulatory bodies in a European Union context that it is inappropriate. The logic that the amendment picks up is ultimately that of reputation. The impact of the Bill goes considerably too far.
      Amendment No. 230 reflects an amendment that we tabled in Committee. We wish to make it clear that guidance given by the FSA should relate not only to rules but to statements of principle and codes. The Government will recollect that they said that they would reconsider the matter. There are several areas where codes and statements of principle are likely to require guidance, yet they are not covered in the Bill.
      Mr. Tim Loughton: I support the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). New clause 4 is probably the most important component of the group of new clauses and amendments that we are discussing. It is about efficiency and cost control but, more than that, it is about self-discipline for the Financial Services Authority itself.
      There were problems with the Financial Services Act 1986—we have heard about them many times—because there was no obvious mechanism for an on-going review of the new rules that came out as a result of the Act. The measure came in for much criticism for being bogged down with many more rules. It was a matter not of taking old rules off the original book but of adding layer upon layer of rules, until we had a muddled and complicated rule book at the end of August.
      We must remember that none of us has seen the new rule book. All our deliberations over the best part of the past 12 months have been to produce a rule book, the details of which we have not seen. We have plenty of principles and ideas of what might go into the book, but in terms of chapter and verse we are still very much in the dark about what the rule book—the bible of the FSA—will contain.
      It is essential that the continuing appropriateness of the rules is held under review, and the mechanism proposed in new clause 3 seems to be a sensible way of proceeding. Any new rules that come along should be subject to cost-benefit analysis. After three years, there should be an

      931
      explanation of the continuing appropriateness of the rules. Markets, and the financial services industry generally, move quickly. What may be appropriate to regulate financial services today may be completely out of date in three years' time. New technology and new products will require new forms of regulation, which, hopefully, will be lighter-touch regulation. It is only right that we should have a mechanism of determining whether the rules that are put in place as a result of this legislation are still appropriate in three years' time, and that that mechanism should operate on a three-year rolling basis thereafter.
      Given that the industry made so many representations in the run-up to, and during deliberations on, the Bill, it would be useful and of reassurance to it if there were a clearly defined watershed three years hence. Institutions that find that rules are not working in the best interests of the financial services community that they serve would then have a clear opportunity to make fresh representations to the FSA and then to the Treasury about how the rules might be changed, and about the on-going problems of cost-benefit analysis.
      In Committee, we spent some time discussing the cumulative effect of the extra regulations and their cost, particularly when put into an international context. Many of us argued then that there should be detailed and specific requirements in the annual report, so that the FSA would have an opportunity—and, indeed, an obligation—to report in transparent terms all the regulations that had been added to the financial services industry during that year, on top of those that had been added in previous years. We could then see the sum total of regulations added—and, we hope, a few taken off as well.
      The additional checks and balances that many Opposition Members advocated were not taken on board by the Government. If such requirements will not to appear in the annual report, it is entirely sensible that the proposals in new clause 4 should be adopted, laying down clearly defined lines of scrutiny to be undertaken three years hence. The rule book is still at an experimental stage, because the FSA is a different beast from any previous body of that kind, and many mistakes will no doubt continue to be made, through no one's fault.
      A review in the cool light of three years' experience seems a sensible idea, and will reinforce the FSA's ability to do its job properly. More importantly, it will reassure the financial services community that matters are being properly kept in check.
      5 pm
      Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I strongly support the arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the new clauses and amendments. We shall discuss reviews later, when we consider clause 10. Many of the same arguments apply to this group of amendments. I shall not elaborate on all the many points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made in his opening remarks. Instead, I shall reiterate one of the points that has been made, and add another.
      It is in the nature of regulation to ratchet up. Once regulations are in place, they tend to be built on. Unless there is a countervailing force to cut regulations back, it is difficult to get rid of them. That is why it is all too easy for so-called light-touch regulation to become burdensome.
      932
      There are many examples. One example that should be examined when, we hope, new clause 4 is accepted and the Bill is enacted, is the self-regulating organisation-derived rules on capital adequacy. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He will recall that, as an officer of the all-party group on insurance and financial services, I have dealt extensively with the issue of regulation. Before entering the House, I also had to deal professionally with the capital adequacy rules of an SRO. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. Does he agree that there is an urgent need for Ministers to consider the issue, which is a matter of great concern to the industry?
      Mr. Tyrie: I agree with my hon. Friend. Ministers will have to deal with the issue anyway, but the incorporation of new clause 4 into the Bill will ensure that that is done in a timely manner.
      I support the suggestion that rules should be made subject to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The latest document produced by the FSA, "A new regulator for the new millennium", is full of new-millennial jargon, but presents a similar approach—a belief in the need for a cost-benefit analysis, reflecting the acceptance of a trade-off between economic performance and the degree of regulation, for which we have consistently argued throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
      I shall make one further point. A provision such as new clause 4 might initially appear to have been tabled primarily to help practitioners. It is a classic example of a provision that appears to help the City, but would ultimately help consumers. Regulations that build up and remain without serving a valid purpose, or which impose an unnecessary burden, result in increased costs. These are ultimately borne by consumers and, to the extent that the City performs less well and provides a lower tax yield, also by taxpayers. New clause 4 is a step in the right direction towards ensuring the continued competitiveness and good economic performance of the City.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I appreciate that the aim of new clause 4 is to ensure that the authority reviews its rules regularly and changes them when they are no longer appropriate. I agree that regular review should take place, and I expect the FSA to monitor the application and implications of its rules continuously, not only every three years. However, to require the FSA to undergo a public consultation exercise on each rule every three years is unnecessarily bureaucratic.
      Conservative Members implied that they intended the review to be a one-off exercise. However, that is not the implication of the new clause as drafted, and I do not believe that the Opposition intend that.
      Mr. Flight: It would be a rolling process.
      Mr. Timms: That is right. Every three years, each rule would be reviewed. That would lead to a cumbersome bureaucracy, and would not be an effective method of achieving the Opposition's objective. As well as the FSA's review process, the consumer and practitioner panels will play an important part in continuously monitoring the rules. That will allow effort to be focused

      933
      on problems rather than reviewing and consulting about each rule every three years. The process for which the new clause provides would be administratively onerous and potentially unworkable. It would put a strain on the authority, and divert time and money from its important tasks. It would be better to concentrate on solving the problems that have been identified.
      Let us consider new clause 5. If the authority issued guidance on a specific rule, and the guidance was followed to the letter, it is difficult to understand how the FSA could discipline someone for breaching that rule. That person would be in a strong position; the FSA made that point in the policy statement that it published last September. If the FSA behaved in a contrary manner, the tribunal would take a dim view, to say the least, unless the authority had extremely good reasons for its actions. The tribunal exists as a safeguard against capricious acts by the FSA, which new clause 5 aims to address.
      In Committee, we discussed the way in which attaching specific status to, for example, general guidance could lead the FSA to be unwilling or unable to give guidance informally and on request. New clause 5 would elevate guidance to law. We must maintain the important distinction between guidance and law. New clause 5 could lead to absurd results. For example, if it were accepted, would we need to issue guidance on guidance? It is important to maintain the clear distinction between law and guidance which new clause 5 would remove.
      Let us consider amendments Nos. 35 and 50. We are committed to light-touch regulation. We would generally try to avoid what the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) described as double regulation in the international arena. We are committed also to the home state regulatory principle in the context of Europe, but at the same time, and in advance of a move to a fuller home state regulatory basis in certain respects, we need to balance that against proper protection for consumers.
      Amendment No. 35 goes in part to what is often termed the "foreign business carve out" under the existing self-regulating organisations' rule books. Where business is conducted from an overseas branch of a UK-authorised firm, some of the self-regulating organisations' conduct of business rules are disapplied. That is clearly an important regulatory principle and although I would certainly expect an appropriately light touch to be maintained under the new regime so that unnecessary double regulation is avoided, making special provision in the Bill is another matter. That could prevent the FSA from applying rules to businesses in unusual cases in which it might be appropriate to apply them.
      For example, there may be merit in the FSA applying limited conduct of business rules to overseas branches of firms to make it clear to customers that, in conducting business through the overseas branch, the firm is not acting in accordance with the FSA's detailed UK rules and regulations, which they might otherwise think was the case. It is important that customers are not misled about the protection and regulation that they are receiving and there may be other good reasons for applying conduct of business rules to overseas branches.
      Amendment No. 35 could also cause difficulties, were conduct of business or marketing regulation to move to a fuller home-state approach in Europe. Currently, the home
      934
      state is responsible under the directives for prudential supervision, including capital adequacy systems, establishing the fitness and properness of workers and so on. To me, it looks as though there would be fairly immediate conflict between the requirements of the directives and the amendment.
      Amendment No. 50 proposes that the FSA should not apply conduct of business rules to UK offices of authorised firms carrying on business with overseas persons, except where the scope of the rules has been prescribed by the Treasury. Again, although I agree that double regulation should be avoided wherever possible, it is not clear, for example, how the amendment would fit in with any wider move, which may well come, to a fuller home state basis of regulation of the marketing of financial services.
      On amendment No. 51, when we debated clause 111 in Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) expressed concern. He said:
      "The Treasury is not the right policeman for much of the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 November 1999; c. 761.]
      In the narrow context of the amendment, which would give the Treasury a new policing role, he was right. The Bill provides for extensive consultation and cost-benefit analysis for rules made under clause 111 and we do not think it appropriate for that particular rule-making power to be limited in the way proposed.
      Clause 111 is essentially aimed at protecting consumers and gives the FSA power to make rules for those matters on which the regulators are able to make rules under current legislation. For example, rules can currently be made to require notification of certain events to be given in respect of a firm's non-regulated activities or non-regulated group members in certain circumstances. We think that that should continue.
      On amendment No. 8, it is quite right that the clause 112 power has been included, partly to enable the FSA to continue the banking supervisors' existing practice of setting individual capital ratios that reflect the overall nature and riskiness of a bank or building society. That is a long-standing and valuable tool for banking supervision, but the principle is not confined to banks. The rationale for the power to impose bespoke capital requirements is that a firm may have an unusual risk profile compared with other similar firms.
      That rationale applies equally to deposit takers and investment firms. Investment firms' need to impose bespoke requirements is more likely to be used in respect of companies with complex businesses—broadly speaking, former Securities and Futures Authority member firms—but may be relevant in other cases. That is reflected not only in section 49 of the Financial Services Act 1986, but in the capital adequacy directive and the existing rules. Chapter 10 of the SFA rules includes a power to impose a bespoke "secondary requirement" on an investment services directive firm to reflect its particular risk profile or operational risks.
      5.15 pm
      I was glad that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) spoke to amendment No. 230, as the right hon. Member for Wells did not mention it. As the hon. Gentleman said, we dealt with the matter in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said then that we wanted to consider it further.

      935
      We want the FSA to be able to give guidance when that is desirable. We view the guidance power as an important tool enabling the authority to carry out its functions flexibly and with a light touch. Clause 129(1)(d) enables it to give guidance on
      "any other matters about which it appears to the Authority to be desirable to give information or advice."
      We want to look further at the points raised by amendment No. 230 in the light of that. We have not been able to do so yet because we have been resolving other issues, but I repeat my hon. Friend's commitment. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the matter will not be pressed to a Division.
      May I take advantage of the conviviality that we are currently enjoying, and wish my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury a very happy birthday? He is characteristically present, as we would all expect him to be.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In the same spirit, I too wish the Chief Secretary a very happy birthday. He has aged a little over the past year, but he retains much of his vigour.
      I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for responding to many of our concerns. We do not intend to press the new clause to a Division, so hon. Members can relax in that regard.
      I am aware that there may be technical deficiencies in some of the new clauses and amendments. They were tabled in probing mode: we wanted in particular to hear a little more about the Government's attitude to the rule book and how it might be reviewed, and to hear more about the question of extra-territorial regulation. Although the Financial Secretary mentioned those points, I do not think that we got to the bottom of the issue of origin-state regulation as against state-of-destination regulation. I fear that that will cause considerable problems in the future, especially in an era of e-commerce when many products can be offered, bought and sold electronically across national borders. I do not think that either the Treasury or the authority has really grappled with the whole question of who authorises the products or processes involved, and how consumers in different countries can obtain redress when things go wrong.
      It is very much in the country's interests for us to get this right. I believe that we have much to gain from an origin-state approach. It would enable the City and the British financial services industry generally to offer products abroad on a global basis, and enable others to rely on the strength of our regulatory system. That will not be accepted, however, if at the same time we retain powers to regulate and keep out other products. Other countries will latch on to that, and will use it as a pretext to block, or at least regulate to a different standard, products on sale from this country. I am putting a marker down, because we must all return to the issue in due course.
      I am grateful for what the Financial Secretary said about whether, and the extent to which, people could rely on guidance issued by the Treasury. I took him to mean that we have more to hear from the authority or the Treasury, and I think that that is probably a good thing.
      A number of question marks hang over these matters, but in many instances the Government and the authority, rather than the Opposition, will be vulnerable. The best that we can do is to flag up the issues and difficulties.
      936
      If they are not properly dealt with in the Bill, that will be a danger for the outside world and for the industry, but it could be an embarrassment to the Government in due course, so I urge the Minister to keep those matters at least under review.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 43

      JUDICIAL REVIEW
      "Nothing in the provisions of this Act shall restrict, impede, or prevent a judicial review of the exercise or non-exercise of any power or discretion vested in the Authority or the Treasury by or under this Act.".—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, at end insert
      "and
      (c) which is reasonable, fair, open, accountable and proportionate".
      No. 397, in clause 264, page 134, line 41, after "Authority", insert "reasonably".
      No. 398, in clause 283, page 145, line 26, after "(c)", insert "in his view reasonably".
      No. 399, in page 145, line 29, after "information", insert
      "which in the Director's view reasonably relates to any matter relevant to the investigation".
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The new clause concerns judicial review. The background is the substantial statutory immunity that the authority enjoys which, to put it bluntly, means that people will not be able to take legal action against the authority even when it behaves negligently, or recklessly.
      In the debate last week, we tried to alter that and to restrict and narrow the statutory immunity. We failed, but the authority must not be completely unaccountable at law. Given the Government's resistance to our earlier proposal, it is particularly important that we explore to what extent there are other ways in which the authority can be held accountable both to the House and through the existing legal system. This group of amendments explores how and to what extent there are provisions for legal challenge, or a review of the authority's actions. The picture is not encouraging.
      The authority's decisions as they affect the regulated community can be appealed to the tribunal that is set up and described in the Bill—although, again, we do not have many details about how the tribunal will operate. Those details will be introduced by regulation. The Lord Chancellor will deal with the issue. It is a subject of consultation, but the House will not be able to review the matter.
      The important point is that there can be an appeal on a tribunal decision to the ordinary courts only on a point of law. We should remember that the tribunal is not like an

      937
      ordinary court of law. The requirements and qualifications of those who will staff the tribunal will not be particularly onerous. It is a special legal body.
      Again, the FSA is making its own rules, which have the force of law and which are not subject to parliamentary review. People can be fined unlimited sums and can lose their livelihoods under a system that allows little appeal to the ordinary, familiar courts and where there is little parliamentary scrutiny.
      I think that fairly describes the system in the Bill. If I am at all accurate in my description, it will follow that the remaining aspects of legal accountability are precious and must not be weakened or removed. That brings me to the importance of judicial review. Even the Government are subject to judicial review. It is, to some extent, a blunt instrument, but it is an important safeguard none the less. It means that the Government are finally accountable at law; they are not above the law. The House makes a law. The Government are subject to it. The Financial Services Authority, too, should be subject to the law. We therefore need the long-stop safeguard of providing that the authority's decisions are open to judicial review.
      The picture painted in the Bill, and particularly in the detailed wording of the clauses, is not particularly encouraging. The authority is given enormous discretion in its use of powers—in how it may make rules and how it may enforce them. The drafting really seems to be designed to preclude the possibility of a court checking that the authority has acted "reasonably", to take only one example.
      We are always being assured by the Treasury and by Ministers that the authority will always act reasonably, and doubtless that is the intention. However, the Opposition would like to ensure that the courts can ensure that the authority acts reasonably and can review a decision by the authority if it is thought that an action is not reasonable. As I said, the wording makes it really very difficult for a court to conduct such a review.
      Clause 10, for example, allows for reviews of the authority by an "independent person". The independence of such an investigation would obviously be very important, as there might be allegations that the Treasury or Treasury Ministers were somehow implicated in or associated with the matter to be reviewed. The independence of anyone conducting such a review of the authority is therefore essential.
      Although the Bill provides that the inquiry should be independent, that is not an objective test to be applied. Clause 10(7) states:
      "'Independent' means appearing to the Treasury to be independent of the Authority."
      It will be very difficult for anyone to prove before a court that an inspector or investigator did not seem to the Treasury or to Ministers to be independent. Such a task is very much more difficult than simply requiring the inspector to be independent, a matter that would be capable of objective independent assessment. That is by no means the best example, however.
      A more important example is provided in clause 139, on the appointment of inspectors to examine the affairs of the "authorised" community, which is composed of those regulated in the Bill. I own that it is important that the
      938
      Treasury should have the power to appoint investigators to do that work, but it is a pretty draconian power. A firm on the receiving end of an investigation, even if subsequently cleared, could suffer great damage to its reputation—indeed, once it was known that a firm was being investigated, that in itself could drive customers away. It is a most important power.
      The Bill quite rightly uses the phrase "good reason" to place limits on how and in what circumstances investigators should be appointed; the catch is that all that has to be shown is that it appears to the authority or to the Secretary of State that there is a good reason for their appointment. It will be very difficult for anyone to prove that it did not appear to the authority or the Secretary of State that there was a good reason.
      It would have been much better to require a good reason. If there was such a requirement, outside bodies and courts might be able to show that there were no good reasons. To try to get inside the mind of the Secretary of State or the chairman of the authority and show that, at the time, they did not believe that they had good reason would be a very difficult hurdle to jump, and would effectively preclude the possibility of judicial review unless it was blatantly clear to everyone that the Secretary of State could not have had any good reason.
      5.30 pm
      I maintain that the wording throughout the Bill makes it very difficult for anyone to second-guess the judgments. I believe that it is right that we have tabled a new clause to ensure that nothing in the Bill makes it difficult to undertake such a judicial review. New clause 43 does exactly that, by requiring that nothing in the Act
      "shall restrict, impede or prevent a judicial review".
      That would provide a safeguard against the claim that judicial review would always fail because the detailed and rather cunning wording in some parts of the Bill would make it so difficult.
      Amendment No. 13 adds a general requirement that the authority acts in a way that is
      "reasonable, fair, open, accountable and proportionate".
      Again, the background is clear. We are dealing with a powerful body with a great many discretionary powers: it can make rules; it can authorise people—or decide not to; it can investigate; it can intervene in the market; and it can fine people.
      There is no absolute requirement because clause 2 says that that should be done only
      "so far as is reasonably possible".
      In the circumstances, the Government should find it difficult to oppose our proposal, as they have assured us throughout the Committee, and more recently, that the authority will always act in those ways. If that is the case, let us put it in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 397 again adds the "reasonably" requirement to the FSA powers to request information in relation to applications by recognised investment exchanges and clearing houses. On this, too, the Minister has assured us that the FSA will always act reasonably, and therefore he cannot object to our inserting the word in accordance with amendment No. 397.
      Amendment No. 398 relates to clause 283, which deals with the way in which the Director General of Fair Trading can investigate matters, and proposes that the

      939
      director general's power to require documents to be produced to him can be exercised only where he reasonably believes that the document relates to a matter relevant to his investigations. That is a useful check on the exercise of the director general's powers.
      Amendment No. 399 relates also to the information which the Director General of Fair Trading can require, as provided by clause 283. The amendment seeks to limit his power by providing that the information must in his view reasonably relate to a matter relevant to the investigation.
      This is a comparatively modest package of amendments, which go no further than the assurances that the Government have given us. We have heard warm words about the openness in which matters will be conducted, the accountability that exists and the reasonable way in which the authority will exercise its powers. We want to upgrade and emphasise those assurances, and safeguard our liberties by ensuring that if this powerful and independent authority exceeds its powers, there will at least be provision for judicial review.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who has given a comprehensive introduction to the new clause and amendments. I endorse and support what he said.
      The Government should not be afraid of judicial review in relation to the Bill, but I have a nasty feeling that they are unnecessarily so. I request Ministers to have the Bill examined, between the conclusion of our proceedings and its consideration in the other place, because judicial review is a safeguard for the citizen. Everybody accepts that the regulation of the City of London is a detailed and complex matter that requires great skill, and nobody would deny that the Bill will give immense powers to the Financial Services Authority and immense supervisory powers to the Treasury. The explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that it seeks to provide for the accountability of the authority. However, those notes are slightly alarming when set against the detailed drafting of the Bill, which seems to be more concerned to make the Bill judicial review-proof than to make the authority accountable through the courts.
      When I was in government, I had responsibility for the questions of judicial review in relation to legislation, and I certainly do not want the FSA to be hamstrung by over-easy and unnecessary applications for judicial review. I do not believe that there is a serious risk that that will happen. I accept that those who are being regulated are often financially powerful and might seek to use the weapon of judicial review, but the way that the courts operate judicial review rightly gives a wide discretion to the regulator.
      The courts are reluctant to step in and second-guess a regulator when he decides that some piece of regulation is reasonable. However, the language of the Bill appears to be specifically designed to stop the courts doing that. It is to try to counter that that we have tabled new clause 43 and amendment No. 13. New clause 43 is designed more to flag up that serious issue than to provide perfect drafting. It would be much better to go through the Bill and insert the word "reasonably" where we suggest it is necessary, or to take out expressions such as "in the Authority's view", which seek to exclude the intervention of the courts and give an even wider discretion to the FSA than the courts would leave to it.
      940
      I commend the thought behind new clause 43:
      "Nothing in … this Act shall restrict, impede, or prevent a judicial review of the exercise or non-exercise of any power or discretion vested in the Authority or the Treasury".
      However, I ask the Government to consider the individual clauses in the light of that thought and not necessarily to agree to include the new clause as the perfect way to achieve that aim. In fact, the new clause would look a little stark set against the constant examples of restriction, of which my right hon. Friend gave several useful instances.
      I commend amendment No. 13 strongly on its own account. It is reasonable and sensibly drafted and states what we would wish to achieve. Clause 2 states:
      "In discharging its general functions the Authority must, so far as is reasonably possible, act in a way … which is compatible with the regulatory objectives; and … which the Authority considers most appropriate for the purpose of meeting those objectives."
      The amendment would add a new paragraph (c), stating that the above would be done in a way that was
      "reasonable, fair, open, accountable and proportionate."
      I cannot believe that any Minister would say that the Government intended to be anything other than reasonable, or that the authority intended to be anything other than fair. I think that it would intend to be open, as well as accountable and proportionate.
      Mr. Timms indicated assent.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister nods sympathetically to those suggestions. I hope that he will respond in similar fashion to this valuable amendment. It would be nice to have the good intentions manifested on the Government Front Bench expressed in the Bill, rather than paving the way to hell.
      I shall go into more detail about the words "accountable" and "proportionate". I commend them to the Government with special confidence, as a new paper by Howard Davies, no less, has been sent by his director of public affairs, Mr. Christopher Boyce, to all stakeholders. I received it, although I am not sure how I am a stakeholder in the FSA.
      On page 10, paragraph 18, the document makes it clear that the authority intends to act with proportionality. It states:
      "The restrictions imposed on firms and markets should be in proportion to the expected benefits for consumers and the industry."
      Those wise words should be included in the Bill, as they embody what "proportionate" means.
      The reference to accountability on page 35 of the document is slightly less comforting, as it seems to confine accountability to the annual report. Although annual reports are nice, in this case the contents would be controlled by the authority. Moreover, accountability is to include what are described as "'clusters' of performance indicators"—a dangerous phrase, as one man's performance indicator is another man's nightmare. Clusters of performance indicators are not necessarily the ideal way for the FSA to be accountable, but the notion of accountability is clearly accepted in principle, and I commend its inclusion in the Bill.

      941
      Clause 2 sets out the authority's general duties, and specifies that
      "the Authority must, so far as is reasonably possible, act in a way … which the Authority considers most appropriate for the purpose of meeting those objectives."
      The slightly inelegant legal description of such wording is that it is a "self-reference" clause. I suggest that the words "which the Authority considers" have been expressly used to try to oust the jurisdiction of the courts in the exercise of judicial review.
      The Government cannot blame the Conservative Government and say that we took similarly extensive measures to fend off judicial review. About 10 years ago, we published a useful document for circulation in the civil service called "The Judge over your Shoulder". I hope that it is still in play. It was designed to explain that judicial review is not the enemy of good administration, but is a reasonable and proportionate monitor of good administration. I commend that approach, which I am sure in principle the Government would wish to accept and continue.
      5.45 pm
      Let me finish by saying a word about the European convention on human rights. I wish to encourage the Government to be up-front, in your face and open about their willingness to be fair, reasonable and proportionate. I believe that the Government have little to fear from unreasonable judicial review. However, if they keep using legal techniques such as the phrase "which the Authority considers" to oust judicial review, counsel, who are proliferating in the human rights field—I declare an interest here—will draw on the European convention on human rights to get round the anti-JR provisions. Incidentally, in this case JR does not wear a 10-gallon hat; it is usually a scratch-wig.
      Article 6 of the European convention provides for due process for a fair hearing in public. Article 7 provides for no punishment without law. Article 1 of protocol 1 deals with the right to own property and not to be deprived unfairly of property. All those articles are relevant to the areas in which the Financial Services Authority operates. Those articles—which are JR-proof, stand in an overarching position above our statutory legal frameworks and, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the statement that he has to make, complied with in the Bill—will all be brought to bear. One does not quite know where they will stop.
      I think the Government would be better off with judicial review in accordance with United Kingdom law in the context in which our courts have thought it reasonable to proceed, and not with great extensions. The Government would be wiser to accept a reasonable measure of judicial review and not to exclude it. They cannot, of course, exclude the European convention on human rights, and I do not ask that they should. But the Government's reasonableness regarding the terms of the convention will cause Strasbourg to be less likely, rather than more likely, to intervene inappropriately.
      What I propose is in support of good legislation; it will improve the Bill.
      Mr. Hawkins: It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East
      942
      Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who has just spoken so well about the importance of the European convention as applied to the Bill and, in particular, the amendments, which I strongly support. I have not, until now, played much of a part in the deliberations on the Bill, but I particularly want to speak to these amendments, both as a lawyer and—as I mentioned in an earlier intervention—an officer of the all-party group on insurance and financial services. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) in his place. He and I have been actively involved in that group, and I know that he would agree that we try to have a positive effect on the consideration of all financial services and insurance issues in the House. It is one of the more active all-party groups and, as recently as last Thursday, we had a meeting with senior FSA officials.
      As a corporate lawyer, I specialised in this field for a number of years and dealt with all the problems arising from regulatory rule books. At that time, however, we did not have the additional problems of a Government trying to exclude new legislation from the supervision by judicial review, nor was there the overarching supervision of the European convention, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred.
      I wholly agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the Government are running a huge risk; they cannot exclude the operation of the convention. It is inevitable that at some stage the measure will be challenged, and if the Government do not accept the new clause and the amendments—if the concept of reasonableness and judicial review is not accepted—all the provisions will be struck down. The Government would be extremely wise to accept the importation into the measure of the concept of reasonableness. The amendments are essential because they would introduce the concept of what is reasonable, proportionate and open.
      I was one of the many lawyers of my generation who were influenced by the late great Lord Denning. I can still hear him saying, in his dulcet Hampshire burr:
      "Be you never so great, the law is above you."
      A generation of lawyers was brought up with that phrase ringing in their ears. Many of us were privileged to appear in the Court of Appeal when Lord Denning was presiding as Master of the Rolls; he ensured that the principles of natural justice were observed—especially in cases of judicial review.
      It is extraordinary that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out, the Government propose to create a situation whereby a decision can be made that will not be subject to any scrutiny, appeal or review. They are setting out, specifically and in terms, to exclude the operation of judicial review. That is wrong. It runs contrary not only to the European convention but to all the principles of English law and all the principles of natural justice. My right hon. Friend did not exaggerate when he made that point.
      The Government's proposal should be anathema to all hon. Members. It is absolutely wrong in principle. I urge Ministers seriously to reconsider the matter. The new clause and the amendments are a vital improvement to the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire referred to the words in amendment No. 13:
      "reasonable, fair, open, accountable and proportionate."
      How could anyone possibly object to that?

      943
      I am also reminded of the principles set out in one of the most notable post-war cases of Government abuse—about which all law students of my and subsequent generations were taught—the Crichel Down case. The case concerned an abuse of process—I think, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. After many years, it was declared that the Ministry had behaved wrongly and the then Government were severely embarrassed.
      If the Government persist with the measure unamended, they will face the same type of criticism. One day, a judge in Strasbourg will refer to the fact that—as Pepper v. Hart decrees—Ministers' words can be taken into consideration in the courts' interpretation of statute. If Ministers do not accept the new clause and the amendments, they may face severe embarrassment when some judge in Strasbourg asks, "How can it be that an Administration who believed in open government and reasonableness suggested the exclusion of judicial review and scrutiny?"
      The proposal is outrageous. I am sure that even those who are running the FSA would be embarrassed at the suggestion that it should not be open to scrutiny by judicial review. I earnestly urge Ministers to think again—even if they do not do so today—and, in due course, to accept the proposals tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The new clause and the amendments are vital. No one could possibly object to the concept of reasonableness and challenge by judicial review; authorities should not act above the law. If the Government do not accept our amendments, Lord Denning will turn in his grave.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some hon. Members have been advised that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who served as the shadow Chancellor, has been swept away and replaced by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo)—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair or for this debate.
      Mr. Tyrie: I begin with the perhaps slightly unusual comment that I am extremely wary of the growth of the power of the courts and of the intrusion of the judiciary into what has traditionally been the prerogative of this place—to make and frame laws. I do not instinctively want the courts to exercise judicial review over everything that they can lay their hands on.
      However, the pass has largely been sold. Through judicial review, the courts intrude increasingly into many matters that were traditionally considered to be the concern of legislators. Furthermore, as it is now clear that the European Court of Human Rights will become closely involved, the Government have no choice but to examine the matter—whether they want to or not—in regard to the Bill.
      I will not reiterate the many good points that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I have one or two minor comments. I strongly agree with my right hon. and learned Friend—
      Mr. Nigel Beard: The hon. Gentleman is following the same line that was
      944
      pursued by many of his hon. Friends—to open up legislation to progressive legal interference; to lower the point at which there is the possibility of such interference; and to pile on consultation and review. The danger is that such proposals seem to be a wrecking tactic—to sink the Bill because there will be no possibility that the FSA can operate.
      As the head of the shadow Treasury team has changed, would it not be sensible for Opposition Members to confer with their new authority to find out whether they are pursuing the true line?
      Mr. Tyrie: I hardly think that that question is worthy of reply.
      It is obvious that we want to find a balance, so as to enable the courts to examine egregious poor performance by the FSA in certain cases. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire that the last thing that we want to do is to hamstring the regulator. We want some recognition of the need for judicial review over part of the FSA's activities, because that is lacking.
      It is beholden on the Government to justify why immunity should be granted in a case where, for example, the FSA has behaved unreasonably. When such bad behaviour is clear, why should the authority be immune from judicial review? Why should it be immune if it acts recklessly? We must remember that, at the other end of that unreasonable or reckless behaviour are individuals or firms, who are unable to obtain redress in the courts. The Bill as drafted does not offer us the right way to proceed. In any case, the European Court of Human Rights will not permit that lack of immunity in the long run, and the Government will have to return to it. They will either be dragged to accept it or they will choose to show some flexibility in their response to our proposals.
      In Standing Committee, it was pointed out that the existing bodies had much immunity and some hon. Members asked why that immunity could not be passed on to the new body. I noted that Tim Herrington, a partner at Clifford Chance, made the important point that
      "Accountability under the law is vitally important for any public authority and we do not believe that the case for the continuation of the immunity"—
      for existing institutions—
      "has been clearly made in the light of the increased powers of the FSA.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 July 1999; c. 143.]
      He was right.
      That is the nub of the matter. The FSA is a new, extremely powerful institution, unprecedented in Britain in many ways. It has a quasi-legal role, being able to make law, and a quasi-judicial role, being able to judge on it, and even powers of investigation and powers effectively to pass sentence. It is an extremely powerful institution, and the Government really should think twice before they give it the level of statutory immunity that they currently intend to.
      6 pm
      Mr. Timms: We have had an interesting discussion, in which Conservative Members have presented some well-formed arguments. However, we are in a little difficulty in taking this debate forward, in the light of the

      945
      report that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) brought to the attention of the House a few moments ago, informing us that the shadow Chancellor had been sacked and replaced by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). Presumably, that change reflects, in no small measure, dissatisfaction on the part of the Leader of the Opposition with the policies being advanced by the—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am loath to stop the Minister in full flow, but I have already ruled on that and I do not think that it is pertinent to the debate. He should address the new clause before the House.
      Mr. Timms: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      It is of course the case that any body exercising public functions is subject to judicial review when it behaves in a way that no reasonable comparable body would have behaved, and there is no provision in the Bill restricting anyone's right to seek judicial review of the FSA's decisions in appropriate circumstances. Some of the speeches by Conservative Members implied that there is. There is not. The High Court will of course always take into account such matters as whether there is an alternative remedy that should be exhausted before resorting to judicial review. Where an appropriate remedy is provided under the Bill—before the tribunal, say—it is plainly right to use it rather than wasting the High Court's time on something that has its own special remedy.
      New clause 43 is unnecessary. One or two Conservative Members have fastened on particular clauses whose wording, they believe, would make it difficult for judicial review to be pursued. That matter should be dealt with in the debate on those clauses. New clause 43 does not advance the cause that they seek to make. It is unnecessary. Worse, it is unclear what the effect would be of including such a provision in the Bill. I understand that no other legislation contains such provision. Its absence does not impede judicial review elsewhere, and it would not in this case. Moreover, it would cause people to ask themselves whether judicial review could not be resorted to in connection with other legislation that did not contain such wording.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am very glad that the Minister recognises that, on Treasury matters, the lead should come from the shadow Treasury team, but the purpose of my intervention is to ask a question. Are we to understand that he is accepting that there should be the power of judicial review, that it should not be inhibited by the detailed wording of the Bill, and that he will look sympathetically at the individual points, many of which we have flagged up in the debate, to ascertain whether they could be improved?
      Mr. Timms: No. I am saying that any body, including the FSA, exercising public functions is subject to judicial review, that nothing in the Bill impedes that, and that new clause 43 is not necessary and would have a damaging effect.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I would agree with the Minister if he said that nothing ousts the jurisdiction of the court. However, does he accept that self-reference clauses,
      946
      such as those that I referred to, definitely impede judicial review? They do not ultimately prevent it and, if the authority were to act in a way in which no reasonable authority could act, they would not oust it, but they certainly impede and restrict it.
      Mr. Timms: In a debate on new clause 43, it is difficult to respond to a variety of points that relate to various parts of the Bill. I have said that, if we were to have a debate on those matters, we would need to do so in relation to amendments when we debate the parts of the Bill to which they relate. I am arguing that the new clause is unnecessary, and I do not believe that it helps with the case that Conservative Members have presented.
      The amendments on reasonableness give me a further opportunity, beyond the opportunities that we had in Committee, to rehearse how the Bill already ensures that the FSA will act in a way that is reasonable, fair, open, accountable and proportionate—all of which I gladly sign up to, as invited to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      I have said that any body that exercises public functions is subject to judicial review where it behaves in a way that no reasonable comparable body would have behaved, but we have not relied on that alone. The FSA will also be subject to review, as appropriate, by the independent tribunal, the independent investigator, the competition regulators and the Government, and to public scrutiny through independent inquiries and reviews, or the appropriate parliamentary Committee.
      However, the Bill does not impose abstract subjective requirements in the way envisaged by amendment No. 13. It makes clear, practical provisions to ensure that the authority acts in the way that one would expect of a responsible regulator.
      First, the Bill gives the FSA clear objectives and principles which do not impose petty or bureaucratic requirements but provide practical guidance in the discharge of its functions. Secondly, the Bill requires the FSA to adopt key procedures, which will ensure that it acts fairly. Those procedures are backed up by an independent tribunal, an independent investigator and the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, which has brought the European convention on human rights into English law.
      Thirdly, the Bill imposes clear disclosure and consultation requirements, which would require the FSA to consult on its regulating provisions and practices, to have regard to the representations that it receives and to provide feedback. Fourthly, the Bill imposes unprecedented accountability requirements on the FSA. Fifthly, the FSA will be required to have regard to the principle of proportionality. It will have to justify any costs that it imposes through its regulating provisions by publishing a cost-benefit analysis, and that analysis will now take into account the wider economic costs of its proposals.
      That framework is not just an accident. It is the result of an unprecedented level of consultation and scrutiny by the Select Committee on the Treasury and the Treasury Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets, and detailed consideration in Standing Committee, precisely in order to achieve the result that is intended by amendment No. 13. I willingly acknowledge the contribution that Conservative Members have made to

      947
      that process. On the basis of that exercise and of the resulting improvements that have been made to the Bill, I hope that the Opposition will not feel it necessary to press their new clause.
      Amendments Nos. 397 to 399 would also require the FSA and the Director General of Fair Trading to act reasonably in specifying particular information requirements. In the case of the FSA, that is information that it may require from an applicant for recognition under clause 264. In the case of the Director General of Fair Trading, it is information that he may require as part of his competition scrutiny function under clause 283.
      As I have said several times, any body exercising public functions is subject to judicial review where it behaves in a way that no reasonable comparable body would have behaved. That applies just as much to the way that a body sets its information requirements as to any other exercise of its public functions.
      There is, of course, a separate defence to default proceedings for anyone who has a reasonable excuse for refusing, or failing, to comply with the director general's requirements. However, on the issue of "relevance" in amendment No. 399, we have already said that we will consider further the need to include a relevance provision for the director general's information requirements. We also said in Committee that we would look again at the need to make reasonableness explicit in the way that duties and tasks must be carried out. That assurance stands. On the basis of that, and the additional look that we shall take at the matter, I hope that the Opposition will not feel it necessary to press amendments Nos. 397 to 399.
      Mr. Flight: As the Minister just reminded us, we raised these issues extensively in Committee and we discussed the self-reference clauses that were specifically designed to limit the scope for judicial review. The FSA is constitutionally in a sense a totalitarian government of a particular economic sector in our economy. It is right and proper that there should be appropriate checks and balances of power.
      I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) for his comments about amendment No. 13. Our lawyer friends gave us a tremendous amount of help on the Bill, but I drafted the amendment myself. It is key and right up-front. It would qualify how the authority should act in relation to discharging its duties. The Minister continues to undertake that he will consider the issue of reasonableness, but why has that not been done already? The amendment would cover the matter in one fell swoop.
      New clause 43 raises the issue of judicial review. I am afraid that it is an issue that we wish to put to a vote. The new clause is fundamental to having the right checks and balances in the Bill.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 336.

      Division No. 56]

      [6.11 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Blunt, Crispin

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Baldry, Tony

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Bercow, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      948

      Brady, Graham

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Brazier, Julian

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Butterflll, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cash, William

      Madel, Sir David

      Chope, Christopher

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Clappison, James

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Moss, Malcolm

      Collins, Tim

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Colvin, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Cran, James

      Ottaway, Richard

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Page, Richard

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Paice, James

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Paterson, Owen

      Day, Stephen

      Pickles, Eric

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Randall, John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Robertson, Laurence

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Faber, David

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Fallon, Michael

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Flight, Howard

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Shepherd, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Soames, Nicholas

      Fraser, Christopher

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gibb, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Spring, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Steen, Anthony

      Green, Damian

      Streeter, Gary

      Greenway, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Grieve, Dominic

      Syms, Robert

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hawkins, Nick

      Thompson, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Townend, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Tredinnick, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Trend, Michael

      Horam, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Walter, Robert

      Hunter, Andrew

      Wardle, Charles

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Whittingdale, John

      Key, Robert

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Wilkinson, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Willetts, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Wilshire, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Leigh, Edward

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Yeo, Tim

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Lidington, David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

      Loughton, Tim

      and

      Luff, Peter

      Mr. Keith Simpson.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Ainger, Nick

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Allan, Richard

      Ashton, Joe

      Allen, Graham

      Atkins, Charlotte

      949

      Baker, Norman

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Ballard, Jackie

      Doran, Frank

      Barnes, Harry

      Dowd, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Drew, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Beard, Nigel

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Edwards, Huw

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Efford, Clive

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Etherington, Bill

      Benton, Joe

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Berry, Roger

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Best, Harold

      Fisher, Mark

      Betts, Clive

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Flint, Caroline

      Blizzard, Bob

      Flynn, Paul

      Borrow, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Brake, Tom

      Foulkes, George

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Gapes, Mike

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burden, Richard

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Burgon, Colin

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Burnett, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burstow, Paul

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Cann, Jamie

      Grant, Bernie

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Grogan, John

      Chaytor, David

      Gunnell, John

      Chidgey, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Healey, John

      Clelland, David

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cohen, Harry

      Heppell, John

      Colman, Tony

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cotter, Brian

      Hill, Keith

      Cousins, Jim

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cox, Tom

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cranston, Ross

      Home Robertson, John

      Crausby, David

      Hope, Phil

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cummings, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hurst, Alan

      Darvill, Keith

      Hutton, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Illsley, Eric

      Davidson, Ian

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      950

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Keetch, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

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

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Quinn Lawrie

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Kidney, David

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Rammell, Bill

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Rapson, Syd

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Laxton, Bob

      Rendel, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Levitt, Tom

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Roy, Frank

      Linton, Martin

      Ruane, Chris

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lock, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Love, Andrew

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Salter, Martin

      McCabe, Steve

      Sanders, Adrian

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Sawford, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sheerman, Barry

      McFall, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McGuire Mrs Anne

      McIsaac, Shona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McNulty, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      MacShane, Denis

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Martlew, Eric

      Snape, Peter

      Maxton, John

      Soley, Clive

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Meale, Alan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miller, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Moore, Michael

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Morley, Elliot

      Stringer, Graham

      Mountford, Kali

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mudie, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Swinney, John

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Norris, Dan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Oaten, Mark

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Olner, Bill

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Timms, Stephen

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Tipping, Paddy

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Todd, Mark

      Pearson, Ian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pendry, Tom

      Touhig, Don

      951

      Trickett, Jon

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Willis, Phil

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Winnick, David

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wise, Audrey

      Tyler, Paul

      Wood, Mike

      Tynan, Bill

      Woolas, Phil

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Worthington, Tony

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wray, James

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Watts, David

      Wyatt, Derek

      Webb, Steve

      White, Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 52

      REFERENCES TO THE TRIBUNAL
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in page 24, line 15, leave out from beginning to "may" in line 16 and insert
      "An applicant who is aggrieved by the determination of an application made under this Part".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 222, in page 24, line 16, at end insert—
      "(1A) The Authority shall give notice of its decision to refuse an application to the applicant and the provisions of sections 350 and 351 shall apply as if the notice was a decision notice.".
      No. 223, in page 24, line 17, leave out from "person" to end of line 18 and insert—
      "who is or may be affected may refer to the Tribunal any decision of the Authority to use its own-initiative power.".
      No. 56, in schedule 11, page 227, leave out lines 14 to 21 and insert—
      "(a) is a judge of the High Court; or
      (b) is a judge of the Court of Session.".
      No. 57, in page 227, line 34, leave out "seven" and insert "ten".
      No. 58, in page 227, line 36, leave out "seven" and insert "ten".
      No. 59, in page 227, line 38, leave out "seven" and insert "ten".
      No. 60, in page 227, line 41, leave out "seven" and insert "ten".
      No. 61, in page 227, line 41, at end insert—
      "(d) he is a judge of the High Court or of the Court of Session.".
      No. 62, in page 227, line 42, after "is", insert
      "a judge of the Court of Session or".
      No. 63, in page 228, line 11, leave out from "The" to "determine" in line 15 and insert—
      "Secretary of State shall pay—

      (a) the members of the panel of chairmen who are not judges of the High Court or Court of Session;

      (b) the members of the lay panel; and

      (c) any person appointed under paragraph 7(4),

      952
      such remuneration and such travelling and other allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury,".
      No. 64, in page 230, line 21, after "unreasonable", insert—
      "or based on an ill founded view".
      Mr. Timms: We shall be debating procedures more generally when we come to a later group of amendments, but we agree that there is a need to rationalise the procedures for FSA decisions in the same way as we have aligned its consultation procedures. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 115, which will extend the right to refer matters to the tribunal in clause 52 to any applicant who is aggrieved by the determination of his application, such as in cases in which the FSA has granted an application but imposed a limitation or requirement.
      At the same time, it is important to distinguish between the essentially prudential and protective nature of the provisions in part IV and the different nature of other provisions in the Bill, such as those relating to market abuse, discipline and restitution. On amendment No. 223, therefore, it is not necessarily correct to extend the right to go to the tribunal to anyone who is merely affected—perhaps positively—or who may be affected by the FSA's use of its own initiative power.
      We do, however, accept the need to consider further the procedures that should apply, and to align them as far as we can, and the Government will table further amendments when the Bill is considered in another place. On that basis, I hope that Opposition Members will not feel the need to press amendments Nos. 222 and 223.
      Amendment No. 56 would require the Lord Chancellor to appoint a president or deputy president who is a judge of the High Court or Court of Session. Amendment No. 61 would enable the Lord Chancellor to appoint judges of the High Court or Court of Session to be members of the panel of chairmen for the tribunal, in addition to appointing lawyers of suitable standing. Amendment No. 62 is consequential to that, and expands the present requirement for the panel of chairmen to include at least one Scottish lawyer, so that that member could be a judge of the Court of Session.
      As hon. Members are aware, the Lord Chancellor must appoint the members of the panel of chairmen, and from that panel, the president and deputy president of the tribunal. The current provisions for those appointments, in paragraphs 2(5) and 3(2) of schedule 11, are sufficient for the proposed new tribunal and are in line with appointments for other tribunals. The president of the tribunal must have a 10-year legal qualification.
      Of course we want the tribunal to have a high level of expertise and authority. The Bill leaves it open to the Lord Chancellor to make appointments with greater seniority if a case is made out for doing so. However, the expected character and volume of the tribunal's work load does not, at present, warrant taking the unusual step of making such an appointment.
      The amendment would impose too much inflexibility on the appointment of the president. It would, for example, appear to prevent at a future date the appointment of a retired High Court judge or even a more senior judge, should it be found that the work load justified such an appointment. The Bill provides an appropriate framework for appointments to the tribunal, which allows common sense and practice to inform the appointment process.

      953
      Amendment No. 57 would require the members of the panel of chairmen to have a 10-year legal qualification as opposed to a seven-year qualification. The Bill's provisions for appointing the panel of chairmen will ensure that suitable people are appointed to the tribunal and have the necessary qualifications to deal with the cases that will arise. Those provisions do not need to be changed as the amendment suggests. It is normal practice for other tribunals to appoint people with a seven-year legal qualification to the panel of chairmen. Examples include the VAT and duties tribunal, employment tribunals and transport tribunals.
      If there is a case that raises particularly complex or ground-breaking legal issues, the tribunal may appoint one or more experts to provide assistance. It can also bring in additional members of the panel of chairmen with expertise relevant to the case in question. I suggest that the current arrangements for appointing the members of the panel of chairmen are sufficient for the purposes of the tribunal.
      The tribunal's independence is certainly important. Amendment No. 63, which would give the Secretary of State and the Treasury responsibility for paying tribunal members' expenses, could be seen as undermining that independence. As the Lord Chancellor's Department will be running the tribunal, it makes sense for the Lord Chancellor to pay its expenses, thus reinforcing its independence.
      6.30 pm
      Amendment No. 64 is designed to widen the circumstances in which the FSA may be liable to pay the costs of the other party. Currently, the Bill allows the tribunal to award costs if it considers that the FSA decision giving rise to the reference was "unreasonable". Inserting the words
      "or based on an ill founded view"
      after "unreasonable" adds nothing, but might instead muddy the waters. Were the FSA, based on the facts available, to reach a decision that subsequently proved to be incorrect, would its position be
      "based on an ill founded view",
      even though it had taken all reasonable steps to establish the correct facts? The wording of the amendment reflects no other statutory provision of which I am aware; its meaning is unclear. The Council on Tribunals agrees that the "unreasonable" test is appropriate for the purposes of the tribunal. Given that explanation, and on the basis that the current drafting provides a practical consequence for any unreasonable exercise of powers by the FSA, I hope that the Opposition will not press amendment No. 64.
      Mr. Flight: The Government will be aware that, under the current regime, the issue of applications being turned down in whole or in part is troublesome. We welcome Government amendment No. 115, which enables an appeal to the tribunal where an application is turned down in part. We remain of the view that amendment No. 222, which would require the decision notice procedure to apply in the case of a refusal of permission, and amendment No. 223, which would extend to an authorized
      954
      person who is or may be affected the right to refer matters to the tribunal, are desirable and would solve current practical problems.
      The amendments relating to the tribunal would make provisions that are not as demanding as those covering the employment appeals tribunal. Requiring the Secretary of State to be responsible for pay and rations is a practical step. If the Financial Secretary had consulted candidates for appointment to the tribunal, he might have heard many express the view that they would not receive reasonable remuneration were the Lord Chancellor's Department responsible. In our view, it is crucial that the tribunal be staffed with top calibre people. Our amendments both provide for top calibre appointments to be made and solve a practical problem. The Government would be advised to give their attention to such problems before the Bill is considered in the other place.
      Amendment No. 64 is, to some extent, a probing amendment. As the Financial Secretary said, the tribunal can award costs against the FSA when it regards the FSA as having acted unreasonably. The amendment addresses the complex question of how people can defend themselves. A positive step has been taken in allowing costs to be awarded against the FSA in certain circumstances, and in ensuring that the tribunal will not award costs against those who have brought cases to it, unless they have acted vexatiously, frivolously or unreasonably. However, we regard the term "unreasonable" as slightly vague.
      What if the FSA is wrong, or brings a case that the tribunal finds does not stand up? The FSA might have acted perfectly reasonably in such circumstances; it might have thought that it was right. However, if someone has been prosecuted wrongly, it strikes us as fair in law that that person should get his or her costs paid. It is also necessary under the provisions of the European convention on human rights relating to people's ability adequately to defend themselves.
      We have therefore tabled what I acknowledge to be a not especially well worded amendment, the intent of which is to ensure that the Government consider whether the word "unreasonable" is sufficient, or whether costs should be able to be awarded against the FSA if the authority loses in a case that it has referred to the tribunal.
      Mr. Loughton: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). We do not dispute Government amendment No. 115, which enhances the rights of the applicant.
      My concern focuses on the practical workings of the tribunal. Having spent so much effort during the sittings of the Burns committee on the key proposal that there should be an independent tribunal, we think it essential that the tribunal's workings be absolutely right and that it be seen to do its job properly and efficiently. We believe that further improvements are possible—hence our amendments on the appointments to be made to the tribunal.
      A submission has been received from the law reform committee of the General Council of the Bar, in which the learned people who produced a report on the Bill express the view that the qualification requirements for those who preside over the tribunal are "not very demanding". On that basis, we tabled our amendments to give the tribunal greater status by beefing up the standards and the service requirements of those who are to be

      955
      members of it. My hon. Friend is right to say that, even with those additional provisions, the requirements do not equal those of the employment appeals tribunal. On that tribunal, all the permanent legal appointees must be High Court judges or judges of the Court of Session.
      If the tribunal is to work properly, those who serve on it should be properly remunerated—hence our tabling of amendment No. 63. Putting the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State would provide a better guarantee of funding, to ensure that the tribunal works properly.
      With amendment No. 64, we come again to our old friend "reasonableness"—a term that featured heavily in the Committee debates. This time, the Opposition argue that reasonableness is not enough and that we must improve on it if we are to preserve the checks and balances surrounding submissions to the tribunal—a complex matter, as my hon. Friend rightly said.
      Our amendment is designed to respond to criticism that those who are prosecuted by the FSA would be put off appealing to the tribunal for fear of costs being awarded against them. If the tribunal is to be a proper adjudicator of the workings of the FSA and if those who have had action taken against them by the FSA are to be given equality of arms, individuals must not be deterred from taking a case to the tribunal for fear of excessive costs being awarded against them.
      That is why we wanted to add to the conditions of action taken "vexatiously, frivolously or unreasonably" that of action taken without justification. My hon. Friend has acknowledged that we have phrased it slightly awkwardly, by referring to cases
      "based on an ill founded view".
      It is essential that we make it clear when the intent of the FSA in prosecuting someone is a wrong intent. I support the amendments and hope that they will find sympathy with the Minister.
      Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): I rise to support my colleagues' remarks about the amendments. I shall focus on amendment No. 56.
      The schedule as drafted provides that the Lord Chancellor shall appoint as president or deputy president of the tribunal only persons who are qualified lawyers of 10 years' standing in one of the jurisdictions of Northern Ireland, England and Wales and Scotland.
      We have tabled amendment No. 56 because we do not believe that someone with the great responsibility of being president or deputy president should merely be a lawyer of 10 years' standing. That is why the amendment suggests that the individual should be a High Court judge or a judge of the Court of Session.
      I have a particular reason for considering this matter important, and it turns on the nature of the appeal process. Decisions on points of law that are taken by the tribunal are appealable. That is not on interlocutory matters that the tribunal may decide, but a final decision on points of law is appealable to the Court of Appeal. Leave is given either by the tribunal or by the Court of Appeal. That is fair enough.
      We run a real risk in saying, "Well, points of law can be appealed." We do not want mistakes to be made in the first place by possibly under-qualified members of the tribunal. If we are to stop unnecessary litigation and unnecessary time-consuming appeals on points of law to
      956
      the Court of Appeal, and perhaps upwards to the House of Lords, we need the very best legally qualified individuals on the panel following the most rigorous legal strictures. For that to happen, we need a High Court judge or a judge of the Court of Session to be the top man who runs the tribunal.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has observed, it is not enough to be a lawyer of 10 years' standing to run the employment appeals tribunal. If the Bill is designed to make the tribunal independent and efficient and to reduce the necessity for appeals on points of law to the Court of Appeal, we need to ensure that it gets things right the first time. The purpose behind amendment No. 56 is to achieve that.
      I understand that the president or deputy president will not be deciding points of law. A chairman in any particular case will be doing that. However, a High Court judge or a judge of the Court of Session would be of such eminence and of such legal stature that he or she would be able to set the tone for the way in which the tribunal carried out its business, especially in cases where points of law were disputed or potentially appealable. Chairmen would not be particularly well qualified. They would have to be lawyers of only seven years' standing. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 address that point; we suggest that they should be of 10 years' standing.
      The chairmen may need to be instructed that they can adjourn proceedings of the tribunal, perhaps to seek guidance from the deputy president or president. Who better to do that and to decide points of law so that they do not become justiciable and the subject of litigation further down the road?
      If our amendments are not taken on board, we can see individuals and authorised persons mired in the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand. There will be great expense incurred by businesses and big pay days for lawyers. As a former solicitor, I realise how onerous the burdens that law firms place on clients can be. Such a situation is not one that an efficient and competitive financial services industry needs. For these reasons I urge Ministers to take seriously the points of principle that are raised by the amendments.
      6.45 pm
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I support the thrust of what my hon. Friends have said, but the situation is more serious and more dangerous than I realised until very recently. It has come to my notice that the tribunal may be created on the cheap. There is a nasty rumour that the Lord Chancellor's Department, which does not have much money, hopes to roll in the tribunal with the VAT and duties tribunals. That would be a terrible mistake. If anyone in or around government is thinking in that direction, I hope that he will think again.
      The tribunal requires a president, whether he be a judge or someone of considerable legal and financial experience, who is of the highest calibre and who can be relied upon to lead a team that will do justice to the enormous powers that are being given to, and that will be exercised by, the Financial Services Authority.
      The amendments focus on the requirements for the tribunal. I do not have particular difficulty with the concept of a lawyer of 10 years' standing. I think that that is the same requirement for a High Court judge. Of course

      957
      it is not adequate in itself. There are many lawyers of 10 years' standing who would be entirely unfitted, but it is a long-standing test. So long as it is 10 years' standing and so long as the individual who is chosen has the necessary acumen, background and status, fine. The vital feature is that we set up a tribunal that will command respect nationally and internationally and will do justice in the cases that come forward, which may be very sensitive and difficult.
      It would not be fair to load this responsibility on to quasi-judicial and judicial figures in other administrative areas who sit on other tribunals, with the great technicalities with which they have to deal. We should not lump on to them the huge responsibilities that we are creating. I hope to have an assurance from the Minister that that will not happen. If he cannot give such an assurance because thinking is at too embryonic a stage, I hope that he will take to heart the points that have been raised.
      Mr. Timms: I welcome the support that has been expressed by Opposition Members for amendment No. 115. There is a consensus that it is a good step forward.
      I hope that I can reassure right hon. and hon. Members about the importance that we attach to the tribunal. I entirely agree with what has been said about the importance of its commanding the widest possible respect. That is an objective that we can all share. I think that the steps that we have in hand will lead to it doing so.
      There are about 70 tribunals, and tribunal appointments do not normally include judges from the High Court Bench or from the Court of Session. There are a few instances where senior judges sit on tribunals. A tribunal may have a High Court judge when particularly sensitive information is involved or when the cases that come before it are especially sensitive in nature. For example, there are the special immigration appeals commissions. There is also a batch of security tribunals, each of which is headed by a High Court judge or another senior judge.
      The employment appeals tribunal has been referred to, as has the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Both have a High Court judge as president because of their particular circumstances. I think that we are all aware that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal has faced acute work-load pressures. A High Court judge was appointed as president to strengthen its operation.
      It is normal practice for other tribunals to appoint people with a seven-year legal qualification to the panel of chairmen—for example, the VAT and duties tribunals and the transport tribunals. The provisions will ensure that the tribunal will command the widest possible respect, as the House rightly seeks.
      The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) suggested that the FSA should pay costs if a case is overturned by the tribunal. Costs are not usually awarded in cases brought before tribunals. There will be scope to award costs, but only if either party has acted unreasonably, vexatiously or frivolously. That is the test supported by the independent Council on Tribunals, and it is in line with the thinking of the Burns committee, which specifically recommended that we should give consideration to the council's views. Those views are reflected in the provision.
      958
      We can certainly agree about the importance of the tribunal and the need to make sure that it commands the widest possible respect. I am confident that our proposals will deliver—
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that the Government must put up some money in connection with the tribunals? The industry has been required to put up the legal aid money and it covers most costs, but the Government's contribution must come out of the public purse. Can the Minister give an assurance that the exigencies of the public purse will not short-change what is properly required for the status and efficiency of the tribunal?
      Mr. Timms: I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an assurance that it is the Government's objective to meet the expenditure necessary to deliver a tribunal with the stature that he described earlier. I am satisfied that we will be able to provide that.
      Mr. Flight: Our amendments focus on three practical issues. They will need to be discussed further when the Bill reaches its Committee stage in the other place. Although the amendments do not relate to matters of high principle on which we would want to vote—and we shall therefore withdraw them—they all deal with practical issues on which our investigations and conversations with those concerned lead us to the conclusion that the Bill is not entirely satisfactory.
      The issue of costs is in a different category, and I take note of the Minister's comments regarding the Burns committee. There is a wider issue still to be addressed—the ability of individuals fully to defend themselves, lest the legislation be undone as the result of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.
      The crucial point is that the tribunal should be of top quality and adequately remunerated. Notwithstanding the Minister's comforting remarks, we have a genuine practical concern that the present arrangements may not provide for that. In anticipation of these matters being considered further in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The question of withdrawing amendments does not arise. The only amendment that has been moved is Government amendment No. 115. The other amendments have been grouped with it for the purposes of debate.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10

      REVIEWS
      Mr. Flight: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 35, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in page 4, line 35, after "conduct", insert
      ", in 2002 and every five years thereafter,".

      959
      No. 18, in page 4, line 38, leave out
      "A review may be limited by the Treasury to"
      and insert—
      "The Treasury may also require separate limited and independent reviews of".
      No. 477, in page 4, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 478, in page 5, line 10, leave out—
      "appearing to the Treasury to be'.
      Mr. Flight: This group of amendments covers particularly important territory. As the House knows, we tabled new clause 3 to address the matter in detail, but the amendments to clause 10 have the same effect.
      As clause 10 stands, the Treasury may appoint an independent person to conduct a review of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the FSA has used its resources in discharging its functions, but clause 10(3) qualifies that power by providing that the review may not deal with the merits of the FSA's general policy or principles in pursuing its regulatory objectives.
      Our amendments require the Treasury to appoint an independent person in 2002 and every five years thereafter. The Treasury may also require separate, limited and independent reviews of such matters as it may specify. In essence, that is already covered in clause 10. The limitation in subsection (3) would be deleted. Finally, the definition of "independent" would be amended by deleting the subjective words
      "appearing to the Treasury to be".
      We have already touched on that in relation to attempts to reduce scope for judicial review.
      It is important that there should be an automatic process of review of regulation. Had the Financial Services Act 1986 provided for that, there would have been a lot less hassle than we have had. Fewer amendments and less parliamentary time would have been needed, and there would have been fewer delays in bringing regulation up to date. For this undemocratic Government and for the industry, a review of regulation is an appropriate part of the process of checks and balances.
      There is the pretence of a process of review under clause 10, but it will occur only at the behest of the Treasury and will not cover the most important territory. We feel strongly about the issue, which we discussed at length in Committee.
      Mr. Beard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the greatest threat to the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the FSA is the number of reviews that the Opposition would impose on it?
      Mr. Flight: That sounds like an argument that totalitarian Governments have used. The review would be independent. The FSA would clearly have to participate in it, but it is more important that regulation should require proper accountability. The FSA spends an enormous amount of time doing the same thing vis-a-vis those that it regulates. I do not believe that that was a serious intervention. We view the matter as an important principle to be included in the Bill.
      Mr. Tyrie: Clause 10 is important. As has been said repeatedly, the FSA is an unprecedentedly powerful institution. Clearly, we need to take a look at it after a few years, to see whether it is working properly.
      960
      In the Government's draft Bill, there was no provision for any kind of review. After consultation, they introduced clause 10. However, the provision is nothing more than a mouse. Given last week's events, "mouse" is an appropriate description—
      Mr. Flight: Or even rat.
      7 pm
      Mr. Tyrie: Worse still, the clause is a rat. Clause 10 is not worth having, and therefore we have to amend it.
      Subsection (1) provides for an independent person
      "to conduct a review of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Authority has used its resources in discharging its functions."
      In other words, the independent person will consider only how the authority spends its money.
      Subsection (2) is equally limiting. It grants the Treasury the power to specify the functions that the independent investigator may examine. He may wish to consider a particular function, but the Treasury may prevent him from doing so.
      Subsection (3) expressly forbids the independent investigator from considering several broader issues. It states:
      "A review is not to be concerned with the merits of the Authority's general policy or principles in pursuing regulatory objectives."
      As if that is not enough, the independent reviewer will not necessarily be independent. As has already been said, subsection (7) states:
      "'Independent' means appearing to the Treasury to be independent".
      That means as independent as the Treasury wishes the reviewer to be.
      That does not constitute a serious commitment to review the Bill. We have therefore tabled amendments to try to provide for that.
      The clause does not even guarantee that a review will take place at all, because subsection (1) states:
      "The Treasury may appoint an independent person".
      It does not say that the Treasury "must" appoint someone to undertake a review. The Opposition believe that a Bill that could so dramatically affect the biggest, most important and most successful industry in Britain in recent decades should be subject to independent review. That is the gravamen of the amendments.
      In Committee, we presented proposals for defining "independent". We suggested that the Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office should conduct the review. Some technical problems with that suggestion were mentioned in Committee, but I shall not rehearse them now. Many representative bodies support the idea of appointing him, as do the Opposition. The Government did not explain clearly why that was not a sensible approach. It would give those who are being regulated confidence in the appointment of a genuinely independent reviewer.
      Mr. David Kidney: The Burns committee did not recommend that the Comptroller and Auditor General should undertake the reviews.
      Mr. Tyrie: I do not want to go through all the arguments that the Burns committee presented. The hon. Gentleman is right, and the point was made in Committee. However, the Burns committee said that that was its position provided that its recommendations on the compensation scheme were implemented. The Bill does not provide for implementation of such a scheme. Any reasonable person who reads the Burns committee report will conclude that it would now recommend amendments to clause 10.
      Mr. Beard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Tyrie: I shall not give way again. The hon. Gentleman's previous two interventions have been somewhat lacking in substance and I do not want his comments to detain the House.
      Mr. Kidney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Tyrie: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because he has such a happy smile on his face.
      Mr. Kidney: I remind the hon. Gentleman of how well he spoke earlier in favour of the need for regular cost-benefit analyses of, for example, new rules. What is his view of the Opposition's proposal that the reviews should be undertaken regularly, irrespective of cost or benefit?
      Mr. Tyrie: That is an extraordinary intervention. The object of any review is to undertake cost-benefit analyses of regulations to ascertain whether they are intelligent or cost the industry more than they save it. We would expect the Treasury to use its intelligence to ensure that the review did not become an excessive and irredeemably burdensome examination of the FSA's activity.
      The Opposition have consistently argued for at least one thoroughgoing review of the fundamental change in legislation. The Government consistently refuse to say whether we can have such a review—[Interruption.] The Minister nods; perhaps that is because he has read a pleasant note, which he has stuffed into his pocket, but perhaps he was agreeing with me that the Government have consistently refused to accept the need for at least one thoroughgoing review of the measure.
      The arguments were well presented in Committee, and people can read them in Hansard.
      Liz Blackman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I am about to conclude my remarks.
      The City would be greatly reassured by the prospect of a review. There is much uncertainty about this Bill in the City, and the knowledge that a review will take place will help allay it. We must not underestimate that point.
      A second crucial reason for having a review is that the Bill alters the structure of the regulatory system. We have
      962
      not simply transferred existing legislation; we have fundamentally altered it. In addition, rapid change is occurring, and an on-going review should probably take place, even if there were no Bill.
      A third reason for supporting the spirit of the amendments, which do not cover the point about the Comptroller and Auditor General, is that granting him power to review will increase accountability to Parliament because he will be able to report to the Public Accounts Committee. The accountability to Parliament of the extremely powerful body that we are creating should be important to all hon. Members.
      I cannot understand why the Government are afraid of reviews. Why do they consider it unreasonable to undertake, after three or four years, a fundamental review of the leviathan Bill that we are considering?
      Mr. Timms: Our new review proposals have received a rather grudging welcome. I should have thought that Opposition Members would show a little more enthusiasm for the new arrangements.
      Clause 10 gives the Treasury the power to appoint an independent person to review the efficiency, economy and effectiveness with which the FSA has used its resources in discharging some or all of its functions. We are considering value-for-money audits. Under the clause, an audit can be carried out at any time, but the amendment seeks to alter that so that the first audit would take place in 2002, with subsequent further audits at five-year intervals. The Treasury would have the power to require further audits to be undertaken outside that timetable, if that appeared necessary.
      The amendment is unnecessary. The purpose of the clause is to allow the Treasury to commission a review when it believes that that would be helpful. That is a matter of judgment and it is impossible to specify the right time in advance, because that may depend mainly on events outside the FSA. Let us suppose, for example, that a crisis suddenly occurred in a sector of the financial services industry and the FSA had to step in and put matters right. In those circumstances, the Treasury might want to ask for a review to see how the FSA's systems stood up to the crisis. The amendment would not prevent that, but we could be in the absurd position of having to begin another review—on the regular timetable—immediately after the first review had concluded and when it was apparent to everybody that there was nothing new to report.
      Unlike the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), I suggest to the House that my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) were absolutely right. He should have taken much greater note of their remarks because there is a serious issue here of forcing on to people unwanted and unwarranted reviews and procedures that do not merit the costs associated with them. There is no advantage in having fixed periods for external reviews; they should take place when they are needed.
      Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister commit the Government to at least one thoroughgoing review of the legislation?
      Mr. Timms: Many people will look at how the legislation works, not least the Treasury Committee. The timing of the value-for-money audits should depend on

      963
      circumstances—for example, the non-executive directors might draw to our attention in the annual report the FSA's efficient and economic use of resources. Schedule 1 requires that to be included in the FSA's annual report.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and hope that I have not cut him off at a vital moment, but one of my worries is that the reviews appear to be confined to the
      "economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Authority has used its resources".
      Would that cover circumstances of growing and perhaps widespread concern in the City that the authority was using its powers in an overbearing and tyrannical way?
      Mr. Timms: I suppose that that would depend on the particular circumstances, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention brings us on to the points that were made about amendments Nos. 477 and 478. Let me respond to those.
      There is no doubt that the FSA's performance in terms of making policy—the type of area to which he referred—and establishing principles in pursuit of its regulatory objectives should be open to scrutiny, but amendment No. 477 is not the right way to achieve that. The Bill already provides a number of mechanisms that will achieve that outcome, which I think we all seek.
      Schedule 1 requires the FSA to report on the extent to which its objectives have been met in its annual reports. Clause 7 requires it to consult with practitioners and consumers, including the statutory practitioner and consumer panels, on
      "the extent to which its general policies and practices are consistent with its general duties",
      which are set by clause 2. The FSA will be under a duty under clauses 8 and 9 to have regard to any representations made to it by the consumer and practitioner panels.
      Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister accept that even as authoritative a trade association as the Association of British Insurers still does not feel that the Bill provides for enough scrutiny? With such important trade bodies saying that more needs to be done, our amendments are necessary to satisfy the needs of those with a legitimate interest in the legislation being reviewed properly when it is in force.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Timms: There will be ample scrutiny through the mechanisms that I have set out—for example, the work of the Treasury Committee and the role of the Treasury—and I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Arrangements will be in place to meet that concern.
      Mr. Cousins: Virtually all the points made by Conservative Members have been designed, perfectly properly, to protect the position of people in the trade. My hon. Friend has said that the review clause will take account of the points made by consumer panels. Will he make it clear that the review procedure will be symmetrical in order to protect the interests of consumers
      964
      as much as those of the trade? The point is that "effectiveness" also covers effectiveness on behalf of consumers.
      Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend's important point provides a helpful corrective to the balance in the debate. He is absolutely right that the position of consumers and the protection of their interests is at the heart of the Bill. That is only right.
      Mr. Loughton rose—
      Mr. Tyrie rose—
      Liz Blackman rose—
      Mr. Timms: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman).
      Liz Blackman: Does my hon. Friend also accept that consumers and practitioners alike will be far more reassured by a review that results from a trigger rather than a meaningless regular mechanism?
      Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unnecessary regular reviews, with all the costs that they entail, are not a feature of the system that anybody wants, least of all consumers.
      Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Timms: I shall give way for the last time; then I shall conclude.
      Mr. Tyrie: I am concerned that the Minister seemed to agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and appeared to suggest that there is a trade-off between the interests of consumers and of producers. I had hoped that we had moved on and that, somehow or other, Labour—which talks of the third way—had managed to shed such language, but it seems that we are back to where we were and the Minister accepts the trade-off. Will he acknowledge that the interests of consumers and producers are the same with respect to reviews and that a review that makes a producer more efficient will give greater benefit to the consumer?
      Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) would have been comforted if Conservative Members had paid more attention to the interests of consumers. He made a telling point on that subject.
      On amendment No. 478, clause 10 provides that any person appointed by the Treasury to carry out a review of the FSA must be independent of the FSA. Subsection (7) defines what that means. The problem with the proposed change is that it is not necessarily self-evident whether a particular person is at any time independent of the FSA. In practice, somebody will need to take a view and, as it is the Treasury's responsibility to appoint any reviewer, it follows that the Treasury should make the judgment. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment and hope that it will be withdrawn.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief. I am disturbed that the Minister has not been more forthcoming. He should

      965
      at least accept an amendment providing for a full-scale review within a reasonable period of the establishment of the structures in the Bill.
      These amendments, like the previous group, concern the authority's accountability. I confess that I am becoming significantly alarmed. The Minister was silent on this, but unless the Government recognise that the appeal tribunal structure must be headed by somebody of the permanence and calibre of a High Court judge and that the authority's activities should be regularly and independently reviewed, the checks and balances that we require will not be adequate.
      Mr. Flight: We thought that the Government were a great supporter of reviews, but it appears that they do not support reviews of certain matters. Much as we appreciate the Financial Secretary's courtesy, we feel—I certainly feel—that his response was somewhat weak. His refusal to commit the Government at least to a review of this highly complicated new legislation, bringing in the whole industry and changing the position constitutionally after a sensible period, suggest to us that the Government are not very interested in the review process.
      The hon. Gentleman seemed to argue that it was necessary to wait for a Barings or a pension-selling problem to break before conducting a review, but the whole point of a regular review is that it is designed to throw up problems and ensure that they are dealt with. The problems with the regulation of the retail industry date back 10 years. Everyone has known about the—the FSA has admitted that. Had there been a statutory regular review, something might have been done.
      Such reviews are an important part of efficiency, good regulation and protecting the consumer, as well as ensuring that regulation has not become excessive in the other direction. The review, as clause 10 provides, would be laid before Parliament. According to our thinking, it would provide a document on which the Select Committee on the Treasury could do a great deal of the homework.
      It should be borne in mind that the financial services industry changes at a rapid pace. Let us consider what has happened in the last five years, let alone the last 10. Change is needed to update and adjust as the industry changes, and we feel that a statutory five-year review is appropriate to the needs of the situation. We have not specified the Comptroller and Auditor General as the person who should conduct the review, as particular issues may arise; we have merely specified that it should be someone who is truly independent. I felt that the Financial Secretary's response was rather strange, as we see no real problem in determining who is independent of the Treasury.
      The amendment is highly important to the interests of all to whom regulation relates. The machinery that we propose would avoid a number of the problems that have been experienced with regulation since the Financial Services Act 1986 came into force, and we therefore wish to press the amendment to a Division.
      966
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 309.

      Division No. 57]

      [7.23 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Allan, Richard

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Horam, John

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Baker, Norman

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Baldry, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bercow, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Blunt, Crispin

      Keetch, Paul

      Boswell, Tim

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

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Key, Robert

      Brady, Graham

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brake, Tom

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brazier, Julian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lansley, Andrew

      Burnett, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Burns, Simon

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Burstow, Paul

      Lidington, David

      Butterfill, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cash, William

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Chidgey, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Chope, Christopher

      Luff, Peter

      Clappison, James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Collins, Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Colvin, Michael

      Madel, Sir David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Cran, James

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Moore, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Norman, Archie

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Oaten, Mark

      Faber, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Paice, James

      Flight, Howard

      Paterson, Owen

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Prior, David

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Randall, John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence

      Gill, Christopher

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ruffley, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Green, Damian

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Greenway, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Grieve, Dominic

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hammond, Philip

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hancock, Mike

      Spring, Richard

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Steen, Anthony

      Hayes, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Heald, Oliver

      Swayne, Desmond

      967

      Syms, Robert

      Wells, Bowen

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Taylor, Ian (Esher amp; Walton)

      Whittingdale, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Willetts, David

      Townend, John

      Willis, Phil

      Wilshire, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Winterton Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Trend, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Walter, Robert

      Wardle, Charles

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Keith Simpson and

      Webb, Steve

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Colman, Tony

      Ainger, Nick

      Connarty, Michael

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Corbett, Robin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cousins, Jim

      Allen, Graham

      Cox, Tom

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cranston, Ross

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Crausby, David

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cummings, John

      Banks, Tony

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Barnes, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Beard, Nigel

      Dalyell, Tam

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Darvill, Keith

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Davidson, Ian

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Benton, Joe

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Berry, Roger

      Best, Harold

      Dawson, Hilton

      Betts, Clive

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blackman, Liz

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dobbin, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Doran, Frank

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Dowd, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Efford, Clive

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Etherington, Bill

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fisher, Mark

      Browne, Desmond

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Burgon, Colin

      Flint, Caroline

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Cann, Jamie

      Foulkes, George

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gapes, Mike

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gardiner, Barry

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Chaytor, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Grocott, Bruce

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Grogan, John

      968

      Gunnell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Maxton, John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Meale, Alan

      Healey, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Miller, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hill, Keith

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Home Robertson, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Hope, Phil

      Mudie, George

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mullin, Chris

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Norris, Dan

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hurst, Alan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hutton, John

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Illsley, Eric

      Pearson, Ian

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pike, Peter L

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pound, Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keen, Alan (Feltham amp; Heston)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Khabra, Piara S

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Kidney, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rapson, Syd

      King, Andy (Rugby amp; Kenilworth)

      Raynsford, Nick

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Laxton, Bob

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Levitt, Tom

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Roy, Frank

      Linton, Martin

      Ruane, Chris

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lock, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Love, Andrew

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Salter, Martin

      McCabe, Steve

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Sawford, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sheerman, Barry

      McDonnell, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McFall, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McIsaac, Shona

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Singh, Marsha

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Skinner, Dennis

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe amp; Lunesdale)

      McWalter, Tony

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Snape, Peter

      969

      Soley, Clive

      Tynan, Bill

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Watts, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      White, Brian

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Whitehead, DrAlan

      Stringer, Graham

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Swinney, John

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (DoncasterC)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wise, Audrey

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wood, Mike

      Timms, Stephen

      Woolas, Phil

      Tipping, Paddy

      Worthington, Tony

      Todd, Mark

      Wray, James

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 6

      EXERCISE OF EEA RIGHTS BY UK FIRMS
      '. Part III of Schedule 3 makes provision in relation to the exercise outside the United Kingdom of EEA rights by UK firms.'.—[Mr. Timms.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 70 to 72, 83, 113, 114 and 158.
      Amendment No. 39, in schedule 3, page 208, line 34, after "Kingdom", insert—
      "for the purpose of carrying on the activities in question".
      Amendment No. 40, in page 209, line 20, after "Kingdom", insert—
      "by carrying on the activities in question".
      Amendment No. 41, in page 209, line 22, after "notice", insert—
      "of the firm's intention to provide services in the United Kingdom by carrying on the activities in question.".
      Amendment No. 42, in page 209, line 28, after "Kingdom", insert—
      "by carrying on the activities in question."
      Government amendments Nos. 159 to 170.
      Amendment No. 43, in schedule 4, page 212, line 41, at end insert—
      ""EEA credit institution" means an EEA firm falling within paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 3 whose authorisation under the first and second Banking Co—ordination Directives covers one or more investment services (within the meaning of the Investment Services Directive):".
      Amendment No. 44, in page 213, line 13, at beginning insert—
      "except where the firm is an EEA credit institution.".
      970
      Amendment No. 47, in page 213, line 19, after "right", insert—
      "or, where carrying on the activity constitutes the provision of services in the United Kingdom, cannot use an EEA right,".
      Amendment No. 48, in page 213, line 19, after "activity", insert—
      "or, where carrying on the activity constitutes the provision of services in the United Kingdom, the firm is carrying on that activity from outside the United Kingdom.".
      Amendment No. 45, in page 213, line 30, after "activity", insert—
      "which is a regulated activity".
      Amendment No. 46, in page 213, line 36, after "on", insert—
      "a permitted activity which is".
      Mr. Timms: The Government amendments clarify the distinction in schedule 3 between European firms that use the single market directives to exercise passport rights under the directives in the United Kingdom, and UK firms that exercise passport rights in other European states. Part II of schedule 3 deals with incoming firms, while part III deals with outgoing UK firms. Clause 31 deals with incoming firms, but does not distinguish between incoming and outgoing firms. Amendments Nos. 70 to 72 would limit its scope to incoming firms. New clause 6 would then introduce part III of schedule 3, to deal with outgoing UK firms.
      Amendments Nos. 158 to 163 make further drafting changes to the arrangements for incoming firms under part II of schedule 3. Amendments Nos. 164 to 170 do the same for outgoing firms under part III of schedule 3.
      Amendments Nos. 39 to 42 make some interesting drafting suggestions in relation to the exercise of passport rights by European Economic Area firms. Part II of schedule 3 sets out two sets of conditions for EEA firms seeking to exercise their single market passport rights in the United Kingdom. Firms seeking to establish a UK branch in the exercise of those rights will qualify for authorisation if they satisfy the establishment conditions, which involve the receipt by the FSA of a consent notice from the firm's home-systate regulator.
      The purpose of the amendments appears to be to make it clear that the activities identified in the notices—the permitted activities—must be activities that the EEA firm proposes to carry on through its branch, or by way of provision of services. It seems clear that the notices will relate to the carrying on of the activities identified in them, but, if there is any doubt in the minds of Opposition Members—I imagine that there must be because of the amendments that they have tabled—I will be happy to put on the record an assurance that that is the intended effect of the provisions. I hope that hon. Members will derive some comfort from that.
      Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 would disapply the requirement that the home-state laws afforded equivalent protection if the firm seeking to exercise a treaty right was an EEA credit institution carrying on investment services under a banking authorisation. The need to be satisfied as to the protection offered by home-state law where there is no Community instrument setting minimum standards is an important condition for recognising rights under the treaty. I see no reason to suspend that requirement.

      971
      Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 deal with drafting points. It is clear from schedule 4(3)(1)(a) of the schedule that a "permitted activity" must be a regulated activity, so it is not necessary to specify in either paragraph 4(1) or paragraph 5(1)
      "a permitted activity which is a regulated activity".
      Opposition Members may want to comment on that.
      I appreciate Opposition Members' thinking on amendments Nos. 47 and 48, which seem to provide alternative solutions to the same problem. The problem stems from the possible difference between what would fall to be regulated business carried on in the UK—the general perimeter test—and what would be carried on within the UK: the test that applies in the directives.
      The Opposition have a point there, but although they have proposed two ways of dealing with the question, we do not think that either of them is entirely satisfactory. We are, however, pursuing the point—which is entirely valid, and dealt with in both amendments—with the draftsman. We intend to return to it in another place as soon as we can.
      I am grateful to the Opposition for drawing the matter to our attention and hope that, on the basis of that assurance, they feel that they do not need to press amendments Nos. 47 and 48.
      Mr. Flight: There is a nice irony in the fact that, in Committee, it was the official Opposition who pressed hard to get these parts of the Bill right. If I were impolite, I might point out that the Government—who are so keen to join the euro quickly—were running the risk of not getting them right, thereby causing substantial problems in achieving their objective.
      The Opposition's objectives are twofold. First, it is crucial to British interests, and to the interests of the rest of Europe, to realise that, if Britain damages passporting, reciprocal action will be taken against us elsewhere.
      Secondly—in the spirit of healthy free trade—we want the single market to work. We want European Union passporting to be as streamlined and efficient as possible for European Union businesses and for elements of the financial services industry that come to the United Kingdom.
      We are reasonably happy with the Government's new clause and amendments in this group, although we still do not think—as I shall explain in some detail—that they completely deal with the points at issue. As the Minister will be aware, there have been discussions between learned lawyers—the details of which I confess I do not always understand. I appreciated the hon. Gentleman's comment that the discussions are not necessarily complete but will be finalised when the Bill is considered in Committee in another place.
      The Opposition note and are pleased that Government amendment No. 112 has not been selected, as it was the one Government amendment in this group that we felt was not at all satisfactory.
      Our amendments Nos. 39 to 42 are intended to limit the notices that are required as part of the procedures used in exercising the passport to notices relating to activities covered by the passport. As the Minister said, such an effect is obviously intended, but is not expressly stated in the relevant paragraphs.
      972
      Our amendments Nos. 43 and 44 would amend schedule 4 and are aimed at providing an investment services directive passport to incoming EEA banks entitled to use the second banking directive passport—which, although it may sound strange, is currently allowed by European Union law. Unless the two amendments are agreed to, however, it will no longer allow it—consequently worsening the current position of incoming EEA banks. The Opposition cannot imagine that the Government desire such an outcome.
      If we want to allow United Kingdom banks to have the same "extra" ISD passport, we would surely be shooting ourselves in the foot by stopping non-United Kingdom EEA banks enjoying a passport to which they are currently entitled—albeit not under the ISD as such but because of the current United Kingdom concession.
      As Ministers will be aware, schedule 4 gives treaty rights to all EEA nationals. The treaty right is a right to establish a branch in another member state or to provide cross-border services into it, provided that the conditions in paragraph 3 are satisfied. The treaty of Rome gives those rights, and schedule 4 implements them subject only to the satisfaction of the conditions stated in paragraph (3).
      7.45 pm
      Banks that are to be given the United Kingdom ISD passport are authorised in the home member state, and the second banking directive—2BCD——does not cover all of the ISD passported activities, which means that there is no EEA right covering them. Consequently, that satisfies the two other conditions in paragraph 3, and means that, in principle, EEA credit institutions are automatically given the ISD passport for those activities that are outside the 2BCD passport. The key examples are the receipt and transmission of customer orders and the arranging of transactions in existing securities, neither of which is covered in the 2BCD passport.
      Our amendments Nos. 43 and 44 ensure that the freedoms that the United Kingdom currently gives will be continued. We also hope that the provisions will persuade other EEA member states to allow an equivalent ISD passport to United Kingdom banks.
      Do the Government plan to remove that which is already enjoyed in the United Kingdom, or were the omissions simply an oversight?
      Our amendments Nos. 47 and 48 relate to paragraph 3(1) of schedule 4, which sets out a key condition for the exercise of treaty rights. In July 1997, the Commission gave guidance to the effect that the 2BCD passport cannot be used when the bank is carrying on the relevant passported activity from outside the client state, typically by telephone, fax or screen. In this case, the "host" member state is the member state in which the branch is located and not the client state. Accordingly, a bank entitled to the 2BCD passport cannot use its passport. If paragraph 3(1)(c) is not amended as we are suggesting, the bank will also be excluded from the treaty rights, because it has an EEA right to carry on the activity, albeit that it cannot use it in those circumstances.
      Surely it would be foolish if the schedule 4 treaty rights could be used by all firms authorised by their home member state to carry on the regulated activity except when the firm has an ISD or 2BCD passport. We are sure

      973
      that that is not the Government's intention, and our two amendments will allow 2BCD firms to use the treaty right.
      Our amendment No. 45 is designed to make it clear that the permission given by schedule 4 is only for passported activities, which will require authorisation under the Bill.
      Amendment No. 46 is vital. Unless it is accepted, paragraph 5 will prohibit the treaty firm from carrying on any regulated activity until seven days after it gives notice, even if the regulated activity has absolutely nothing to do with the passport. That is neither acceptable, nor, I think, intended.
      As I said, the amendments deal with a highly technical subject. A few moments ago, the Minister said that the Government want to continue examining the matter and to ensure that they have the provisions right. I apologise to the House for explaining in detail what we regard as the key issues, but—after all the effort that has gone into examining the issues in the past six months—please, may we ensure that we get it right?
      Mr. Timms: I will gladly reflect on the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but what I said at the beginning of this short debate stands. I was not entirely clear whether the hon. Gentleman wished to press the amendments. I hope that he does not.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short and entirely technical speech on these extremely important amendments. This has been a fascinating occasion, in which it would be correct to say that Flight has been speaking to Timms, but that Abrams and Slater probably have been communicating with Stokes. I think that all those involved should be congratulated.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second Time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      THE THRESHOLD CONDITIONS
      '.—(1) "The threshold conditions", in relation to a regulated activity, means the conditions set out in Schedule 6.
      (2) In giving or varying permission, or imposing or varying any requirement, under this Part the Authority must ensure that the person concerned will satisfy, and continue to satisfy, the threshold conditions in relation to all of the regulated activities for which he has or will have permission.
      (3) But the duty imposed by subsection (2) does not prevent the Authority, having due regard to that duty, from taking such steps as it considers are necessary, in relation to a particular authorised person, in order to secure its regulatory objective of the protection of consumers.'.—[Mr. Timms.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 85 to 88, 92, 93, 96, 105, 122 to 124, 157, 178 and 179.
      Mr. Timms: This group of amendments rationalises the current references in clauses 37(3), 38(2), 39(2), 40(2) and case A, 157(2) and 158(2)(c) to the qualifying conditions in schedule 6.
      974
      The amendments are intended to make it clear that the requirement for the FSA to be satisfied that an authorised person meets the conditions for authorisation in schedule 6 applies at all times. This was a point that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) sought to clarify through amendments in Committee, and the Government undertook to make the position clearer. This is our response to the hon. Gentleman's point.
      New clause 7 requires the FSA to satisfy itself, in giving or varying permission or imposing or varying any requirement, that the person will satisfy the threshold conditions—formerly the qualifying conditions—set out in schedule 6 in relation to all the regulated activities covered by his permission. However, the amendments also make it clear that this does not prevent the FSA from taking such steps in relation to an authorised person as it considers necessary to secure its regulatory objective of the protection of consumers.
      The threshold conditions are conditions which should be met at all times, and they are constant points of reference for the FSA. Important though meeting the conditions always is, however, maintaining constant strict adherence may be temporarily subordinated in the interest of consumers.
      For instance, the FSA could permit an authorised insurance company which no longer met the conditions to continue to carry on some limited insurance activities in order to protect the position of existing policyholders, but at the same time might prevent it from engaging in new business. The end result would still need to be either that the company met the conditions again for the activity it had permission to carry on, or that the permission was withdrawn and authorisation ended.
      The remaining Government amendments are consequential. Amendment No. 86 also simplifies the provision for requirements under clause 38(1) so that the FSA may impose such requirements as it considers appropriate without making a firm's permission conditional on compliance with those requirements.
      Amendment No. 179 amends the legal status condition in schedule 6 to ensure that registered friendly societies, which are not incorporated bodies, may nevertheless carry on insurance activities. It also ensures that if insurance intermediaries were to be brought within the scope of regulation, they would not be required to be bodies corporate. However, I should make it clear that we have no such plans.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This group of amendments is reasonably innocuous, and I will not challenge the Minister too profoundly about what he is attempting to do. However, I have some definitional questions, particularly about what he means by consumers.
      New clause 7 refers to the need to protect consumers, and the Bill could deny someone the application to have an authorisation removed in the interest of consumers—the thinking being presumably that if someone is in business and dealing with consumers, those consumers need protection even after the person concerned wishes to end the business. One can understand that the FSA must make a judgment about whether an authorisation must continue in order to protect consumers.
      My question to the Minister is this: how are those consumers defined? There are a number of definitions in the Bill as it stands. For instance, clause 9(7) has one

      975
      definition, and a slightly different definition appears in clause 3(3). They are fairly minor differences, but they are significant because they appear in one or two cases to restrict the definition of consumers. That may well be desirable.
      In Committee, the Economic Secretary agreed to look at this matter again after it was raised by myself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). The hon. Lady said:
      "We intend to consider the definition of 'consumer' in the Bill at a later stage, and that is the best way forward."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 October 1999; c. 483.]
      On that basis, we have left the matter. The Minister owes us an explanation because, as he will appreciate, when one hears remarks like that in Committee, it is really code for saying that the Government will table amendments on Report.
      Throughout our proceedings, we have been trying to achieve certainty for the outside world. Sometimes Ministers suppose that people will be able to look at a raft of secondary legislation, consultation documents, rules and regulations to find out exactly what their rights and responsibilities are. In fact, most people—even many lawyers—rely on an Act of Parliament. This is a source document, and if things are not properly set out and defined in primary legislation, it will go against what the Government have said at other times—that the Bill is aimed at giving clarity to the outside world.
      The Government want to make financial regulation not simply a specialist matter, but a matter that is understandable to customers and consumers. We know that it is a specialist area of law, but if we are trying to create a system that is comprehensible and has aims that ordinary customers and participants in the industry can understand, we must set out the definitions in the Bill—and preferably only one definition per Bill. It is confusing to have several. Perhaps the Minister could state what he would settle on to give clarity in the question of who he is talking about when he refers loosely to consumers.
      Mr. Timms: The definition that is appropriate here is the definition in clause 5, to which the new clause refers indirectly in subsection (3). The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is right to draw our attention to the exchange on this issue in Committee, during which the Economic Secretary made the point that the definition of the consumer panel in clause 9 was narrower than those elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman is also right to point out that we undertook to consider further the definitions of the term "consumer" in the Bill. The commitment given in Committee stands, and we will come back to the issue in the other place.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      8 pm

    New Clause 12

      DEPOSIT-TAKING IN BREACH OF GENERAL PROHIBITION
      ".—(1) This section applies to an agreement between a person ("the depositor") and another person ("the deposit-taker") in the course of carrying on by the deposit taker of deposit-taking in contravention of the general prohibition.
      976
      (2) If the depositor is not entitled under the agreement to recover without delay any money deposited by him, he may apply to the court for an order directing the deposit-taker to return the money to him.
      (3) The court need not make such an order if it is satisfied that—

      (a) it would not be just and equitable for the money deposited to be returned; and

      (b) the deposit-taker reasonably believed that he was not contravening the general prohibition by making the agreement.

      (4) "Agreement" means an agreement—

      (a) made after this section comes into force; and

      (b) the making or performance of which constitutes, or is part of, deposit-taking.

      (5) "Court" means

      (a) the High Court, or

      (b) in Scotland, the Court of Session.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 245 to 248.
      Miss Johnson: The central objective behind the unenforceability provisions in clauses 24 to 27 is not to find an additional way to penalise wrong-doers, but to assist the financial markets by removing uncertainty. The clauses start from the same presumption of unenforceability that exists under the general law and section 5 of the Financial Services Act 1986.
      The underlying principle is that agreements entered into in the course of, or as a consequence of, illegal activity cannot generally be enforced in the courts. In other words, people should not be able to profit from crime. These provisions confirm that presumption, and also establish clear conditions which, if met, give the courts discretion to enforce agreements if that would be just and equitable. It was thought necessary to include provision along those lines in the 1986 Act. We think that it is equally right and necessary to provide the same level of clarity and certainty in this Bill.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) agreed with us that it is a reasonable principle to apply that an authorised person should not be able to enforce an agreement if it was made through an intermediary who should have been authorised but was not. However, the hon. Gentleman argued that it was unfair to penalise the authorised person if they did not know that the agreement resulted from unauthorised activity by some third party. We accepted that argument.
      Clause 26 goes beyond the existing test in that it makes an agreement unenforceable if the court considered that, although the authorised person did not know, he had grounds for suspecting. That is not the intention behind these provisions. Government amendment No. 245 will therefore align the test with the 1986 Act, so that the courts can exercise their discretion to enforce when they are satisfied that the service provider did not know that the agreement resulted from illegal activity.
      We also undertook in Committee to amend the test for enforcing agreements resulting from illegal financial promotion. As it stands, the tests in clause 27 are

      977
      concerned with the effect of the promotion, rather than the belief or knowledge of the service provider. On reflection, we think that that is inappropriate. The effect of the promotion on the customer can be taken into account as necessary by the court in deciding whether enforcement is just and equitable, but the prior test should be as it is for agreements entered into as a result of unauthorised regulated activity.
      If the service provider is also the promoter, the question should be whether he reasonably believed that he was not contravening the prohibition. If the promoter is a third party, the question should be whether the service provider knew that the agreement was a result of an illegal promotion.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am mostly encouraged by the Minister's remarks, but I am not entirely happy with part of them. If it is just and equitable that the deposit should not be returned, why is it necessary for the person who will suffer—contrary to justice and equity—to prove that he reasonably believed something?
      Miss Johnson: I shall think about that point for a moment, because it is a difficult question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was one of the main instigators of some of the improvements made in the new clause, as a result of issues that he raised about deposit taking and unenforceability in correspondence with me. Sadly, he was not present when we discussed it in Committee, but I hope that the new clause addresses the point that he made, as well as those raised by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, who rued the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman at that point in the Committee's proceedings.
      The hon. Gentleman also argued in Committee that clauses 24 and 25 should not exclude illegal deposit taking from the effect of these provisions. In support of that, he put forward the possibility of a person locked into a fixed-term deposit arrangement with an illegal deposit taker. In such a case, he argued that the depositor should be able to demand the return of their deposit immediately. Again, we accept the point.
      It would be unsatisfactory if the victims of an illegal deposit taker were disadvantaged, so new clause 12 tackles the point directly. Unless the courts are satisfied both that the deposit taker reasonably believed that he was not breaching the prohibition and that it would be just and equitable to uphold the agreement, the depositor will be able to obtain immediate repayment. I do not know whether that answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. [Interruption.]—I think that he is indicating that he is satisfied by that.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I was indicating that I would seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Miss Johnson: I have nothing further to say at this point, except to commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The new clause addresses the enforceability of contracts or agreements made by regulated persons in contravention of the rules. As we have heard, and as we discussed in Committee, those are
      978
      generally unenforceable except in certain circumstances. The changes that the Government have brought forward are generally helpful, so we do not complain about them.
      I have a slight problem in understanding the distinction between someone who sells and someone who purchases. The authorised person, it is assumed in the Bill, is normally the person who is selling something to a member of the public and is then found to have done so in contravention of the rules. However, the Government now appear to recognise that the authorised person could be buying something because, in Government amendment No. 244, the word "provider" is replaced with the phrase
      "person carrying on the regulated activity".
      Following discussion with those who have advised us, we recommended the word "counter-party" as preferable to "provider". It is neutral, and the person thus referred to could be receiving or providing services. That suggestion has not been taken up, although the Government have mostly tried to avoid the word "provider". However, clause 26 will still contain the word "provider", which is now an anomaly. I do not know whether it is an oversight—perhaps the late corrections to the Bill have not picked up all the instances of the use of "provider"—or deliberate. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I welcome what the Minister said, as far as it went. However, it did not go far enough and, although the new clause looks innocuous on paper, I fear that it could lead to injustice. If the deposit taker has to have "reasonably believed" that he was not contravening the general prohibition when making the agreement, he may suffer a loss that, but for those words, the court would regard as unjust.
      I shall make up an example of what I mean. Let us say that a person gives money to another person who makes investments on his behalf. Normally, the money is given simply to pay for the investments but, in the case that I am describing, some proportion of it is deemed to be held on deposit. If the person doing business fails to pay other debts to the business that makes investments on his behalf, he may claim back the money that is being held on deposit.
      In those circumstances, it may be very unfair not to allow the illegal deposit taker to hold on to the money. Indeed, he may be relying on that money so that he can continue to invest on his client's behalf. The Minister's advisers may recall that all my thoughts go back to the case of SCF v. Masri, in which that rule, which is part of the Banking Act 1979, very nearly caused serious injustice. In that case, the investment business was not held to have been an illegal deposit taker, but making that determination can often involve many technical questions.
      8.15 pm
      The technical circumstances may mean that the business held to be an illegal deposit taker did reasonably believe that it was not contravening the law. To that extent, new clause 12 would be satisfactory. However, it could easily transpire that that belief was not reasonable, and that a silly mistake had been made. Such a mistake could have highly disproportionate consequences if provisions such as those in the new clause were accepted.
      I entirely understand where the Government are coming from, and accept that they are thinking about the matter sensibly. However, they have not gone far enough.

      979
      Depositors' automatic entitlement to getting their money back—unless the illegal deposit taker can demonstrate that repayment would not be just and equitable—is sufficient protection for them, but it is not absolute. It means that justice can be done when people have acted in good faith, but not necessarily reasonably.
      The structure of the new clause shows that the Government are anxious that the courts should be able to do justice. Proposed new subsection (3)(a) states that the court need not make such an order if it is satisfied that
      "it would not be just and equitable for the money to be returned".
      I think that that is enough, and that there is no need for the provision involving reasonable belief. The same arguments apply to Government amendments No. 245 to 248.
      The Economic Secretary may argue that, to some extent, this business of unenforceability is a discipline on providers in the market. However, it can be so unjust that most of the time it would not be necessary: in cases where it was necessary, the court would order the money to be paid, because obviously it would be just to do so.
      I hope that I have explained myself adequately, and that the Government will agree to think again on the matter. I am grateful for the distance that they have covered already, but it is not quite far enough.
      Miss Melanie Johnson: First, I shall tackle the question from the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about terminology, which rehearses a debate that we had in Standing Committee. Indeed, I recall that Opposition Members tabled an amendment about the term "counter-party" in Committee.
      We have studied the question, which is largely a matter of drafting. There is a risk that the terminology of the "purchaser" is confusing, given that that person could also be selling investments, which is the point just made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
      The word "purchaser" is a drafting device, and needs to be seen in that context. However, we shall continue to examine the problem, with a view to bringing forward another suggestion about the wording in another place.
      Mr. Tyrie: I hope that the Minister will be able to dispel some confusion for me. As I understand it, clause 24 deals with agreements made by unauthorised persons, and clause 25 with agreements made through such persons. New clause 12 addresses the problem in clause 24, but it does not extend the same treatment to clause 25, which deals with agreements entered into with an authorised person
      "in consequence of something said or done by"
      an authorised person
      "in contravention of the general prohibition".
      Why have the Government excluded clause 25 from the treatment meted out to clause 24?
      Miss Johnson: In essence, that was the point raised earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire. The new clause does not cover third-party deposit taking. There is no intention to make giving advice on deposits a regulated activity.
      980
      In Committee, Opposition Members found it very difficult, in their amendments, to change terminology across the board. An example that we discussed earlier was the difficulty with the definition of the word "consumer". It is not always easy to produce a single term that fits well in all the circumstances in the Bill. We do our best to ensure that all the terminology is consistent and that, wherever possible, the same words are used. As I said, we will continue to consider this and will come back to it in another place if that seems appropriate.
      The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked why, if it was just and equitable that a deposit should not be returned, it was necessary for the person to prove that he reasonably believed that he was breaching the prohibition. My understanding of the way that this works may be different from that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is important to remember that we are talking about illegal activity. The first question is whether the provider reasonably believed that he was not acting illegally. Only then does the second question kick in—whether the enforcement is just and equitable. It is a staged process. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was suggesting that only the second phase was necessary, but the first stage is supposed to be followed by the just and equitable consideration as the second element.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister clarify this point? She is concentrating on the illegality of the activity. While it is true that the idea of not being able to profit from one's own wrong is deeply embedded in the common law, does the hon. Lady recognise that the illegality in these circumstances is, in a sense, artificially—although rightly—created by statute? Buying and selling shares, for example, is a perfectly legitimate activity. Therefore, there is a high degree of technicality about the illegality. Hence, does the hon. Lady agree that, if it is just and equitable in a commercial situation for money to be returned or not, that should be the end of the question, and that what someone did or did not reasonably believe is a step too far?
      Miss Johnson: I do not think that I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. My view is that, if the illegal behaviour resulted from an obscure technicality of the kind that he sketched out, the court may be satisfied that the person reasonably believed that he was not breaking the law. That is a distinct possibility. But, if the belief was not reasonable, why should the courts enforce the illegal contract?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: We are talking about activities that are contrary to the general prohibition. Those are not obscure technicalities, but the circumstances in which a breach of the general prohibition may have arisen but be entirely innocent, albeit the person was slightly negligent. If that was the case, does the Minister recognise that unreasonableness would creep in and injustice could be done because the money could not then be returned by the court even though it had been decided at the first stage that it would be just and equitable to do so?
      Miss Johnson: I believe that, if what was done in the first place was straightforward and not a matter of obscure technicality, the issues may not be the same, but the measure must address the point that it may not be clear whether there is an obscure technicality. The right

      981
      hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to entertain that possibility, but it is an eventuality that must be entertained. I recognise that that will sometimes cause difficulty for those carrying out unlawful activities, but there is a balance to be struck and the Bill strikes it properly. I do not think that I have anything further to add.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Would the Minister just answer this question? If there is a small mistake—a negligent mistake, as most mistakes are—but, considering the issue as a whole, it would be unjust to the deposit taker to have to return the money, why should the court's hands be tied from doing justice?
      Miss Johnson: I do not believe that we are tying the court's hands and preventing justice from being done. It is the business of the courts to do justice and I do not believe that anything that we are doing has or will have that effect.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 13

      STATEMENTS OF POLICY: PROCEDURE
      ".—(1) Before issuing a statement under section 67, the Authority must publish a draft of the proposed statement in the way appearing to the Authority to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.
      (2) The draft must be accompanied by notice that representations about the proposal may be made to the Authority within a specified time.
      (3) Before issuing the proposed statement, the Authority must have regard to any representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2).
      (4) If the Authority issues the proposed statement it must publish an account, in general terms, of—

      (a) the representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2); and

      (b) its response to them.

      (5) If the statement differs from the draft published under subsection (1) in a way which is, in the opinion of the Authority, significant, the Authority must (in addition to complying with subsection (4)) publish details of the difference.
      (6) The Authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing a person with a copy of a draft published under subsection (1).
      (7) This section also applies to a proposal to alter or replace a statement.".—[Mr. Timms.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 14—Statements of policy: procedure.
      Government new clause 25—Codes: procedure.
      Government new clause 26—Statements of policy: procedure.
      Government new clause 30—Statements of policy: procedure.
      Government new clause 31—Statements under section 351: consultation.
      982
      Government new clause 40—Consultation.
      Government new clause 41—Procedure on making or varying orders under section (Orders in relation to the general prohibition).
      Amendment No. 236, in clause 8, page 4, line 15,, at end insert—
      "(6) Before appointing any person to the Practitioner Panel the Authority must consult persons representing the interests of practitioners, as it considers appropriate, with a view to identifying candidates for appointment to the Practitioner Panel.".
      Government amendment No. 407.
      Amendment No. 216, in clause 49, page 23, line 5, after "Part", insert—
      "or to impose a requirement under section 38".
      Amendment No. 217, in page 23, line 7, after "application", insert—
      "or imposes a requirement under section 38".
      Amendment No. 218, in clause 50, page 23, line 17, leave out "written" and insert "a warning".
      Amendment No. 219, in page 23, line 19, leave out subsection (3).
      Amendment No. 220, in page 23, line 27, leave out "written" and insert "a decision".
      Amendment No. 221, in page 23, leave out lines 28 to 30.
      Amendment No. 224, in clause 59, page 27, line 35, at end insert—
      "(2A) If no warning notice is given before the end of the period for consideration the application shall be treated as granted.".
      Government amendments Nos. 249 to 255.
      Amendment No. 225, in clause 62, page 29, line 1, after "issue", insert "or alter".
      Amendment No. 226, in page 29, line 2, after "it", insert—
      "or, as the case may be a draft of it as proposed to be altered".
      Government amendments Nos. 256 to 270, 272 to 277 and 279.
      Amendment No. 227, in clause 85, page 39, line 26, at end insert—
      "and the procedure on such an appeal".
      Amendment No. 228, in page 39, line 30, at end insert—
      "(4) The provisions of sections 349(3) to 349(5) shall apply in relation to the warning notices as if the competent authority was the Authority.
      (5) If, notwithstanding the representations made to the competent authority before the end of the period specified in the warning notice, the competent authority decides to impose a penalty on a person under section 84, the competent authority must give the person concerned written notice of the decision it takes and must inform him of the right of appeal available to him and the procedure on such an appeal.
      (6) The provisions of sections 350(1)(c), 350(6) and 351 shall apply to any such notice under subsection (5) as if it were a decision notice and the competent authority was the Authority.".
      Government amendments Nos. 280 to 284.
      Amendment No. 229, in clause 87, page 40, line 10, at end insert—
      "(2) The competent authority may not give a notice for payment under section 88(1) while the decision to give that notice is open to review.

      983
      (3) "Open to review" bears the meaning set out in section 350(7) as if references to the Tribunal were to the person or body to which appeal may be made under the arrangements to be established under subsection (1).".
      Government amendments Nos. 285 to 315.
      Amendment No. 365, in clause 142, page 68, line 30, at end insert—
      "and if any proceedings are commenced against any person in reliance on the report the investigating authority shall provide a copy of the report to such person prior to the commencement of proceedings".
      Amendment No. 375, in clause 183, page 91, line 3, at end insert—
      "(5) The Authority shall not give a notice for payment while the decision to give that notice is open to review within the meaning of section 350(7).".
      Amendment No. 376, in clause 184, page 91, line 12, at end insert—
      "(4) The Authority shall not publish a statement under section 179 while the decision to publish that statement is open to review within the meaning of section 350(7).".
      Government amendments Nos. 320 to 325.
      Amendment No. 377, in page 91, line 32, leave out "authorised persons" and insert "the public".
      Government amendment No. 326.
      Amendment No. 378, in clause 185, page 91, line 37, leave out—
      "consult such persons as it considers appropriate"
      and insert—
      "include in the material a statement that representations about the material may be made to the Authority within a specified time".
      Amendment No. 379, in page 91, line 37, at end insert—
      "(7A) Before publishing the material under this section the Authority must have regard to any representations made to it in accordance with subsection (7) and must make a statement as to the representations (if any) made to it and its response, in general terms, to them.".
      Government amendments Nos. 327 to 329.
      Amendment No. 392, in clause 235, page 118, line 32, leave out from "give" to end of line and insert—
      "separate written notice of its decision to the manager and trustee of the scheme".
      Amendment No. 394, in clause 236, page 119, line 38, after "must", insert—
      "without prejudice to its other powers under section 108".
      Government amendments Nos. 140 and 331 to 344.
      Amendment No. 11, in clause 351, page 181, line 39, after "case", insert—
      "if the failure does not materially prejudice the person to whom the warning notice or decision notice is given".
      Government amendments Nos. 345 to 363.
      Mr. Timms: The Government gave an undertaking in Committee to standardise the FSA's procedures, including for when the FSA consults on its making and amending of rules and codes, and of policy statements. New clauses 13, 14, 25, 26, 30, 31 and a number of amendments are intended to achieve that consistency, and I hope that they will be widely welcomed.
      New clauses 40 and 41 relate to the new provisions on professionals. New clause 40 deals with the procedures to apply to directions by the FSA to cut back the scope of
      984
      the exemption in relation to classes of person or activity. It sets out the procedure for consulting on a direction in line with similar procedures throughout the Bill. New clause 41 deals with individual orders made by the FSA to ban persons from carrying on regulated activities under the professionals' exemption. It sets out the procedure that will apply to a banning order under new clause 39. Essentially, the warning and decision notice procedures applied throughout the Bill should be adhered to, and the subject of the order can refer the matter to the tribunal.
      Clause 48 provides that an authorised person should have a certificate setting out the terms of their permission and that the certificate is to have particular evidential weight. At present, the certificate takes precedence over the register that the FSA must maintain under clause 311, or over the notice to be issued under clause 47(4), in determining a person's position.
      Our intention was to provide some certainty for authorised persons. However, we have become aware that some difficult practical issues would result from giving precedence to certificates in that way. It would be imperative for the FSA always to repossess a certificate when a permission is altered or cancelled. For example, what would happen if the authorised person declined to return the certificate or claimed to have lost it?
      We are persuaded that it would not be right to place such reliance on certificates. By deleting clause 48 and the related provisions in schedule 5, we are deliberately leaving it open to the courts to place weight on a variety of forms of documentation—including the public register to be maintained by the FSA under clause 311—as they consider appropriate.
      Amendment No. 269 makes a simple drafting change to clause 63. Amendment No. 140 makes a consequential change to clause 274, following the introduction in Committee of provisions as to recognised nominees. It provides that the FSA must have regard to representations from a recognised nominee before using its power of direction in respect of such a body.
      I shall defer my comments on the amendments tabled by the Opposition until Opposition Members have had a chance to speak. I shall then try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Flight: As the Minister pointed out, the Government's new clauses and the related amendments would standardise various procedural requirements relating to the making by the FSA of rules and codes and to the issue of policy statements. As far as we have been able to digest them, the amendments are welcome improvements; they appear to work.
      However, the Opposition have some qualifications or questions. First, although in some cases the consultation procedures apply to proposals to alter or replace statements or policies, it is not clear what the position would be if the FSA proposed to alter rules made under part IX. If the rules were revoked and replaced by new ones, the consultation procedure would apply; however, the provisions do not cover alterations to rules.
      Secondly, it seems to be assumed that many existing rules will be continued under the measure. As we have pointed out, those rules are intended to be grandfathered so as to avoid the need for the consultation procedure, and will not be subject to cost-benefit analysis. We are not clear how that grandfathering will be put into effect.

      985
      Thirdly, the consultation procedures do not apply to the Treasury's powers to make orders or to prescribe other matters under the measure. We think that the procedures should apply.
      Finally, various Opposition amendments buried within the group cover many different territories. I shall not address each one, but shall discuss them in groups.
      Amendment No. 236 is especially important. It would require the FSA to consult persons representing the interests of practitioners before making appointments to the practitioner panel. We had tabled alternative amendments on that. However, such a panel must be properly representative of practitioners and consultation is a sensible way to achieve that.
      Amendments Nos. 216 and 217 would amend clause 49 to bring within the warning notice, decision notice procedures proposals by the FSA to impose conditions on applicants for permission to carry on regulated activities. Amendments Nos. 218 to 221 would amend clause 50 to bring within those procedures proposals by the FSA to use its own-initiative power, for example in non-urgent cases.
      In the case of any application for approval, amendment No. 224 would provide that, if no warning notice were given before the end of the period for consideration of the application—the three-month period—the application would be treated as granted. We proposed that amendment in Committee and I thought that it had received a sympathetic response.
      Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 would introduce to clause 85 the provisions of clauses 349 and 350—the warning notice, decision notice procedures—in the case of the proposed imposition of penalties for contravention of listing rules.
      Amendment No. 365 would require a copy of an investigator's report made under the provisions of clauses 139 and 140 to be provided to the person under investigation before proceedings are commenced against him. We consider that to be of some import.
      Amendments Nos. 375 and 376 amend clauses 183 and 184 to make it clear that the FSA cannot give notices for penalties, or publish statements, while the decision is open to review.
      Clause 351(7) provides that if the FSA fails to follow its warning notice, decision notice procedure, it will not affect the validity of the relevant warning notice or decision notice. Amendment No. 11 provides that that is the case only
      "if the failure does not materially prejudice the person to whom the warning notice or decision notice is given".
      We shall not press our amendment No. 377; we debated that subject pretty fully in Committee. Similarly, we shall not press amendment No. 378, to which it relates.
      Amendment No. 379 is of some import. It provides that, before the FSA publishes a disciplinary notice, it must have regard to any representations and make a statement as to whether representations were made and what its response to them was.
      Amendment No. 392 relates to powers on intervention. It would require the FSA, when revoking a power, to give separate written notice to the manager and trustee, not only to the applicant.
      986
      Amendment No. 394 provides that, in cases of urgency, decision notices should be without prejudice to the powers under clause 108 relating to hearings and appeals.
      The amendments bracket together a strange hotchpotch of different territories. We view the most important as the practitioner panel point and the territory of not being able to publish statements while decision notices are open to review.
      Mr. Loughton: My hon. Friend has probably said it all on this great hotchpotch, but I want to echo some of his words regarding the practitioner panel and amendment No. 236.
      I fear that I may incur the wrath of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) because the amendment does not deal with the body of consumers. We have addressed that subject many times in the Bill's passage. Many of us would contend that if we get the practitioners right, we are acting in the interests of consumers, but I shall not re-open that argument. No doubt he will intervene on me if he chooses to take us down that lane.
      We had a good debate in Committee about the status and effectiveness of the practitioner panel. Many Conservative members of the Committee would have preferred the panel to be given much greater independence, to the extent that panel members could be nominated by practitioners from their own body instead of being appointed entirely by the authority; because it is essential that the practitioner panel has clout and is not just a form of tokenism, supposedly to give respectability to some of the greater excesses that the FSA rule-makers may wish to impose on the financial community. If the latter were the case, it would inevitably lead to prejudice to the consumer.
      I have another worry. I have no qualms about the qualifications and standard of the people who have been proposed for the practitioner panel—indeed, some are highly qualified—but many are what I would term compliance and regulator people rather than practitioners. There seems to be a difficulty in filling the practitioner panel with practitioners, the people who are at the sharp end of the financial services business and conduct business day to day. Someone who regulates individual firms as a compliance officer does not constitute a practitioner.
      In Committee, we also had problems when we contended that the practitioner panel should have first sight—and before the consultation was launched—of any consultation exercises that the authority recommended should go out to the general membership. It appears eminently sensible to suggest that the practitioners, who might have a sensible and pragmatic input to make to the consultation exercise, should be able to make it at the beginning. It would then be a rather more meaningful exercise, but, unfortunately, the Government did not accept our amendment. As we failed on those scores, it is essential that amendment No. 236 is taken on board. It would be absurd for the authority to appoint the people that it saw fit to serve on the practitioner panel without it consulting widely with the very people that the panel supposedly represents.
      The Bill must contain a mechanism whereby the FSA is obliged to consult the practitioners properly before it names the people who it wants to appoint to the panel.

      987
      That is plain common sense if the panel is to be effective, independent and is to have an input into the workings of the FSA. It will be one of the worst cases of tokenism if it is made up of yes-men and women.
      Mr. Timms: The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) asked me three questions about the Government amendments and I shall deal with them first.
      First, the hon. Gentleman asked me about altering and replacing the rules under part IX. That is a drafting matter. It is not right to talk about rules being altered or replaced; they are revoked and new rules are made. In that sense, part IX is no different from other parts of the Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked me about grandfathering. Our intention is to lay transitional provisions in another place to deal with that. To some extent, it is a matter for the FSA. For example, in the case of prudential rules, it is consulting on a proposal to make interim rules. The aim is to allow it to take account of procedural steps, including consultation, before the Act comes into force.
      Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the need for consultation on the Treasury powers to prescribe. There are a number of powers in the Bill for the Treasury to make regulations. It would be unduly rigid to include in the Bill a requirement to consult on the regulations. However, we shall of course consult when it is appropriate to do so.
      Mr. Tyrie: The Minister has just mentioned the transitional arrangements. As he has touched on them, will he explain why the Government have not yet taken the opportunity to table them? A huge number will be required with the ending of 18 separate sets of regulatory schemes and their replacement by the omnibus scheme. What has been the obstacle to tabling those arrangements for consideration in this House rather than waiting for them to be considered in the other place?
      Mr. Timms: We referred to several matters earlier today and in the debate last week that we shall return to in another place. As a result of all our deliberations and the close attention that we have paid to all the points made to us, we have many matters to resolve, and those are among them. It has not been possible to table amendments on that in time for debate today, but I have no doubt that those matters will be properly scrutinised in the other place.
      8.45 pm
      I shall deal with the Opposition amendments in the order in which they were explained by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. Amendment No. 236 would require the FSA to consult practitioners about possible candidates. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) referred to that. The FSA is under a duty to establish a panel of practitioners able to represent the views of practitioners. Clause 8 specifies categories of person who should be represented on the panel, and places the FSA under a duty to have regard to representations made to it.
      I have no objection to the FSA consulting in the way proposed so that it can identify suitable people, but it is unnecessary and undesirable to specify so precisely the steps that it should take. Consultation with the industry
      988
      may well be a good approach, but other methods may be suitable; for example, it may he appropriate to advertise. I would not want to tie the FSA's hands on that matter.
      Mr. Flight: Will the Minister be a little more specific? He is saying that the Bill covers the spirit of what we seek to achieve, but what is the FSA likely to do? There are many trade bodies that represent different parts of the financial services industry. Is it envisaged that the FSA will discuss suitable candidates with them? Is it envisaged that the FSA will talk directly to any leaders or sections of the industry? We are concerned because it seems to us that the boards of comparable existing bodies could have been improved.
      Mr. Timms: That will be a matter for the FSA. Its obligations in that respect are pretty clear, and they cover the points about which Opposition Members are concerned. Categories of person are specified; the panel has to be able to represent the views of practitioners, and the FSA is placed under a duty to have regard to representations made to it. Precisely how the FSA fulfils those obligations is a matter that we can leave to it, although I imagine that it will do much of what the hon. Gentleman suggested.
      Amendments Nos. 216 to 223 are interesting. They would extend full warning notice, decision notice and tribunal procedures to all FSA decisions under part IV. There is a need to rationalise the procedures for FSA decisions, in the same way that we have aligned consultation procedures. For example, we tabled amendment No. 115, which will extend the right to refer matters to the tribunal in clause 52 to any applicant who is aggrieved by the determination of his application, such as in cases in which the FSA has granted an application but imposed a limitation or requirement.
      At the same time, however, it is important to distinguish between the essentially prudential and protective nature of the provisions in part IV and the different nature of other provisions in the Bill, such as those on market abuse, discipline and restitution.
      The interests of third parties will vary according to whether one is considering permission given to an authorised person or his wrongdoing. That will have a bearing on the urgency of the case and the amount of material that it will be appropriate for the FSA to disclose in a particular case.
      We do not think that it is right that all consequences should flow in exactly the same way from all FSA decisions, which would be the result of the Opposition amendments. However, we accept the need to consider further the procedures that should apply and to align them as far as possible. We shall want to return to that matter in another place. I shall take on board the central thrust of the hon. Gentleman's case, but more detailed work is needed.
      That brings me to amendment No. 224. In Committee, I made it clear that the Government had decided to allow the FSA up to three months in which to consider applications, in case it needs—as it will, from time to time—to carry out investigations into those making applications. However, the FSA has made it clear that it expects, in normal circumstances, to be able to grant approvals within a matter of days or weeks; it is consulting with firms as to the levels of service that they would like to apply to the processing of applications.

      989
      I hope that I did not inadvertently mislead the Committee about the Government's intentions. We believe that it is essential that the FSA satisfies itself that the candidate is a fit and proper person to carry out the controlled function in question. It must be absolutely clear that an application cannot be granted by default and that no benefit can accrue from delay or other such tactics. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
      Mr. Flight: I could cite difficult cases in which an existing self-regulating organisation left a matter in no man's land for anything up to one or two years because no one wanted to take responsibility for a difficult decision. Ultimately, decisions have been forced, usually by a potential employer being brave enough to address the issue. Some such cases have given rise to considerable injustice. The Minister appears to be saying that the three months is not really three months: what happens if a decision is not reached within three months? We do not want a regime that allows people to be left in limbo.
      Mr. Timms: That, too, will be a matter of concern to the FSA. However, the problem can be seen the other way around: making the amendment could result in the unhappy outcome of a person assuming that he had approval and taking up a position with an authorised firm, only to find that the FSA sought to withdraw that approval a matter of days later. The Government's approach is correct, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that care must be taken throughout the process, so that such cases are not repeated.
      Amendments Nos. 225 and 226 have been overtaken by some of the Government amendments, so I shall not speak about them. The hon. Gentleman did not focus on them.
      That brings me to amendments Nos. 227 to 229. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary set out the changes that we would make to the clauses dealing with official listing, following the decision to transfer the competent authority function from the London stock exchange to the FSA. We have not tabled amendments to part VI consequential on that decision; we shall do so in another place.
      We shall in another place also propose changes to the warning notice and decision notice procedures. Those changes will rationalise the provisions, for example, by ensuring that a notice for payment is something that is given and takes effect only after the end of the review process.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, amendment No. 365 is identical to one that we discussed in Committee. We agree that a person must know of what he or she is accused; that basic requirement is recognised in the Bill in several ways. In disciplinary and market abuse cases, clause 349 requires the FSA to disclose the reasons for proposing the action in the warning notice that it must give to the person concerned. Subsection (5) of that clause requires the FSA to make available the evidence on which it proposes to rely in any proceedings before the tribunal. We are working on proposals to extend this right of access to include additional information. In most cases these disclosure requirements and rights of access will cover most, if not all, of the contents of any report prepared
      990
      following an investigation. We cannot agree to automatic disclosure of the full report of an investigation regardless of its content or the use that it might be put to. For example, it might reveal the source of a tip-off within a company under investigation. We think that that would be going too far. We are providing a great deal of transparency in this process. It is right that we should do so, but there are limits to what is appropriate.
      I am grateful to Opposition Members for tabling amendments Nos. 375 and 376. They would prevent the FSA from imposing disciplinary measures under part XIII while the decision is still open to review. Clause 356 already prevents the FSA from publishing any information about a matter to which the decision relates while the decision is still open for review. The main provision that prevents such abuse is clause 108(5), which provides that a
      "decision referred to the Tribunal does not have effect until the reference, and any appeal against the Tribunal's decision, has been … disposed of."
      Any notice of payment that the FSA purported to issue before the matter was referred to the tribunal would also be rendered ineffective if the matter was then referred to the tribunal. I understand that there could be some ambiguity about the status of such a notice and the passage of time under clause 108 if the firm decided not to refer the matter to the tribunal. It would be useful to consider whether the provision could be reworded as part of the amendments that we are proposing to put forward when the Bill is considered in another place. I hope that that will be of some reassurance to Opposition Members.
      Amendments Nos. 377 to 379 aim to specify consultation procedures on statements of policy on the imposition of penalties. As we undertook in Committee, we have introduced a series of new clauses and amendments to standardise procedures. New clause 30 addresses the Opposition's concerns on this issue, I hope to their satisfaction.
      The purpose of amendment No. 392 is to amend clause 235, which deals with the procedural aspects of revoking directions that are given under clause 231, so that both the manager and trustee of a scheme receive a written decision notice when an application for revocation has been made. I recall that the matter was raised in Committee. Procedural issues in this part of the Bill are still being broadly assessed, and this is a point that we shall consider further, as we said in Committee.
      Amendment No. 394 concerns the role of the tribunal in the urgent intervention procedure for authorised unit trusts under clause 236. Again, the matter was debated in Committee. We said then that we would review the urgent intervention powers set out in the Bill at a later date, and we still intend to do so.
      Amendment No. 11 is similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. As we explained then, we think that our amendments achieve the required effect. As it stands, clause 351(7) gives the FSA flexibility in carrying out its published procedures. That is necessary because there is a risk that any minor error or departure from the standard procedure would result in the entire procedure becoming a nullity.
      In practice, the question whether there has been a procedural error that has materially prejudiced the other party would be resolved by the tribunal, whose proceedings would provide a completely fresh look at the

      991
      case and a decision unprejudiced by any procedural errors by the FSA. The problem with a prejudice test is that it suggests that the tribunal should strike down a decision of the FSA wherever it has materially disadvantaged the other party. That would in effect lead to long arguments about the minutiae of the procedures adopted by the FSA. The tribunal's own fair procedures should effectively rectify any procedural failures as it provides a full opportunity for a fair hearing before a judicial body. The tribunal's ability to balance any material disadvantage was welcomed by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) in Committee.
      Amendment No. 392 deals with the procedural aspects of revoking directions given under clause 231. We are looking into the matter.
      Amendment No. 394 concerns the role of the tribunal in the urgent intervention procedure for authorised unit trusts under clause 236, to which we will give further consideration.
      I hope that I have responded to the long list of amendments to the satisfaction of Opposition Members.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 14

      STATEMENTS OF POLICY: PROCEDURE
      ".—(1) Before issuing a statement under section 86, the competent authority must publish a draft of the proposed statement in the way appearing to the competent authority to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.
      (2) The draft must be accompanied by notice that representations about the proposal may be made to the competent authority within a specified time.
      (3) Before issuing the proposed statement, the competent authority must have regard to any representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2).
      (4) If the competent authority issues the proposed statement it must publish an account, in general terms, of—

      (a) the representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2); and

      (b) its response to them.

      (5) If the statement differs from the draft published under subsection (1) in a way which is, in the opinion of the competent authority, significant, the competent authority must (in addition to complying with subsection (4)) publish details of the difference.
      (6) The competent authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing a person with a copy of a draft published under subsection (1).
      (7) This section also applies to a proposal to alter or replace a statement.".—[Mr. Timms.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 15
    CONTROL OF BUSINESS TRANSFERS
    New Clause 15
      PART VIA

        CONTROL OF BUSINESS TRANSFERS
        . No insurance business transfer scheme or banking business transfer scheme is to have effect unless an order has been made in relation to it under section (Sanction of the court for transfer schemes)(1).".—[Mr. Timms.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        9 pm
        Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 16—Insurance business transfer schemes.
        Government new clause 17—Banking business transfer scheme.
        Government new clause 18—Application for order sanctioning transfer scheme.
        Government new clause 19—Requirements on applicants.
        Government new clause 20—Scheme reports.
        Government new clause 21—Right to participate in proceedings.
        Government new clause 22—Sanction of the court for business transfer schemes.
        Government new clause 23—Effect of order sanctioning business transfer scheme.
        Government new clause 24—Rights of certain policy holders.
        Government new schedule 1—Insurance and banking business transfer schemes: certificates.
        Mr. Timms: In Committee, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said:
        "There is also a lot of old law on banks, including the frequent requirement that banks get a private Act of Parliament when merging businesses. Will amendments be tabled to tidy that up in relation to the Bill?—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 7 December 1999; c. 1185.]
        I gave the hon. Gentleman a slightly circuitous answer, but I can now come clean and say yes.
        New clauses 15 to 24 and new schedule 1 provide a new mechanism for sanctioning and giving effect to schemes to transfer business by certain kinds of authorised persons, specifically insurance companies and banks. The matter with which we are dealing is not takeovers and mergers in the usual sense. From a regulatory perspective, the relevant powers for takeovers are already in place in part XI. No other special arrangements apply to takeovers.
        Instead, what is at issue is the merger of two distinct businesses into a single legal entity. That normally follows a takeover. For example, Lloyds Bank plc bought TSB plc some years ago, but it was only last year that a single company, Lloyds TSB plc, was formed and the transfer of the business took place.
        In addition to transfers following takeovers, other cases might involve a situation in which a business—for example, a composite insurer—wanted to sell off its life business and concentrate on general insurance. In such cases, it would seek another insurer to which it would transfer its life business. That might be an essential part of a rescue of a failing firm.
        I hope that the provisions, foreshadowed as they were by the hon. Gentleman's question to me in Committee,

        993
        will meet with the approval of the House. I hope that the House will welcome the rationalisation of the existing arrangements and their extension to banks, so that all deposit taking and insurance undertakings will be able to take advantage of an effective and efficient mechanism to transfer their business.
        This is a positive development, which we believe will be welcomed by the industry. It should also be welcomed by customers of relevant firms—as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) will acknowledge—and others affected by qualifying transfers whose rights will be protected by the procedures in the new clauses and new schedule 1.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 16

      INSURANCE BUSINESS TRANSFER SCHEMES
      ".—(1) A scheme is an insurance business transfer scheme if it—

      (a) satisfies one of the conditions set out in subsection (2);

      (b) results in the business transferred being carried on from an establishment of the transferee in an EEA State; and

      (c) is not an excluded scheme.

      (2) The conditions are that—

      (a) the whole or part of the business carried on in one or more member States by a UK authorised person who has permission to deal in contracts of insurance ("the authorised person concerned") is to be transferred to another body ("the transferee");

      (b) the whole or part of the business, so far as it consists of reinsurance, carried on in the United Kingdom through an establishment there by an EEA firm qualifying for authorisation under Schedule 3 which has permission to deal in contracts of insurance ("the authorised person concerned") is to be transferred to another body ("the transferee");

      (c) the whole or part of the business carried on in the United Kingdom by an authorised person who is neither a UK authorised person nor an EEA firm but who has permission to deal in contracts of insurance ("the authorised person concerned") is to be transferred to another body ("the transferee").

      (3) A scheme is an excluded scheme for the purposes of this section if it falls within any of the following cases:

      INSURANCE BUSINESS TRANSFER SCHEMES
        CASE 1
        Where the authorised person concerned is a friendly society.

        CASE 2
        Where—

        (a) the authorised person concerned is a UK authorised person;

        (b) the business to be transferred under the scheme is reinsurance business carried on in one or more EEA States other than the United Kingdom; and

        (c) the scheme has been approved by a court in an EEA State other than the United Kingdom or by the host state regulator.

        CASE 3
        Where—

        (a) the authorised person concerned is a UK authorised person;

        994

        (b) the business to be transferred under the scheme is carried on in one or more countries or territories (none of which is an EEA State) and does not include policies of insurance (other than reinsurance) against risks arising in an EEA State; and

        (c) the scheme has been approved by a court in a country or territory other than an EEA State or by the authority responsible for the supervision of that business in a country or territory in which it is carried on.

        CASE 4
        Where the business to be transferred under the scheme is the whole of the business of the authorised person concerned and—

        (a) consists solely of reinsurance business, or

        (b) all the policyholders are controllers of the firm or of firms within the same group as the firm which is the transferee,

        and, in either case, all of the policyholders who will be affected by the transfer have consented to it.
        (4) The parties to a scheme which falls within Case 2, 3 or 4 may apply to the court for an order sanctioning the scheme as if it were an insurance business transfer scheme.
        (5) Subsection (6) applies if the scheme involves a compromise or arrangement falling within section 427A of the Companies Act 1985 (or Article 420A of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986).
        (6) Sections 425 to 427 of that Act (or Articles 418 to 420 of that Order) have effect as modified by section 427A of that Act (or Article 420A of that Order) in relation to that compromise or arrangement.
        (7) But subsection (6) does not affect the operation of this Part in relation to the scheme.
        (8) "UK authorised person" means a body which is an authorised person and which is incorporated in, or an unincorporated association formed under the law of, any part of the United Kingdom.
        (9) "Establishment" means, in relation to a person, his head office or a branch of his.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 17

      BANKING BUSINESS TRANSFER SCHEME
      ".—(1) A scheme is a banking business transfer scheme if it—

      (a) satisfies one of the conditions set out in subsection (2);

      (b).is one under which the whole or part of the business to be transferred includes the accepting of deposits; and

      (c) is not an excluded scheme.

      (2) The conditions are that—

      (a) the whole or part of the business carried on by a UK authorised person who has permission to accept deposits ("the authorised person concerned") is to be transferred to another body ("the transferee"),

      (b) the whole or part of the business carried on in the United Kingdom by an authorised person who is not a UK authorised person but who has permission to accept deposits ("the authorised person concerned") is to be transferred to another body which will carry it on in the United Kingdom ("the transferee").

      (3) A scheme is an excluded scheme for the purposes of this section if—

      (a) the authorised person concerned is a building society or a credit union; or

      (b) the scheme is a compromise or arrangement to which section 427A(1) of the Companies Act 1985 or Article 420A of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (mergers and divisions of public companies) applies.

      995
      (4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) it is immaterial whether or not the business to be transferred is carried on in the United Kingdom.
      (5) "UK authorised person" has the same meaning as in section (Insurance business transfer schemes).
      (6) "Building society" has the meaning given in the Building Societies Act 1986.
      (7) "Credit union" means a credit union within the meaning of—

      (a) the Credit Unions Act 1979;

      (b) the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.".— [Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 18

      APPLICATION FOR ORDER SANCTIONING TRANSFER SCHEME
      ".—(1) An application may be made to the court for an order sanctioning an insurance business transfer scheme or a banking business transfer scheme.
      (2) An application may be made by—

      (a) the authorised person concerned;

      (b) the transferee; or

      (c) both.

      (3) The application must be made—

      (a) if the authorised person concerned and the transferee are registered or have their head offices in the same jurisdiction, to the court in that jurisdiction;

      (b) if the authorised person concerned and the transferee are registered or have their head offices in different jurisdictions, to the court in either jurisdiction;

      (c) if the transferee is not registered in the United Kingdom and does not have his head office there, to the court which has jurisdiction in relation to the authorised person concerned.

      (4) "Court" means—

      (a) the High Court; or

      (b) in Scotland, the Court of Session.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 19

      REQUIREMENTS ON APPLICANTS
      ".—(1) The Treasury may by regulations impose requirements on applicants under section (Application for order sanctioning transfer scheme).
      (2) The court may not determine an application under that section if the applicant has failed to comply with a prescribed requirement.
      (3) The regulations may, in particular, include provision—

      (a) as to the persons to whom, and periods within which, notice of an application must be given;

      (b) enabling the court to waive a requirement of the regulations in prescribed circumstances.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 20

      SCHEME REPORTS
      ".—(1) An application under section (Application for order sanctioning transfer scheme) in respect of an insurance business transfer scheme must be accompanied by a report on the terms of the scheme ("a scheme report")
      996
      (2) A scheme report may be made only by a person—

      (a) appearing to the Authority to have the skills necessary to enable him to make a proper report; and

      (b) nominated or approved for the purpose by the Authority.

      (3) A scheme report must be made in a form approved by the Authority.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 21

      RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PR0
      ". On an application under section (Application for order sanctioning transfer scheme), the following are also entitled to be heard—

      (a) the Authority, and

      (b) any person (including an employee of the authorised person concerned or of the transferee) who alleges that he would be adversely affected by the carrying out of the scheme.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 22

      SANCTION OF THE COURT FOR BUSINESS TRANSFER SCHEMES
      ".—(1) This section sets out the conditions which must be satisfied before the court may make an order under this section sanctioning an insurance business transfer scheme or a banking business transfer scheme.
      (2) The court must be satisfied that—

      (a) the appropriate certificates have been obtained (as to which see Schedule (Insurance and banking business transfer schemes: certificates));

      (b) the transferee has the authorisation required (if any) to enable the business, or part, which is to be transferred to be carried on in the place to which it is to be transferred (or will have it before the scheme takes effect).

      (3) The court must consider that, in all the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to sanction the scheme.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 23

      EFFECT OF ORDER SANCTIONING BUSINESS TRANSFER SCHEME
      ".—(1) If the court makes an order under section (Sanction of the court for business transfer schemes)(1), it may by that or any subsequent order make such provision (if any) as it thinks fit—

      (a) for the transfer to the transferee of the whole or any part of the undertaking concerned and of any property or liabilities of the authorised person concerned;

      (b) for the allotment or appropriation by the transferee of any shares, debentures, policies or other similar interests in the transferee which under the scheme are to be allotted or appropriated to or for any other person;

      (c) for the continuation by (or against) the transferee of any pending legal proceedings by (or against) the authorised person concerned;

      (d) with respect to such incidental, consequential and supplementary matters as are, in its opinion, necessary to secure that the scheme is fully and effectively carried out.

      997
      (2) An order under subsection (1)(a) may—

      (a) transfer property or liabilities whether or not the authorised person concerned otherwise has the capacity to effect the transfer in question;

      (b) make provision in relation to property which was held by the authorised person concerned as trustee;

      (c) make provision as to future or contingent rights or liabilities of the authorised person concerned, including provision as to the construction of instruments (including wills) under which such rights or liabilities may arise;

      (d) make provision as to the consequences of the transfer in relation to any retirement benefits scheme (within the meaning of section 611 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) operated by or on behalf of the authorised person concerned.

      (3) If an order under subsection (1) makes provision for the transfer of property or liabilities—

      (a) the property is transferred to and vests in, and

      (b) the liabilities are transferred to and become liabilities of, the transferee as a result of the order.

      (4) But if any property or liability included in the order is governed by the law of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom, the order may require the authorised person concerned, if the transferee so requires, to take all necessary steps for securing that the transfer to the transferee of the property or liability is fully effective under the law of that country or territory.
      (5) Property transferred as the result of an order under subsection (1) may, if the court so directs, vest in the transferee free from any mortgage or charge which is (as a result of the scheme) to cease to have effect.
      (6) An order under subsection (1) which makes provision for the transfer of property is to be treated as an instrument of transfer for the purposes of the provisions mentioned in subsection (7) and any other enactment requiring the delivery of an instrument of transfer for the registration of property.
      (7) The provisions are—

      (a) section 183(1) of the Companies Act 1985;

      (b) Article 193(1) and (2) of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

      (8) If the court makes an order under section (Sanction of the court for business transfer schemes)(1) in relation to an insurance business transfer scheme, it may by that or any subsequent order make such provision (if any) as it thinks fit—

      (a) for dealing with the interests of any person who, within such time and in such manner as the court may direct, objects to the scheme;

      (b) for the dissolution, without winding up, of the authorised person concerned;

      (c) for the reduction, on such terms and subject to such conditions (if any) as it thinks fit, of the benefits payable under—

      (i) any description of policy, or

      (ii) policies generally,

      entered into by the authorised person concerned and transferred as a result of the scheme.
      (9) If, in the case of an insurance business transfer scheme, the authorised person concerned is not an EEA firm, it is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), (c) or (e) or subsection (2), (3) or (4) that the law applicable to any of the contracts of insurance included in the transfer is the law of an EEA State other than the United Kingdom.
      (10) The transferee must, if an insurance or banking business transfer scheme is sanctioned by the court, deposit two office copies of the order made under subsection (1) with the Authority within 10 days of the making of the order.
      (11) But the Authority may extend that period.
      998
      (12) "Property" includes property, rights and powers of any description.
      (13) "Liabilities" includes duties.
      (14) "Shares" and "debentures" have the same meaning as in—

      (a) the Companies Act 1985; or

      (b) in Northern Ireland, the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 24

      RIGHTS OF CERTAIN POLICY HR0
      ".—(1) This section applies in relation to an insurance business transfer scheme if—

      (a) the authorised person concerned is an authorised person other than an EEA firm qualifying for authorisation under Schedule 3;

      (b) the court has made an order under section (Sanction of the court for business transfer schemes) in relation to the scheme; and

      (c) an EEA State other than the United Kingdom is, as regards any policy included in the transfer which evidences a contract of insurance, the State of the commitment or the EEA State in which the risk is situated ("the EEA State concerned").

      (2) The court must direct that notice of the making of the order, or the execution of any instrument, giving effect to the transfer must be published by the transferee in the EEA State concerned.
      (3) A notice under subsection (2) must specify such period as the court may direct as the period during which the policyholder may exercise any right which he has to cancel the policy.
      (4) The order or instrument mentioned in subsection (2) does not bind the policyholder if—

      (a) the notice required under that subsection is not published; or

      (b) the policyholder cancels the policy during the period specified in the notice given under that subsection.

      (5) The law of the EEA State concerned governs—

      (a) whether the policyholder has a right to cancel the policy; and

      (b) the conditions, if any, subject to which any such right may be exercised.

      (6) Paragraph 6 of Schedule (Business transfer schemes: certificates) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Schedule.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 25

      CODES: PROCEDURE
      ".—(1) Before issuing a code under section 96, the Authority must publish a draft of the proposed code in the way appearing to the Authority to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.
      (2) The draft must be accompanied by—

      (a) a cost benefit analysis; and

      (b) notice that representations about the proposal may be made to the Authority within a specified time.

      (3) Before issuing the proposed code, the Authority must have regard to any representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2)(b).

      999
      (4) If the Authority issues the proposed code it must publish an account, in general terms, of—

      (a) the representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2)(b); and

      (b) its response to them.

      (5) If the code differs from the draft published under subsection (1) in a way which is, in the opinion of the Authority, significant—

      (a) the Authority must (in addition to complying with subsection (4)) publish details of the difference; and

      (b) those details must be accompanied by a cost benefit analysis.

      (6) Subsections (1) to (5) do not apply if the Authority considers that there is an urgent need to publish the code.
      (7) Neither subsection (2)(a) nor subsection (5)(b) applies if the Authority considers—

      (a) that, making the appropriate comparison, there will be no increase in costs; or

      (b) that, making that comparison, there will be an increase in costs but the increase will be of minimal significance.

      (8) The Authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing a person with a copy of a draft published under subsection (1).
      (9) This section also applies to a proposal to alter or replace a code.
      (10) "Cost benefit analysis" means an estimate of the costs together with an analysis of the benefits that will arise—

      (a) if the proposed code is issued; or

      (b) if subsection (5)(b) applies, from the code that has been issued.

      (11) "The appropriate comparison" means—

      (a) in relation to subsection (2)(a), a comparison between the overall position if the code is issued and the overall position if it is not issued;

      (b) in relation to subsection (5)(b), a comparison between the overall position after the issuing of the code and the overall position before it was issued.".—[Miss Melanie
      Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 26

      STATEMENTS OF POLICY: PROCEDURE
      ".—(1) Before issuing a statement of policy under section 99, the Authority must publish a draft of the proposed statement in the way appearing to the Authority to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.
      (2) The draft must be accompanied by notice that representations about the proposal may be made to the Authority within a specified time.
      (3) Before issuing the proposed statement, the Authority must have regard to any representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2).
      (4) If the Authority issues the proposed statement it must publish an account, in general terms, of—

      (a) the representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2); and

      (b) its response to them.

      (5) If the statement differs from the draft published under subsection (1) in a way which is, in the opinion of the Authority, significant, the Authority must (in addition to complying with subsection (4)) publish details of the difference.
      (6) The Authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing a person with a copy of a draft published under subsection (1).
      (7) This section also applies to a proposal to alter or replace a statement.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 30

      STATEMENTS OF POLICY: PROCEDURE
      ".—(1) Before issuing a statement under section 185, the Authority must publish a draft of the proposed statement in the way appearing to the Authority to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.
      (2) The draft must be accompanied by notice that representations about the proposal may be made to the Authority within a specified time.
      (3) Before issuing the proposed statement, the Authority must have regard to any representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2).
      (4) If the Authority issues the proposed statement it must publish an account, in general terms, of—

      (a) the representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2); and

      (b) its response to them.

      (5) If the statement differs from the draft published under subsection (1) in a way which is, in the opinion of the Authority, significant, the Authority must (in addition to complying with subsection (4)) publish details of the difference.
      (6) The Authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing a person with a copy of a draft published under subsection (1).
      (7) This section also applies to a proposal to alter or replace a statement.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 31

      STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 351: CONSULTATION
      ".—(1) Before issuing a statement of procedure under section 351, the Authority must publish a draft of the proposed statement in the way appearing to the Authority to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.
      (2) The draft must be accompanied by notice that representations about the proposal may be made to the Authority within a specified time.
      (3) Before issuing the proposed statement of procedure, the Authority must have regard to any representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2).
      (4) If the Authority issues the proposed statement of procedure it must publish an account, in general terms, of—

      (a) the representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2); and

      (b) its response to them.

      (5) If the statement of procedure differs from the draft published under subsection (1) in a way which is, in the opinion of the Authority, significant, the Authority must (in addition to complying with subsection (4)) publish details of the difference.
      (6) The Authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing a person with a copy of a draft published under subsection (1).
      (7) This section also applies to a proposal to revise a statement of policy.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 33

      CARRYING ON REGULATED ACTIVITIES BY WAY OF BUSINESS
      ".—(1) The Treasury may by order make provision—

      (a) as to the circumstances in which a person who would otherwise not be regarded as carrying on a regulated activity by way of business is to be regarded as doing so;

      1001

      (b) as to the circumstances in which a person who would otherwise be regarded as carrying on a regulated activity by way of business is to be regarded as not doing so.

      (2) An order under subsection (1) may be made so as to apply—

      (a) generally in relation to all regulated activities;

      (b) in relation to a specified category of regulated activity; or

      (c) in relation to a particular regulated activity.

      (3) An order under subsection (1) may be made so as to apply—

      (a) for the purposes of all provisions;

      (b) for a specified group of provisions; or

      (c) for a specified provision.

      (4) "Provision" means a provision of, or made under, this Act.
      (5) Nothing in this section is to be read as affecting the provisions of section 373(2).".—[Mr. Timms.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 198, in clause 17, page 8, line 4, leave out
      "a regulated activity in the United Kingdom"
      and insert—
      "one or more regulated activities in the United Kingdom as a business".
      Government amendments Nos. 67, 406, 77 to 80, 84, 116, 156, 421 and 422.
      Amendment No. 36, in clause 364, page 190, line 29, after "State," insert—
      "in exercise of an EEA right".
      Government amendments Nos. 423 and 424.
      Amendment No. 184, in page 190, line 33, leave out "in any EEA State" and insert—

      "(i) in any EEA State; or

      (ii) in exercise of an EEA right;".

      Government amendments Nos. 425, 426 and 429.
      Mr. Timms: This large group of amendments brings together three important issues, which relate to the scope of regulation: the business test; the territorial scope of regulation; and exemptions from the general prohibition.
      The amendments would introduce a form of business test in the Bill, and allow the Treasury to make orders, which amend the application of the business test when appropriate. The Government have been thinking along lines similar to the Opposition's in introducing changes to include the business test in the Bill.
      Government amendment No. 406 would introduce the business test to the Bill. It would change clause 20 so that, to be classified as a "regulated activity", an activity must, among other criteria, be undertaken by way of business.
      Under new clause 33, the Treasury may provide for the circumstances in which a person who would otherwise be regarded as undertaking a regulated activity by way of business would be deemed not to be doing that. An order under the new clause may apply generally to all activities, a specified category of regulated activities, or a particular regulated activity.
      1002
      Amendment No. 198 proposes changes to clause 17 so that it reads:
      "No person may carry on one or more regulated activities in the United Kingdom as a business".
      I hope that, in the light of the Government's proposed amendments, Opposition Members will not want to press the amendment.
      Amendment No. 422 would make one main change to clause 364. It would cut back the application of the clause on a subject on which the previous drafting partly exceeded the requirements of the directives. That is tackled primarily by providing that the first case specified in the clause will apply where a person: has his registered office, or head office, in the United Kingdom; carries on a regulated activity in another European economic area state; and exercises rights under a single market directive as a UK firm.
      Firms that would currently fall outside the scope of the first case—essentially firms that are not passporting under the directives—may instead be treated under another case set out in the clause.
      Amendments Nos. 421, 423 and 426 would make consequential drafting changes to clause 364, flowing from amendment No. 422. Amendment No. 425 is a clarifying amendment.
      Amendments Nos. 36 and 184 cover territory similar to the Government amendments. I hope that the Opposition are satisfied that they do not need to press them.
      Finally, some amendments deal with the implications of being exempt. Currently, the Bill is drafted on the assumption that an exempt person will not also be an authorised person. However, it is silent on whether an exempt person may become authorised. That should be possible.
      An exemption enjoyed by virtue of clause 34—clause 35 in the case of appointed representatives—will often extend only to a limited range of regulated activities. A person exempt under those provisions should have the option to become authorised in order to extend the range of regulated activities he carries on. That option is subject to his meeting the qualifying or threshold conditions in schedule 6.
      Once authorised, a person's exempt status ceases. His part IV permission must cover all his activities. Customers are entitled to assume that all the regulated activities carried on by a person are covered by the authorisation and subject to the necessary rules and disciplinary procedures, and that the compensation scheme will apply. If that were not the case, customers would be at greater risk when dealing with an authorised person who was also partially exempt than they would be when dealing with another authorised person who did not enjoy any exemption.
      To give effect to that proposition, an exempt person can apply for a part IV permission. If that is granted, he becomes an authorised person and the exemption ceases. Amendment No. 67 makes it clear that a person must be either authorised or exempt to carry on a regulated activity. The new permission can cover the formerly exempt business, so long as the qualifying conditions in schedule 6 are satisfied.
      Amendment No. 84 provides that if a person is exempt as a result of an exemption order, any application for part IV permission will be taken to include application for

      1003
      permission for those activities with respect to which he was previously exempt. If an activity that the now-authorised person could have carried on within the scope of the exemption is not covered by the part IV permission, that person cannot continue to carry it on without contravening clause 18.
      Assuming that an activity previously carried on within the scope of an exemption is covered by the part IV permission, it is treated in exactly the same way as any other regulated activity carried on by the relevant person. If the part IV permission is cancelled or surrendered, the person will cease to be authorised under clause 30. The previous exemption will apply again, unless it has been repealed or the person no longer meets a criterion necessary to qualify for it.
      The same logic does not apply to other categories of person who are exempt from the general prohibition in respect of some regulated activities. Recognised investment exchanges and recognised clearing houses, which are exempt under part XVII, are nevertheless regulated by the recognition regime under that part. It would not be acceptable for them to be authorised separately under part IV without losing their recognised status under part XVII.
      Amendment No. 79 provides that appointed representatives of an authorised person may receive exempt status only if they are not themselves authorised persons. Authorised persons may carry on a regulated activity as an agent of another authorised person where that makes business sense and they have the appropriate permission to do so. The other amendments cover drafting points. Government amendment No. 156 imports the definition of "rule-making instrument" in clause 125 to the schedule of definitions set out in clause 363. I hope that those arrangements will be widely acceptable to the House.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the Minister for that elucidation. I very much hope that he has the territoriality tests right. That will probably unfold over time.
      I shall concentrate on the business test, because we need to know exactly why the Government have gone for a somewhat more restrictive test than the one in the Financial Services Act 1986. Generally, we welcome their incorporation of a business test in the definition of a regulated activity. It must be right to include that in the Bill. New clause 33, which has an "Alice in Wonderland" ring about it, says:
      "The Treasury may by order make provision"
      that those who would not usually be regarded as engaged in business are to be regarded as being so, and those who would usually be regarded as carrying on business are not to be regarded as doing so. I suppose that the Treasury has to have a way of deciding what is a regulated activity, but that wording must and will cause considerable bafflement—and perhaps some amusement—to the outside world when it grapples with what it might regard as a Treasury habit of trying, from time to time, to define black as white and white as black.
      9.15 pm
      That, however, is not really the purpose of my probe. I am asking why the Government have not simply
      1004
      proceeded on the basis of the concept of a business test that already exists, and is working perfectly satisfactorily under the Financial Services Act.
      The Government seek to catch people who are carrying on an activity by way of business. Our amendment No. 198 asks for the words
      "one or more regulated activities in the United Kingdom as a business"
      to be inserted. Hon. Members may wonder what the difference is between carrying on an activity as a business, which is our definition, and carrying it on by way of business, which is the Government's definition; but it is rather an important distinction.
      It is possible to do something in a businesslike way without carrying on the business of doing so. That was made clear in a recent court case involving Morgan Grenfell and the use of derivatives by a local authority. Welwyn Hatfield borough council was held by the court to have entered into derivatives contracts "by way of business", although it was not carrying on the business of doing so. It follows that some activities will now be caught by the Bill, although exactly the same activities do not require authorisation under the Financial Services Act. In other words, the idea of an activity "by way of business" will catch more activities than our definition.
      Why is the existing definition defective? Is the Government's proposal part of a deliberate policy to catch more activities? Perhaps the Minister can give an estimate of the additional ground that the new clause is intended to cover, and the reasons behind it.
      Mr. Cousins: I, too, want to concentrate on new clause 33 and amendment No. 406. What I am about to say may illuminate what was said by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
      I am concerned about the disposal of endowments before term. There is a legal deficiency in the 1986 Act: although the purchase of a long-term endowment insurance product is a regulated activity, its disposal is not. As a result, when endowment insurances—often taken out to support mortgages—are surrendered before term, that act of surrender is not a regulated activity. There is no requirement on the provider of the endowment insurance product to ensure that the person so disposing is fully advised, and made aware of how best to maximise his or her position. Often the provider of the endowment insurance reacquires it at a stated value when a higher value could be obtained on the traded endowment market, but there is no requirement on the provider to make the existence of the market known to the person surrendering.
      Of course, nothing that I have said should be construed as encouraging people to dispose of endowments. Clearly, the last thing that anyone with a long-term endowment product should do is dispose of it before term. Someone who does, however, must be enabled to obtain the best possible value.
      I have been seeking an assurance from the FSA that the Bill regulates the surrender of endowments. It may be helpful if I read out the latest exchange that I have had with Howard Davies on the topic, which I received just last week. He tells me:
      "The definition of 'regulated activities' will be finally determined by regulations made under clause 20. The draft of these regulations which Her Majesty's Treasury have published for consultation includes in article 6 the 'regulated activity' of 'carrying out contracts

      1005
      of insurance'. Our view that we will be able to make rules about the surrender of tradeable endowment policies is based upon our interpretation that, in accepting the surrender of a life policy, the life insurance company would be carrying on this regulated activity."
      The business test as incorporated in new clause 33 and amendment No. 406 clearly covers the traded endowment market. There can be no doubt about that, but does it cover the act of disposal of the endowment, which may place that product in the traded endowment market? That is my anxiety, on which I seek the Minister's reassurance.
      Mr. Timms: There are different tests under different Acts—for example, the Banking Act 1987 and the Insurance Companies Act 1982, as well as the Financial Services Act. No single test has been used. The view that we took was that the test in the Financial Services Act was not the most appropriate, although new clause 33 will allow the test to be refined where it is appropriate to do so. However, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was right. Our approach is intended to catch, to use his term, along with any mainstream activity, any activity that falls short of constituting a business in its own right but which should be regulated under the Bill. In that sense, our approach represents a much more secure test. It has never been proposed that the incidental provision of financial services should generally be exempt from the authorisation requirement. We think that the aim is better met by the form of test that is before us.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) for letting me know that he wanted to raise traded endowment policies, although I am not sure that I have all the answers that I would like to have. Perhaps there should be further discussion on the matter. Clearly, other hon. Members feel as strongly about it as he does.
      The traded endowment policy market is pretty small. It is estimated to have a value of £250 million a year. There is concern about introducing disproportionate cost.
      I listened with interest to my hon. Friend's comments about the FSA's deliberations on the extent to which regulation would apply. I am personally rather dubious about the benefits of regulating all dealings in that market. It is not clear that the benefits would necessarily exceed the probable costs.
      The sale of traded endowment policies to members of the public will be regulated. We will keep under review the case for extending the regulation's scope to include all dealings in traded endowment policies.
      Mr. Cousins: The Minister may be right to say that the market is a small one, but it is a growing one. The point that I am trying to establish is that, at the point of surrender, the product provider should be obliged to make the existence of the secondary market known to the person surrendering, so that he or she is able to obtain the best advice on, and best value for, the product that they are handing back.
      Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is making a point to which he has clearly given great consideration. I think that he has also had some constituency experience of dealing with the matter. I should like to reflect on the point and write to him on it with some clarification.
      Mr. Flight: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) made roughly the point that
      1006
      I wish to stress. There is indeed a substantial and growing market. Frequently, the difference between surrender value and commercial value is substantial, but many people do not even know that there is a commercial market where they could sell their endowment. So the only way of squaring the circle is by imposing an obligation on the insurance company with which people have their policy, obliging it at least to tell them that there is such a market. Whether they use that market is another matter. None the less, it is a consumer issue that has long needed to be addressed. As the hon. Gentleman said, the business definition is one way of addressing it.
      Mr. Timms: Under clause 110, the FSA will be able to make rules on the carrying on of the regulated activity of carrying out a contract of insurance, including the payment of a surrender value. Such rules could require the insurer, subject to general duty, to notify the policyholder of the existence of the market. Such a possibility therefore exists. However, I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central on the matter, and perhaps copy the letter to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 35
    AUTHORITY'S GENERAL DUTY
    New Clause 35
      'PART XVIIIA

        PROVISION OF FINANCIAL SERVICES BY MEMBERS OF THE PROFESSIONS
        .—(1) The Authority must keep itself informed about—

        (a) the way in which designated professional bodies supervise and regulate the carrying on of exempt regulated activities by members of the professions in relation to which they are established;

        (b) the way in which such members are carrying on exempt regulated activities.

        (2) In this Part—
        "exempt regulated activities" means regulated activities which may be carried on by members of a profession which is supervised and regulated by a designated professional body without breaching the general prohibition; and
        "members", in relation to a profession, means persons who are entitled to practise the profession in question and, in practising it, are subject to the rules of the body designated in relation to that profession, whether or not they are members of that body.
        (3) The Authority must keep under review the desirability of exercising any of its powers under this Part.
        (4) Each designated professional body must co-operate with the Authority, by the sharing of information and in other ways, in order to enable the Authority to perform its functions under this Part.'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 36—Designation of professional bodies.

        1007
        Government new clause 37—Exemption from the general prohibition.
        Government new clause 38—Directions in relation to the general prohibition.
        Government new clause 39—Orders in relation to the general prohibition.
        Government new clause 42—Rules in relation to persons to whom the general prohibition does not apply.
        Government amendment No. 455.
        Miss Johnson: Under this group of new clauses, professionals will require authorisation only when they perform investment business as their mainstream activity. The Government hope that that approach will avoid the need for precautionary authorisation—meeting the concerns of the Burns committee, and of course others—while enabling the professions to provide an all-round service for their clients in appropriate cases.
        We therefore propose that the authority will retain the power to ban individuals who are not fit and proper persons to carry out regulated investment activities or to cut the exemption in relation to a class of person more generally.
        The authority will also be required to monitor operation of the new arrangements, which will involve monitoring the effectiveness of the complaints and redress arrangements of the designated professional bodies. The authority will also be able to make rules requiring persons who benefit from the exemption to disclose to their clients that they are not authorised persons.
        New clause 35 obliges the authority to keep itself informed about the way in which designated professional bodies supervise and regulate the carrying on of exempt regulated activities by their members, and the way in which the members, who benefit from the exemption, carry on regulated activities. It also requires the professional bodies to co-operate with the authority, to enable the authority to fulfil its duty of oversight.
        New clause 36 gives the Treasury the power to designate bodies for the purpose of new clause 35. Bodies will be designated only when they actively regulate their members' provision of financial services.
        New clause 37 sets out the requirements that have to be met for a professional to qualify for the exemption. They include: that the person concerned must be a member of a professional body that is designated by the Treasury; that the person concerned must not receive a commission from a third party in respect of the regulated activities unless he accounts to his client for it; that the regulated activities must be provided incidentally to the provision of professional—for example, legal, actuarial or accountancy—services; and that regulated activities must not relate to sensitive products, such as life insurance.
        9.30 pm
        What amounts to a sensitive product is to be specified by the Treasury, and the regulated activities must be provided in accordance with the rules of the relevant professional body which require the activity to be complementary, and effectively subordinate, to the provision of professional services to a particular client. Those rules must be approved by the authority.
        1008
        Under new clause 38, the authority may direct that the exemption from the general prohibition is not to apply to certain classes of professional. The authority may only exercise this power, however, where it is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in the interests of clients.
        New clause 39 enables the authority to make an order which would have the effect of banning specified persons who are not fit and proper to carry on regulated activities, taking them outside the scope of this new part's provisions. This power complements the authority's power to make prohibition orders under clause 53 of the Bill. It will enable the authority to prohibit particular firms from continuing to carry on relevant regulated activities under the proposed new part.
        New clause 42 allows the authority to make rules requiring exempt professionals to disclose to their clients that they are not authorised. Subsection (3) also requires the professional bodies to make rules which are designed to ensure that members who benefit from the exemption only carry on regulated activities which arise from or are complementary to providing professional services to a particular client. If a member of a profession breaches those rules, he will be carrying on particular regulated activities in breach of the general prohibition, and therefore committing a criminal offence. Rules made by a professional bodies under subsection (3) must be approved by the authority.
        Amendment No. 455 amends clause 374 so that, in all cases, orders have to be dealt with by affirmative resolution. I commend the new clauses to the House, as they are in line with the changes that I indicated in Committee that we would make.
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am glad that the Government have proposed some provisions for excluding professionals who are regulated through their own bodies. I ought to declare an interest as a chartered accountant, although I do not intend to practise—at least not for a bit. [Laughter.] I hope that I will be the judge of the timing as well.
        The Economic Secretary alluded to the fact that we debated this matter in Committee and that there was concern, not least from the Law Society of Scotland, that professionals up there would suddenly find themselves regulated by the FSA and that higher fees would be levied. Of course, there was sensitivity that they would be regulated from London instead of Edinburgh—a curious form of reverse devolution.
        I presume, although the Minister did not say so, that the clauses have resulted from consultation with the professional bodies. She might say whether they are broadly happy with the way in which the proposals are set out.
        I believe that it could be difficult to qualify for an exemption because the provision has been restrictively phrased. For example, the professional in question must not receive from a partner other than his client
        "any pecuniary reward or other advantage"
        which he does not account to his client, arising out of his carrying out of the regulated activities.
        I can imagine a situation in which a solicitor or an accountant provides advice to a business client about taking over the lease on a shop or factory next door. Presumably, that would count as a regulated activity,

        1009
        and although the professional in question would receive no direct reward from an outside body, he would receive a pecuniary reward or advantage, because he would be paid by his firm for providing that advice. It could be said that he would be caught by new clause 37 and would fall to be regulated by the authority. Will the Economic Secretary clarify what she understands subsection (3) of that new clause to mean? It might be unduly restrictive and catch many people who are giving advice or engaging in regulated activities as part of their normal tasks, especially if they work for firms that provide a wide range of services to clients.
        As the Economic Secretary said, the rules of the professional bodies are to be checked and authorised by the FSA. That is understandable, but there is a danger that professionals working for such firms and regulated through their professional bodies will attempt a form of dual authorisation. They will be content to be regulated by the Law Society or the Institute of Chartered Accountants, as appropriate, but—so that they can with impunity break the rules of their professional body on authorised activities—they will also seek to be authorised directly by the FSA. It might not work, but it would be an unhealthy development. If that approach were to become a trend among professional people, it would be unfortunate and counter-productive. I invite the Economic Secretary to say a few words about her discussions with the professional bodies and regulators concerned. Do they also have lingering concerns about the wording of the new clauses?
        Mr. Loughton: We welcome the fact that some 27,000 intermediary firms will not be brought into the clutches of the FSA, but that was breaking news as we discussed the measures in Committee. It is good to have a little more detail now, but I wish to raise a couple of issues. In particular, new clause 37 refers to the fact that regulated activities must be incidental to the provision of professional services. Can the Economic Secretary give us more detail about what "incidental" means? It could be defined in several different ways.
        I am concerned about equality of regulation. We would not wish to impose yet more regulation on accountancy and legal firms that deal in financial matters, but we would wish to ensure a level playing field with those who will be fully regulated by the FSA because their very business is dealing in financial products. The dividing line is blurring, with the emergence of financial supermarkets—for want of a better term.
        Some firms—usually of accountants, but sometimes of solicitors—could be described as managing assets for clients without being asset managers, which would bring them within the scope of the FSA. Such firms can offer advice to clients on the geographical split of assets, or the split between equities or bonds. The firms can also recommend professional dedicated managers, who would look after a certain section of a client's portfolio, or other firms that offer financial products that might be suitable for that client. The firms may even offer bank deposit facilities themselves. In such cases, the firms would not actually be offering financial advice to the client—although at some stage they would take a cut, which they would rightly have to disclose—that would mean that they would be caught by FSA regulations. That is a growing
        1010
        area of the market. Financial intermediaries who, to all intents and purposes, control a client's financial circumstances, parcel out the risk in terms of product selection to other financial managers controlled by the FSA. As I understand the proposals, those intermediaries would be subject neither to the full rigours of FSA inspections or requirements for best advice, nor to the disciplinary procedures.
        The result may be that many firms that are, to all intents and purposes, financial managers will opt out of FSA regulation, because they will enjoy a more benign regime under their own professional bodies. What assurances can the Minister give that certain firms will not take advantage of that potential loophole?
        Sir Nicholas Lyell: If a professional, who is regulated by his professional body and is entitled to act for a restricted line of clients, should find that he is acting for someone who is not sufficiently within that client line, he will be considered to be transgressing and therefore guilty of illegality. That person may have received money on the basis that he would pass it on to another professional, in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). That money may have been placed in a bona fide investment deal that fails. If the person is asked to return the money because it was taken for a deposit, he will be obliged—because he is properly regulated—to return it.
        Such spin-offs worried me with regard to unlicensed deposit takers, which we debated earlier. I can see the same problem arising in this connection, and I should be grateful if the Minister would describe how she sees matters working out. Is not the risk faced by people such as have been described equivalent to that faced by careless drivers who, instead of being fined £40 for a parking offence, get fined £1 million?
        Mr. Flight: I have one question for the Economic Secretary: who will define what is incidental—and therefore exempt—and what is not? Will it be the Treasury, which has to specify what is a regulated activity under clause 20?
        Miss Melanie Johnson: Some of the questions that have been asked overlap. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked about consultation and the professional bodies. Representatives from all the professional bodies were present when I announced the broad proposals on 13 October. They have been involved in discussions about how the proposals should be taken forward, and I believe that they are broadly content with the Government's proposals.
        Several other hon. Gentlemen have asked about the distinction between what is part of a person's normal tasks and what is incidental. The first point to be made is that, in the investment services directive, "incidental" is used to mean ancillary, perhaps subordinate. That is the sense in which we are using it, and it is a fairly common use of the word in any event. Examples of an incidental activity might be advice on investments given by an accountant for tax planning purposes, or advice on investment as part of a wider portfolio of assets given by a solicitor to a couple who are negotiating a divorce settlement. I cited other examples in Committee, such as advice given in the course of probate.

        1011
        9.45 pm
        The tests are to make sure that these are genuinely not mainstream activities carried out by the professionals concerned. The other tests make sure that such activities meet the criteria for being dealt with as we propose. The advantage of this method is that 2,000 firms will fall within the scope of regulation, while some 13,000 will fall outside the scope of regulation. We are intent on regulating only when it is absolutely necessary.
        That brings me to a further point raised by a number of Conservative Members regarding the checking of rules by the FSA. Of course, it is important that the professional body's rules are checked by the FSA. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) suggested that, if the FSA did not have oversight of its rules, there was the danger that this might be a more benign course of action for people to follow than to come under the FSA for regulation. We have foreseen that difficulty, which is why we have made sure that the FSA is involved in oversight of the professional body's rules.
        The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) followed up the points that he raised in an earlier debate about unenforceability. Although I was not convinced by his argument when we debated the issue earlier, he raised some interesting questions. If he writes to me, I shall be happy to look in more detail at the points that he raised.
        Let me turn to how the line is to be drawn.
        Mr. Flight: The issue that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) raised will arise under new clause 2, so it is exactly the same territory.
        Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. As for his point about where the line is to be drawn, the intention is that it will be set out in the professional body rules, subject to FSA approval. That relates to subsections (4) and (5) of new clause 42 and will allow more fine tuning than would be possible if we simply relied on the Bill and Treasury secondary legislation.
        Finally, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a point about people taking advantage of the loophole. We need to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards. The rules must define activities that are not merely incidental, but are supplementary to a service provided to a client and must be approved by the FSA. That belt-and-braces approach will ensure that the problem described by the hon. Gentleman will not arise.
        Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister for her invitation that I write to her, although I do not have quite the same civil service support that she does. She noted that it might be quite complicated to find out whether a matter was incidental. If it was not incidental, it might fall under the general prohibition and thus become illegal, with drastic and disproportionate consequences. Will the hon. Lady reflect on the fact that such consequences—which, as I have explained in some detail, worry me—are contrary to the Bill's aims, one of which is proportionality?
        Miss Johnson: I am happy to reflect further on those points. We certainly want a proportioned measure. One of the strengths of our approach is that our proposals offer a
        1012
        proportionate response that builds on existing mechanisms to ensure that they are used to protect the consumer and that we regulate in an appropriate, but proportionate, manner. I commend the new clause to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 36

      DESIGNATION OF PROFESSIONAL BODIES
      ".—(1) The Treasury may by order designate bodies for the purposes of this Part.
      (2) A body designated under subsection (1) is referred to in this Part as a designated professional body.
      (3) The Treasury may designate a body under subsection (1) only if they are satisfied that—

      (a) the basic condition, and

      (b) one or more of the additional conditions,

      are met in relation to it.
      (4) The basic condition is that the body has rules applicable to the carrying on by members of the profession in relation to which it is established of regulated activities which, if the body were to be designated, would be exempt regulated activities.
      (5) The additional conditions are that—

      (a) the body has power under any enactment to regulate the practice of the profession;

      (b) being a member of the profession is a requirement under any enactment for the exercise of particular functions or the holding of a particular office;

      (c) the body has been recognised for the purpose of any enactment other than this Act and the recognition has not been withdrawn;

      (d) the body is established in an EEA State other than the United Kingdom and in that State—

      (i) the body has power corresponding to that mentioned in paragraph (a);

      (ii) there is a requirement in relation to the body corresponding to that mentioned in paragraph (b); or

      (iii) the body is recognised in a manner corresponding to that mentioned in paragraph (c).

      (6) 'Enactment' includes an Act of the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland legislation and subordinate legislation (whether made under an Act, an Act of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation).
      (7) 'Recognised' means recognised by—

      (a) a Minister of the Crown;

      (b) the Scottish Ministers;

      (c) a Northern Ireland Minister;

      (d) a Northern Ireland department or its head.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 37

      EXEMPTION FROM THE GENERAL PE0
      ".—(1) The general prohibition does not apply to the carrying on of a regulated activity by a person (`P') if—

      (a) the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (7) are satisfied; and

      (b) there is not in force—

      (i) a direction under section (Directions in relation to the general prohibition), or

      (ii) an order under section (Orders in relation to the general prohibition),

      1013
      which prevents this subsection from applying to the carrying on of that activity by him.
      (2) P must be—

      (a) a member of a profession; or

      (b) controlled or managed by one or more such members.

      (3) P must not receive from a person other than his client any pecuniary reward or other advantage, for which he does not account to his client, arising out of his carrying on of any of the activities.
      (4) The manner of the provision by P of any service in the course of carrying on the activities must be incidental to the provision by him of professional services.
      (5) P must not carry on, or hold himself out as carrying on, a regulated activity other than one which rules made as a result of section (Rules in relation to persons to whom the general prohibition does not apply)(3) allow him to carry on.
      (6) The activities must not be of a description, or relate to an investment of a description, specified in an order made by the Treasury for the purposes of this subsection.
      (7) The activities must be the only regulated activities carried on by P.
      (8) 'Professional services' means services—

      (a) which do not constitute carrying on a regulated activity, and

      (b) the provision of which is supervised and regulated by a designated professional body.".—,[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 38

      DIRECTIONS IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL PROHIBITION
      ".—(1) The Authority may direct that section (Exemption from the general prohibition)(1) is not to apply to the extent specified in the direction.
      (2) A direction under subsection (1)—

      (a) must be in writing;

      (b) may be given in relation to different classes of person or different descriptions of regulated activity.

      (3) The Authority may exercise the power conferred by subsection (1) only if it is satisfied that it is desirable in order to protect the interests of clients.
      (4) In considering whether it is so satisfied, the Authority must have regard amongst other things to the effectiveness of any arrangements made by any designated professional body—

      (a) for securing compliance with rules made under section (Rules in relation to persons to whom the general prohibition does not apply)(1);

      (b) for dealing with complaints against its members in relation to the carrying on by them of exempt regulated activities;

      (c) in order to offer redress to clients who suffer, or claim to have suffered, loss as a result of misconduct by its members in their carrying on of exempt regulated activities;

      (d) for co-operating with the Authority under section (Authority's general duty)(4).

      (5) In this Part 'clients' means—

      (a) persons who use, or may be contemplating using, any of the services provided by a member of a profession in the course of carrying on exempt regulated activities;

      (b) persons who have rights which are derived from, or otherwise attributable to, or which may be adversely affected by, the use of such services by other persons.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 39

      ORDERS IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL PROHIBITION
      ".—(1) Subsection (2) applies if it appears to the Authority that a person to whom, as a result of section (Exemption from the general prohibition)(1), the general prohibition does not apply is not a fit and proper person to carry on regulated activities in accordance with that section.
      (2) The Authority may make an order disapplying section (Exemption from the general prohibition)(1) in relation to that person to the extent specified in the order.
      (3) The Authority may, on the application of the person named in an order under subsection (1), vary or revoke it.
      (4) 'Specified' means specified in the order.
      (5) If a partnership is named in an order under this section, the order is not affected by any change in its membership.
      (6) If a partnership named in an order under this section is dissolved, the order continues to have effect in relation to any partnership which succeeds to the business of the dissolved partnership.
      (7) For the purposes of subsection (6), a partnership is to be regarded as succeeding to the business of another partnership only if—

      (a) the members of the resulting partnership are substantially the same as those of the former partnership; and

      (b) succession is to the whole or substantially the whole of the business of the former partnership.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 40

      CONSULTATION
      ".—(1) Before giving a direction under section (Directions in relation to the general prohibition)(1), the Authority must publish a draft of the proposed direction.
      (2) The draft must be accompanied by—

      (a) a cost benefit analysis; and

      (b) notice that representations about the proposed direction may be made to the Authority within a specified time.

      (3) Before giving the proposed direction, the Authority must have regard to any representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2)(b).
      (4) If the Authority gives the proposed direction it must publish an account, in general terms, of—

      (a) the representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2)(b); and

      (b) its response to them.

      (5) If the direction differs from the draft published under subsection (1) in a way which is, in the opinion of the Authority, significant—

      (a) the Authority must (in addition to complying with subsection (4)) publish details of the difference; and

      (b) those details must be accompanied by a cost benefit analysis.

      (6) Subsections (1) to (5) do not apply if the Authority considers that the delay involved in complying with them would prejudice the interests of consumers.
      (7) Neither subsection (2)(a) nor subsection (5)(b) applies if the Authority considers—

      (a) that, making the appropriate comparison, there will be no increase in costs; or

      (b) that, making that comparison, there will be an increase in costs but the increase will be of minimal significance.

      (8) The Authority may charge a reasonable fee for providing a person with a copy of a draft published under subsection (1).

      1015
      (9) When the Authority is required to publish a document under this section it must do so in the way appearing to it to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.
      (10) 'Cost benefit analysis' means an estimate of the costs together with an analysis of the benefits that will arise—

      (a) if the proposed direction is given; or

      (b) if subsection (5)(b) applies, from the direction that has been given.

      (11) 'The appropriate comparison' means—

      (a) in relation to subsection (2)(a), a comparison between the overall position if the direction is given and the overall position if it is not given;

      (b) in relation to subsection (5)(b), a comparison between the overall position after the giving of the direction and the overall position before it was given.".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 41

      PROCEDURE ON MAKING OR VARYING ORDERS UNDER SECTION (ORDERS IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL PROHIBITION)
      ".—(1) If the Authority proposes to make an order under section (Orders in relation to the general prohibition), it must give the person concerned a warning notice.
      (2) The warning notice must set out the terms of the proposed order.
      (3) If the Authority decides to make an order under section (Orders in relation to the general prohibition), it must give the person concerned a decision notice.
      (4) The decision notice must—

      (a) name the person to whom the order applies;

      (b) set out the terms of the order; and

      (c) be given to the person named in the order.

      (5) Subsections (6) to (8) apply to an application for the variation or revocation of an order under section (Orders in relation to the general prohibition).
      (6) If the Authority decides to grant the application, it must give the applicant written notice of its decision.
      (7) If the Authority proposes to refuse the application, it must give the applicant a warning notice.
      (8) If the Authority decides to refuse the application, it must give the applicant a decision notice.
      (9) A person—

      (a) against whom the Authority have decided to make an order under section (Orders in relation to the general prohibition), or

      (b) whose application for the variation or revocation of such an order the Authority had decided to refuse,

      may refer the matter to the Tribunal.
      (10) The Authority may not make an order under section (Orders in relation to the general prohibition) unless—

      (a) the period within which the decision to make to the order may be referred to the Tribunal has expired and no such reference has been made; or

      (b) if such a reference has been made, the reference has been determined.".— [Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 42

      RULES IN RELATION TO PERSONS TO WHOM THE GENERAL PROHIBITION DOES NOT APPLY
      ".—(1) The Authority may make rules applicable to persons to whom, as a result of section (Exemption from the general prohibition)(1), the general prohibition does not apply.
      (2) The power conferred by subsection (1) is to be exercised for the purpose of ensuring that clients are aware that such persons are not authorised persons.
      (3) A designated professional body must make rules—

      (a) applicable to members of the profession in relation to which it is established who are not authorised persons; and

      (b) governing the carrying on of regulated activities by those members.

      (4) Rules made in compliance with subsection (3) must be designed to secure that, in providing a particular professional service to a particular client, the member carries on only regulated activities which arise out of, or are complementary to, the provision by him of that service to that client.
      (5) Rules made by a designated professional body under subsection (3) require the approval of the Authority.".— [Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Betts.]
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

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

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
        IMMIGRATION
        That the draft Immigration (Regularisation Period for Overstayers) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.
        CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
        That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
      COMMITTEES

        PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
        Ordered,
        That Mr. Richard Shepherd be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mr. Michael Trend be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

  Child Support Agency
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Jim Murphy: This debate is about the Child Support Agency's handling of the case of one of my constituents. The issues are difficult and affect families—especially young children—in my constituency. I would not normally give the names of the people involved, but my constituent has already spoken publicly about the case. As the matter is in the public domain, thre is no difficulty about mentioning his name.
  I unreservedly welcome many of the positive reforms that the Government are carrying out in respect of the CSA. I hope that those changes will mean that the circumstances of my constituent's case are never repeated.
  A summary of the case will enable the House to understand how badly my constituent, Mr. Reilly, was treated by the agency. I shall go over the case, deal with some of the issues and perhaps request my hon. Friend the Minister to investigate some of the more pressing concerns of my constituent and myself.
  The agency made deductions from Mr. Reilly's earnings, and as a consequence he could not maintain his mortgage payments and then lost his house. Mr. Reilly's health suffered; indeed, his own GP is on record as stating that he suffered stress. As a consequence, he also lost his job.
  I have been involved in this terrible case for a long time. Mr. Reilly came to my first ever constituency surgery, in the month after the general election. I believe that he has been at every one since. I have written more than 50 individual letters about the case, to officials, the agency, the independent case examiner and Ministers. I have met representatives of the agency on two separate occasions at two different venues to discuss the specifics of the case. I even attended the tribunal hearing relating to the case. Despite the years of effort and the many hours of meetings and letter writing, we still have not obtained any justice for Mr. Reilly.
  Let me explain the facts of the case. I shall deal with the issue of the assessment and how the tribunal dealt with the case, and then I shall make a plea for proper compensation for Mr. Reilly.
  In the process of assessment that contributed to so many of the difficulties, the agency did not take into account all the figures, all the factors and all the circumstances involved in the family. Mr. Reilly paid more than £7,000 in maintenance. He has since received £1,600 of that back, but not all the figures relating to the relationship between the agency and the Benefits Agency were properly administered, communicated or dealt with. The independent case examiner, who recently reported on the case, said that
  "the Agency performance over this issue has been very poor".
  That contributed to the serious problems that my constituent experienced.
  We then sought the tribunal hearing—which I attended, as I said—and the tribunal made certain recommendations arising from the case. However, the recommendations were not acted on and they did not improve my constituent's life. Then the case was closed, despite the
  1018
  fact that the recommendations had not been acted on. The independent case examiner said in his report that he was concerned about the way in which the agency had acted upon the tribunal's decisions, and recommended that £1,600 of the £7,000 be returned.
  I emphasise that, although I attended the tribunal; although more than 50 letters were written; and despite the meetings that I had with officials, the tribunal's findings and recommendations were not acted on.
  I shall now discuss compensation—a subject that I recently had reason to discuss with the chief executive of the agency, Miss Faith Boardman. I also had correspondence from the special payments unit of the Child Support Agency. I quote the recent correspondence:
  "Compensatory payments for financial loss are intended to restore a person to the financial position that they would have had it not been for Agency maladministration".
  The purpose of compensation payments is clear, and the special payments unit has publicly stated it.
  Throughout that process, Mr. Reilly received a £100 compensation payment while an independent case examiner's report was being prepared and written. Point 25 of the report recommended that a "substantial" compensation payment should be made to my constituent for the harassment and the consequences of the CSA's maladministration in terms of loss of employment, loss of health and loss of home.
  Inevitably, I have become closely involved in the case and feel strongly about it. On the day on which Mr. Reilly received that letter, he came into my parliamentary office. For the first time he had come not seeking advice but offering thanks—in fact, bringing presents of a very small monetary value, well below any level of declarable interests. He was delighted by the independent case examiner's recommendation that there should be substantial compensation, as was I. After more than two years of effort, I thought that we had achieved some justice for my constituent. At best, I was surprised—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Mr. Murphy: I did not expect to have to give way to my Whip during the debate, but I shall not detain the House for much longer.
  When we received the letter, we felt a sense of achievement. I have written more correspondence, had more meetings and expended more energy on this case than on any other of the many cases with which I have been involved. I thought that, finally, we had achieved justice and compensation.
  The sense of disappointment, surprise and annoyance—however one wishes to describe it—was considerable when the Child Support Agency acted on the recommendation of the independent case examiner. It provided by post a cheque to my constituent, as compensation for its maladministration and mistreatment of him over several years, for the princely sum of £50.
  I have not had time this evening to check a dictionary definition of the word "compensation". However, I know that under no circumstances would £50 be thought to be considerable or substantial compensation. We felt real disappointment at the way in which the compensation issue has been dealt with on my constituent's behalf.

  1019
  In recent discussions with the Child Support Agency, I asked it whether £50 was considered to be substantial. It admitted that it was not. I therefore make a plea for justice on my constituent's behalf. I would not normally try to secure an Adjournment debate or detain the House on an individual case, but I hope that the Minister understands that I believe that I have exhausted every other avenue, including writing an incredible amount of correspondence. That is my job, and I am not asking for acknowledgment of that. However, there has been so much correspondence and so many meetings, and I have felt so frustrated by the highs and lows that I have experienced that I felt that there was no other option than to apply for an Adjournment debate.
  I hope to achieve three things from the debate. First, I hope that there will be a thorough investigation of the communications between the Child Support Agency and the Benefits Agency and that the full facts, the full figures and, crucially, the dates relating to the case are put into the public domain. The key to that is the communication that did or did not take place between the Child Support Agency and the Benefits Agency.
  My second aim is related to my first. I hope that there will be an investigation into how much Mr. Reilly should have paid. He is comfortable about contributing and wishes to pay his fair share based on the formula, but how much should he have paid? If the investigation finds that he has paid more than he could fairly be expected to pay, some of the £7,000 should be repaid to him. Of course, £1,600 has been repaid as a result of the case examiner's report, but an investigation should still be carried out into the substantial sum that he paid.
  My third aim is perhaps the most important. I know that there is no formal appeal process, but I urge that there should be a review of the level of compensation that is paid. Bearing in mind all the difficulties that my constituent and his new family have experienced over a number of years and the stress and the impact on Mr. Reilly's family life, there should be a full review of the level of compensation. I know that others—probably rightly—have received much more substantial payments than £50. I urge that, in the review, the £50 figure is upgraded substantially in line with the independent case examiner's report, so that Mr. Reilly can at least have some financial recompense to help him and his family to rebuild their lives.
  10.4 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on being successful in the ballot for Adjournment debates and on the excellent way in which he has represented his constituent in this difficult case.
  As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I am bound by the rules of confidentiality and cannot therefore respond in detail in the House to the points that he has made about the CSA's handling of this case. I share his concerns, however. It is clear that the standard of service that Mr. Reilly received falls far short of what is acceptable. I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend in a more discreet environment to discuss the details of the case.
  I apologise on behalf of the agency for its mishandling of the case. The problems date back over six years and flow from a succession of errors and failures on the part
  1020
  of the agency. I understand that the CSA's independent case examiner has now investigated my hon. Friend's constituent's complaints about the way in which his case was handled, and ex gratia payments have been made to him in recognition of those failures. I am also told that arrears of maintenance that were wrongly paid have also been refunded. Perhaps I can discuss with my hon. Friend whether all those arrears have been refunded, because he raised the issue of amounts that do not tally.
  My hon. Friend tabled four questions last summer about the operations of the CSA's independent case examiner, and he has corresponded with my ministerial colleagues on this case, with the most recent response having been sent last week.
  My hon. Friend has raised a number of issues about the way in which the Child Support Agency handled his constituent's case, and I shall try to respond to those in general terms, but in particular to four key issues that the case highlights.
  First, there were clear failures in keeping Mr. Reilly, and indeed my hon. Friend, informed about decisions of crucial importance in the handling of the case and subsequent inquiries. As many hon. Members know, the CSA has always had difficulties with clear and effective communication. That is partly because it uses a computer system that was already 20 years out of date when it was bought in 1990. As a consequence, it issues notification letters that pose more questions than they answer and could rarely be described as being written in a clear and understandable way.
  There is a further failure on the part of the CSA to share information with other parts of the benefits system, which can make difficult cases even more confusing. That has happened in the case that we are discussing.
  The changes to the decision-making provisions in child support, which we implemented in June 1999, gave us the opportunity to simplify and enhance the way in which the CSA communicates with its clients. In particular, the reasons for decisions are now explained more clearly, and parents should now have a much clearer understanding of how they can get a decision with which they disagree reconsidered.
  The second point concerns the way that allegations of fraud and undeclared income are approached by the CSA. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is inevitably a difficult matter for an agency that has to amass the vast range of information needed to complete an assessment using the existing unwieldy child support formula.
  Too often, parents come to the CSA already highly suspicious of each other and all too ready to believe the worst. Given that the CSA's involvement usually begins as a result of a claim to benefit by the parent with care, there is often suspicion on the part of the non-resident parent that benefit has been claimed fraudulently.
  In the past, the CSA has simply passed such allegations to the Benefits Agency and failed to follow them up. However, that has changed since the Government took office. I can assure my hon. Friend that allegations of fraud are taken very seriously. All well-founded allegations of benefit fraud are investigated and further action is taken when appropriate.
  That may take a little time and it is not always obvious to the person who has made the allegation that the suspect is under investigation. That may of course be frustrating

  1021
  for the parent concerned, but I hope that hon. Friend will understand that data protection principles do not allow the person who has made allegations of benefit fraud to be kept informed of progress with any investigation.
  In the summer of 1998, the chief executive of the CSA, Faith Boardman, invited the benefit fraud inspectorate to inspect the agency and help to develop a security strategy. The resulting fraud and security strategy was published as part of its report. It included a number of specific commitments to support the Benefits Agency's fight against fraud, in particular by the introduction of better, streamlined fraud referral processes, clear service level agreements with the BA and better information sharing.
  It should be remembered that, even if it is proved that benefit has been claimed fraudulently, maintenance liability might not be affected. That is because child support action that began with a claim to benefit does not cease automatically when a parent with care is found not to have been entitled to the benefit concerned. The simple fact of benefit being paid begins the child support process; it only stops after entitlement to the benefit has ceased and the parent with care asks the CSA to stop acting.
  Thirdly, the case raises issues about the treatment of payments made between the parents and the interaction between such direct payments and the amount that the CSA seeks to collect if asked to do so by either parent. It is right that the CSA should, if asked to do so, seek to collect maintenance by the method that will best ensure that maintenance due becomes maintenance paid. When there is no agreement with the non-resident parent that ensures that maintenance will be paid, maintenance can, and should, be deducted directly from the non-resident parent's earnings.
  That does not mean that the CSA can ever be justified in failing to ensure, before action of that sort is taken, that liability and any debts have been calculated properly; that the non-resident parent is given every opportunity to discuss alternative means of payment; and that any difficulties deductions from earnings may cause are considered sympathetically. Clearly, the handling of Mr. Reilly's affairs fell far short of acceptable in that respect.
  We have already taken steps to improve the service that the CSA offers to non-resident parents. Longer opening hours and more use of the telephones mean that staff are available at times that suit working parents. In addition, the CSA is working with the private sector to improve compliance, to ensure that where possible parents do not fall into arrears with payments.
  Fourthly and finally, Mr. Reilly's case highlights problems in getting tribunal decisions put into effect. Hon. Members will appreciate that, given the complexity of the child support formula, appeal tribunals are often not equipped to work out the new assessment when they allow an appeal. In the past, the tribunals were required to send all appeals that they allowed back to the CSA for action. That often entailed further investigation and long delays before people who appealed had their liability put right. Those delays simply added to the months that parents had had to wait for the appeal to be heard in the first place, thus piling frustration on frustration.
  As I have mentioned, we have now changed the way in which child support decisions are made; we have also changed the way in which tribunals work. Delays in
  1022
  hearing appeals will be reduced and the way in which successful appeals are handled has been streamlined. Where necessary, the tribunal can still refer the assessment back to the CSA for determination; inevitably, that will continue to take time. However, where the tribunal can decide the issue under appeal, it will be free to do so.
  We have all encountered such cases via our constituency postbags—I have dealt with some myself—and they are the main reason that we are determined radically to reform the agency. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that the agency has provided him with information that was wrong. There is no excuse for that, but the complexity of the current system substantially increases the risk of it happening, especially in connection with cases that go back many years.
  Ever since the CSA was launched in April 1993, there has been a catalogue of complaints from parents with care who do not get the maintenance to which they are entitled, and from non-resident parents who have been let down by receiving a poor service. With hindsight, we can see that the problem lies with the way that the child support system was designed. The complex rules do not fit, either with the lives of separated families, or with other systems that provide support for those families.
  Parents are left baffled and angry with a system that seems bureaucratic and insensitive to the very real difficulties that they face. When things go wrong, they can go very wrong indeed, as Mr. Reilly's case shows. The way in which the system operates too often adds to the tensions between parents, thus denying children a good relationship with both their mother and their father. Complexity leads to delay, which leads to maintenance debts as the non-resident parent's liability mounts waiting for the CSA to makes an assessment. That leads to anger and resentment all round.
  That is why we plan to abolish the current scheme and replace it with a simple, more deliverable system that is focused on the needs of children and of good, responsible parents. Parents who face up to their responsibilities will receive a better service, whereas irresponsible parents will face effective and speedy sanctions.
  As I said earlier, the case to which my hon. Friend referred has been the subject of an investigation by the CSA's independent case examiner. The agency takes complaints about its service very seriously and has developed a system to analyse them and to identify and correct the weaknesses that they reveal. For example, there is now an earlier recognition of clients' problems, and early efforts are made to put them right. More cases that reach the independent case examiner are resolved by an early resolution procedure that prevents the need for a full-blown and lengthy investigation.
  The case which lies behind tonight's debate highlights problems of which we are all only too aware, many of which surfaced in the early days of the CSA. There have been substantial improvements in the agency's performance since then. As a result, the CSA has seen its numbers of complaints fall by more than 20 per cent. as compared with 12 months ago, at a time when its case load has increased by more than 20 per cent. The agency now has nearly a million cases on its books.
  Ultimately, however, the only answer lies in radical reform. That is why we must introduce a new child support service with a simple, transparent and predictable

  1023
  formula for working out child support. In the reformed scheme, non-resident parents will know in advance what their maintenance liability is likely to be and can plan accordingly.
  A more effective and efficient child support service coupled with the introduction of a £10 maintenance premium in income support and the 100 per cent. disregard of maintenance in working families tax credit will mean that more than 1 million children will gain, many of them seeing the benefit of maintenance for the first time.
  The case that my hon. Friend has raised tonight underlines the need for reform, but that does not excuse the errors which have occurred. I am very sorry for the poor service that the CSA has given in this case. I will be
  1024
  happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it in more detail. I have asked the chief executive of the CSA to consider urgently whether adequate compensation is being paid to Mr. Reilly, especially in the light of the recommendation of the independent case examiner that substantial compensation should be paid. It must be borne in mind, however, that there are some constraints in this respect. The Government are determined to address these problems, and our reforms for child support are the right way in which to do that. In the meantime, we shall be looking to the CSA to learn the lessons from cases such as that raised tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
10 am
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on a problem that we all recognise as one of the most serious facing many of our constituents—anti-social behaviour. Constituents come to my surgeries and those of many hon. Members with all sorts of problems involving anti-social behaviour.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provided a range of new orders for tackling anti-social behaviour. One is the anti-social behaviour order, the purpose of which is to allow the police and local authorities to deal effectively with people who persistently seriously harass, alarm and cause distress to others. The local authority or the police may now apply to a magistrates court for an order to protect people from those who persistently make their lives a misery. The police and local authorities asked for that power because there was a gap in the legislation and they wanted it filled. They needed a quick and effective measure to tackle such behaviour, so the Government responded and provided the new laws.
We have all had constituents coming to our surgeries with horrific stories. What do they ask for when they come to see us? They want the opportunity for themselves and others to live peaceful and law-abiding lives. The anti-social behaviour order has teeth, so ordinary people do not need to take the action that they may feel too intimidated to take. It can be taken on their behalf, so they can remain anonymous and avoid further intimidation. One of the most appalling aspects of anti-social behaviour is that many people feel intimidated and unable to seek redress through the law. I have had people in my surgeries saying that they hoped no one saw them come in. The purpose of the orders is to remove the fear of intimidation by providing an opportunity for professional witnesses to be involved.
I am sure that most hon. Members could list a catalogue of experiences, and I shall give one or two examples of unacceptable behaviour that must be dealt with. I emphasise at the outset that, although I shall refer to experiences from my constituency, the vast majority of my constituents in Gedling in Nottingham are peaceful and law-abiding and want action to be taken against what is a very small minority. If I were to name any constituents who had experienced such behaviour, they would worry about being identified in a local newspaper report. Therefore, I must speak in general terms to demonstrate the scale of the problem. One constituent was persistently harassed, threatened and physically abused by a neighbour. Indeed, at one point the neighbour seemed to be taking pot shots at my constituent with an air rifle. It is difficult to believe that such things happen, but unfortunately they are all too common.
138WH
In my constituency, groups of youths gather every evening in a children's playground that is surrounded by houses. They drink, urinate on the swings and fornicate on the slide. Anyone who tries to reason with them is verbally and physically intimidated. Why should those who are going about their everyday business or watching television in the evening have to deal with such problems, only to be mooned at by young people? We seem to underestimate the extent to which people are intimidated by such behaviour. Youths have also been riding bikes around the corridors of an old people's complex in my constituency with bats in their hands. One can imagine the terror that that provokes. They stand in the streets and drink, throw stones at windows and act in a threatening and intimidating manner. Moreover, there are numerous examples of neighbour nuisance. People carry on unlawful activities without planning permission and carry out all manner of repairs in their garages at all times of the day.
Of course, I complain to the police and local authorities about such behaviour. They take action, and the behaviour stops—for a few days or a week. However, as far as ordinary people are concerned, an end point is never reached because no one is ever held accountable and punished. They also feel that parents are failing to accept responsibility for the behaviour of their children. Most of such offenders are young, and we must ensure that they do not get away with their crimes and that their parents are also held responsible. We are talking about not petty or trivial crimes, but the sort of crimes and anti-social behaviour that people experience in their communities and about which they want something done. My constituents express fears not about major crime—important though that issue is—but about the behaviour to which I have referred.
People often feel that, in trying to deal with such problems, they are coming up against a brick wall. The local authority tells them that it is a matter for the police, and the police say that it is a matter for the local authority. As a result, people feel that nothing can be done and nobody is responsible.
Anti-social behaviour must be dealt with quickly and firmly. I have urged Gedling borough council, in conjunction with the police, to use anti-social behaviour orders to deal with the many cases that have been brought to my attention. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has encouraged local authorities, the police and housing departments and agencies to work together. It has changed the culture, which is a major plus.
Gedling borough council has had a crime reduction strategy during the past two or three years, and has set itself high targets in priority areas such as domestic burglary and working with young people. It has tried to provide additional facilities such as shelters and basketball courts, and has carried out liaison work with the Guinness Trust—a local partner—to try to discourage vandalism. In addition, council officers have spent a considerable time in liaison meetings with the police, as part of their work against anti-social behaviour. There is a community safety partnership that encompasses Gedling borough council, Nottinghamshire county council and the Nottinghamshire police, assisted by the health authority and the probation service. Gedling borough council and Nottinghamshire police do good work together—the encouragement of such collaboration is one of the most positive aspects of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

139WH
Despite the appalling behaviour that I have outlined—and the appalling behaviour described by other hon. Members in their constituencies—not one anti-social behaviour order has been implemented in my constituency, even though great consideration has been given to the idea.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to study the Hansard report of the Committee stage of the Crime and Disorder Bill, when the complexity of the anti-social behaviour order provisions was discussed at length? Opposition Members were worried that that complexity would lead to great difficulty in using those orders in practice. Does he agree that the Opposition were right on that point?
Mr. Coaker: This is an important debate, and we need to try to build a consensus and a way forward. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to local authorities and chief constables to ask them what practical problems exist in relation to the implementation of anti-social behaviour orders. Later in my remarks, I shall refer to one or two of the problems that local police and authorities have drawn to my attention. It is important that anti-social behaviour orders are implemented. They are good things, and any difficulties or problems with their implementation should be brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister so that a way forward can be found. That is the point of today's debate. It is in all our interests to tackle the kinds of behaviour that I have mentioned. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's constituents have told him about such behaviour.
As I said, not one anti-social behaviour order has been implemented in my constituency. The latest figures show that only 10 have been implemented nationally. That is of concern to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and my hon. Friend the Minister will probably want to comment on it.
In Nottingham, the city council has made a 14-year-old boy the subject of an anti-social behaviour order. One order has therefore been implemented in the greater Nottingham area. It is amazing to think that that young man had been convicted 55 times in the past two years on charges including theft, taking vehicles, robbery, burglary, handling stolen goods and motoring offences. Many people have asked me why it has taken two years for an anti-social behaviour order to be applied, or for the law to deal with somebody who is clearly terrorising a neighbourhood. People are staggered by it, and, in all honesty, I find it difficult to provide an answer. One would have thought that at some stage, even if an anti-social behaviour order were not appropriate, another care provision—or criminal provision—should have been appropriate. However, the use of the order sent a powerful message to that local community and to many others across the greater Nottingham conurbation. I hope that it is the first of many such orders.
The important factor is that the young man's breaking of the order meant that he had committed a criminal offence and was put into secure
140WH
accommodation. Consequently, the people who had been terrorised began to experience some peace in their communities. People continually complain to me that we appear to be more concerned about the human rights of those who commit offences than those of the victims who are being terrorised. A better balance is needed.
I want more use of these powers by local authorities and the police, because people all over the country want an end point to the problems that they face through tougher, quicker action and zero tolerance.
To refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), the lack of use of anti-social behaviour orders has been a matter of concern for my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Many hon. Members will have seen the Home Secretary's letter to all chief executives of local authorities, which was copied to chief constables, asking them to detail their problems in implementing the legislation and encouraging them to start to use the orders to deal with anti-social behaviour.
The letter makes the important point to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks, asking those concerned to tell the Home Secretary if there are problems in implementing the orders. It also states that the Government will consider the possibility of amending the legislation. In the spirit of trying to draw a consensus, we need the orders and partnerships to work, because they are for the benefit of our constituents.
I draw to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention a couple of matters that the police have raised with me about the anti-social behaviour order. They sometimes find its requirements to be too bureaucratic and complex—more complex, in some circumstances, than those of previous public order legislation. A case conference and other consultations have to take place before the application for the order, and a great burden of evidence is required. In the interests of a quick and efficient process, we had all hoped that would not happen. The weight of evidence that is required is often so off-putting that the police and local authorities decide that they cannot obtain it, and therefore cannot pursue an order because it would be thrown out of court. Another problem that has been relayed to me is that it is necessary for witnesses to attend court at the application stage, which is conducted under civil law. The police in my constituency tell me that the courts require that evidence be given at the application stage in the presence of the suspect. One of the greatest problems in tackling anti-social behaviour is the intimidation that people often feel, and one of the intentions of the legislation was to help to overcome that problem.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister use this occasion to remind the police and local authorities that anti-social behaviour orders are not a measure of last resort and that they are fully consistent with human rights legislation? If used quickly and effectively, they can nip problems in the bud. They can prevent serious offending and lawlessness arising from minor matters, if those matters are dealt with strongly and sternly, straight away.
I often seem to be in a minority with some of my opinions, but I believe that we ought to be very hard on people the first time that they do something wrong, rather than wait for them to commit a lot of offences and

141WH
then be hard on them. If they then continue to offend, they really do need help, because the vast majority of people will learn from being punished at the outset.
Will the Minister comment on the effectiveness of parenting orders? Many people feel that parents should have a greater sense of responsibility. It could be very effective if the police sometimes took people home in the back of a patrol car and said to their parents, "Do you realise what your son or daughter has just been doing?" I have been horrified at some of the things that my son and daughter have done, but I have tried to deal with it. All parents know that teenagers are not easy to deal with. However, some parents abrogate all responsibility for their children's behaviour.
I believe that 10 is too young for child curfews, which are part of the consultation process. Will the Minister consider extending the provisions to encompass older children? I would prefer a minimum age of 16.
As the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) will no doubt point out, not all young people are involved in anti-social behaviour. I do not want to give the impression that they are. Many young people belong to uniformed organisations such as the Scouts and the Guides, and they are great. Many also take part in charity work. The problems that we are discussing do not affect the vast majority of young people. I recently spoke to sixth form students at Christ the King school in my constituency as part of UNICEF's "Put it to your MP" day. They were as concerned as anyone else about anti-social behaviour in their area, because the vandals have often vandalised the facilities that they want to use, such as youth clubs. Those students asked me what could be done about such anti-social behaviour, because they were worried about it and wanted it to be dealt with.
The Government have laid the foundations for crime reduction. They have established numerous crime reduction partnerships across the country, made huge investments in closed circuit television, made available crime-fighting funds to boost police recruitment and improved police communications. Alongside the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders, there are provisions for a radical overhaul of the youth justice system, fast-track punishment for persistent offenders, final cautions and referral orders with youth offender panels—the last of which is being piloted in Gedling.
In addition, there are measures to tackle the causes of crime—including the new deal for communities and the new deal for the unemployed—and measures to tackle social exclusion and truancy in schools. The Government have provided a framework for crime reduction within which we can start to tackle the problem of anti-social behaviour. That problem affects all of us. The police, local authorities, housing and health authorities, the Government and councils need to work together at local level to tackle the problem. We need to encourage a society that recognises and respects the rights and responsibilities of individuals and promotes a sense of community.
Anti-social behaviour orders are a highly effective approach that could make a huge difference to the victims of anti-social behaviour or harassment by neighbours. This important issue affects the lives of many of our constituents. An appropriate framework
142WH
exists, but we should consider whether improvements could be made to it. Our constituents deserve a better deal from the anti-social behaviour orders, which should be used more frequently. The Government have given local authorities and the police significant powers, and they should use them to protect our communities from a small anti-social minority.
10.25 am
Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on raising this important subject. The examples that he gave from his constituency are, sadly, repeated in virtually every constituency in the country.
I stress a point that the hon. Gentleman made near the end of his speech: that the vast majority of young people are not guilty of anti-social behaviour—it is a tiny minority who give the rest a bad name. The examples that the hon. Gentleman gave—we shall doubtless hear more examples from others—show that the Government's anti-social behaviour orders are not working, although they were contained in flagship legislation. It is not clear whether six or 10 orders have been served nationwide, but either way the total is minute. The expectation was that the Government would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but they have not been.
The Liberal Democrats do not oppose the anti-social behaviour orders in principle and we did not vote against the legislation, but we and the Conservatives raised several concerns when it was passing through the House. For example, we were concerned that the standard of evidence was too weak. The Home Secretary has written letters to local authorities and police chiefs urging—indeed, begging—them to implement this flagship legislation, but the fact that only 10 orders have been served confirms that the legislation is too weak. The fact that the associated criminal sanctions are severe may explain why there is reluctance to impose more orders. Some civil liberty groups have claimed that mixing civil and criminal standards means that the anti-social behaviour orders may breach the European convention on human rights.
Liberal Democrats have raised concerns about the wide definition of anti-social behaviour, which includes harassment, alarm and distress. A letter that was published in yesterday's East Anglian Daily Times appeared to some to incite the pro-hunting lobby in East Anglia to descend on and protest outside my home. Would not that letter cause harassment, alarm or distress to my family and my neighbours? It was written not by an ordinary member of the public, but by the chairman of the Colchester Conservative association, who is involved in our democratic process.
Liberal Democrats and Conservatives raised the possibility that merely eccentric activities that are peculiar to individual minority ethnic communities could be perceived by some as involving anti-social behaviour, although there would be no public interest in taking legal action. The Government argued that proper guidance would be available and that there was no danger that eccentric behaviour would be targeted—so morris dancers are safe. Furthermore, ASBOs were designed partly to respond to people who were causing harassment, alarm or distress to ethnic minorities.

143WH
We did not believe that ASBOs should be the first port of call for the police and local councils, as the hon. Member for Gedling emphasised. The orders are serious and should be a last resort. The Government gave those assurances in Committee. We also wanted assurances about the use of the orders in cases involving young people.
Since ASBOs were introduced, some people have tried to highlight the Home Secretary's embarrassment that they have not been widely used. Whether the numbers involved are six or 10, either way they are not large. ASBOs were a high-profile plank of the Home Secretary's law and order agenda to crack down on anti-social behaviour, and were presented as part of the Government's zero tolerance approach. According to the Home Office, the threat of an ASBO is a good deterrent. That is difficult to measure or prove, although it is bound to be true to some extent. However, we continue to face the midnight do-it-yourself building workers and ghetto blasters into the early hours of the morning.
The hon. Member for Gedling referred to anti-social behaviour in children's playgrounds. A tiny minority cause a lot of distress to a lot of people and unfairly tar all young people with the same brush. One response from the Home Secretary was to blame wealthy liberal lawyers with no experience of what it is like to live in areas with anti-social behaviour for undermining and criticising the measures.
My party does not oppose the orders in principle. We warned that they might raise unrealistic expectations, and what we have heard today, as well as evidence from the Home Secretary, confirms that. Local councils and the police may be reluctant to request such strong orders, and the courts may be reluctant to issue them. The Home Office should revisit the legislation and consider what improvements might be made. Furthermore, it is entirely inappropriate to blame lawyers for expressing their anxieties about the human rights implications. The Government should have been more careful in drafting the orders.
We must also take into account what has happened in the past two years. We face a scene of police cuts throughout the country and particularly in my county of Essex. On the plus side, we have heard good stories about local authorities such as Gedling district council, to which I would add Colchester borough council, which installed closed circuit television security cameras with minimal support from the previous Government, the funds having been largely raised locally.
The involvement of young people is vital. If the Government want their joined-up thinking to be taken seriously, it is not good enough constantly to harp on about raising academic standards and about school league tables, because that gives the message that young people who are not academically gifted are of less worth to society. That message is being sent out, albeit unintentionally, and all three political parties are to blame.
A further problem is the playing down of sport and activities for young people. I invite the Minister to conduct a three-month experiment. Every young person entering a young offenders institution should fill out a
144WH
simple questionnaire on whether they have ever been a member of a recognised, but not necessarily uniformed, youth organisation, and if so, which ones and for how long. We could then ascertain whether a pattern can be discerned of young offenders coming from a background in which youth organisations have played no part. Investing in our young people at an early stage will result in there being less anti-social behaviour as they hit their teens—or, indeed, even younger.
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we should not put anti-social behaviour orders in a compartment on their own. There is a lot more to the matter, including education, youth movements, and sport and leisure activities. The problems highlighted by the hon. Member for Gedling apply throughout the country. If we can achieve the consensus that he called for, the Government will be able to deliver on the expectations that they raised two or three years ago.
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. Members will wish to know that the House has ordered that a non-regular occupant of the Chair in Westminster Hall should be addressed by name and not as Deputy Speaker. My name is Mr. Jones.
I now call Mr. St. Aubyn.
10.35 am
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Thank you, Mr. Jones. May I be the first Conservative Member to congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on his display of new Labour machismo on the fight against crime. However, I am sure that he, like me, is sometimes disappointed in the Government's response.
I wondered this morning whether the hon. Gentleman was applying for a job in the Whips Office, to help deal with a delinquent element in the Labour party. He spoke eleoquently about the crime on some estates in his part of the country—a problem that is shared by other areas, even Surrey. I represent the people of Guildford, and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and I both know that our county does not suffer problems on the same scale as other parts of the country, but we certainly have a problem. Also as a former London councillor I know how difficult such problems can be for neighbours and others who suffer as a result.
The Government talk about crime with a forked tongue. At the same time as talking tough about anti-social behaviour orders, they allowed into the country last week one of the most anti-social people in the world. Mr. Tyson was convicted and sent to prison for a terrible crime and his record in the boxing ring is little short of disgraceful—so much so that many people thought that he should have been banned from boxing for life, as he nearly was. Allowing such a person into the country was a retrograde step. Banning him from entering the country would have done as much good as 100 anti-social behaviour orders and would have sent out a clear message to those who might otherwise be tempted to regard him as a role model.
I wish to concentrate on the orders as they were originally intended to be applied to disaffected youth. The Home Office guidance stated:

145WH
"Applications may routinely be made for the middle and older age groups of juveniles and young people (e.g. 12–27 year olds) as experience has shown that such individuals may commit serious acts of anti-social behaviour without adult encouragement or involvement."
That group was to be targeted by the ASBO, and we heard that curfews would be imposed on teenagers who caused disruption in a neighbourhood. According to a survey undertaken by the BBC last September, not only have no curfew orders been imposed under ASBOs, but, as the hon. Member for Gedling said, we are aware of only 10 orders having been made at all. The strategy has failed.
The Government have also been reluctant to implement provisions introduced by the previous Government that might be more effective against anti-social behaviour. For example, the Government have been asked several times to introduce the remand provisions of sections 152 and 158 of the Housing Act 1996. In July, Ministers told the House that they were in discussion on the matter with the Lord Chancellor's Department and that they would inform hon. Members when they had reached a decision. So far as I can tell, no decision has yet been reached. I hope that the Minister will tell us when those provisions will come into force.
The previous Government made a great deal of progress in giving local authorities powers to deal with anti-social behaviour on council estates. The Housing Act 1985 strengthened powers of eviction and gave local authorities the powers to bring in byelaws that might control anti-social behaviour. I have already mentioned the 1996 Act, which introduced powers to bring injunctions against anti-social behaviour. It also introduced introductory tenancies, whereby tenants are in a sense under review for the first year of tenancy. They have been used by up to half our local authorities.
In that context, what do ASBOs add to the fight against anti-social behaviour? Before any such measure is judged, we must ask what the sanction is if the order is ignored. It is severe. The Home Office guidance on ASBOs states:
"Breach of an order … is a criminal offence triable either way with a maximum penalty on indictment of 5 years in prison."
Even for the language of new Labour machismo, that sounds over the top, and that is the problem. The sanction is far too strong to use against teenagers who display anti-social behaviour. It is not credible to threaten children of 15 or 16 with being sent to prison for five years. The sanction is not workable. Therefore, local authorities are put in the invidious position of invoking an order that may then be ignored and are left in a quandary as to what to do if the process is discredited. Sometimes they hold the order like a sword of Damocles over the youths, while knowing at the back of their minds that using it is a high-risk strategy with that group.
Mr. Coaker: The hon. Gentleman is making a point about the deterrent involved in someone breaking an ASBO. The example that I gave about a youth in Nottingham—I appreciate the fact that there are not many such examples—was that the ASBO was broken and, as that was a criminal offence, the youth was sent to a secure unit. I cannot remember how long he was there, but it was a huge relief to local people. It showed
146WH
the effectiveness of the sanction, and in my view acted as quite an effective deterrent in and beyond the local community.
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): I remind hon. Members that interventions must be brief.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I was about to say that, in extreme cases, there may be a justification for removing someone behaving anti-socially from a locality. That is surely a feature of the powers given to local government in recent years.
If the hon. Gentleman will let me, I shall draw a parallel between the use of ASBOs on estates and exclusion orders in schools—an issue that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and I considered in detail when we served on the Select Committee on Education and Employment. We examined the subject of disaffected children, the group that our debate on ASBOs is about. We made some interesting findings. The fifth report of the Committee from 1997–28 says that
"they are predominantly male …; they are drawn disproportionately from African-Caribbean backgrounds; children looked after by local authorities are disproportionately represented; they include a high proportion of young offenders; many are likely to come from difficult and disrupted family backgrounds; they frequently lack self-confidence and self-esteem; they tend to have few 'basic skills; many have emotional and behavioural difficulties; there is a high prevalence of risk-taking behaviour, for instance in relation to smoking, substance abuse and early sexual activity."
That group is also more likely to be among those who behave in an anti-social manner on the estates where they live.
We felt that to exclude this type of child from school was not necessarily the right response. Clearly it is necessary, particularly when a school is failing and must be turned around, to make dramatic changes, among which may be a need to exclude the most disruptive pupils. That is very much in the school's interests, and we must keep the interests of the majority of children in mind in such cases. However, unless we are, in parallel terms, talking about a failing estate, one wonders whether excluding a child from an estate is the right response. We know that taking children out of the normal family environment can be harmful, and that children in care have low educational attainments, as the report has identified. That places them on a cycle of low achievement and dismal prospects, which may be with them for the rest of their lives.
We must look at alternative strategies for the council and housing estates where this problem is prevalent. Like many local authorities, Guildford borough council has not used ASBOs. However, in the last 18 months it has appointed a nuisance investigation officer to deal with these cases, who typically deals with one case a day. That is the type of mediation role often needed, not just for juveniles, but for other disputes on estates. Mediation provided by a specified officer of the local council or an outside mediation service may be more effective in bringing home to those concerned their responsibilities, although we must always accept and require that other sanctions are necessary and should be available.
The sanctions of the introductory tenancy and the ability to evict a perpetrator are powerful and should not be ignored. Nor should the sanctions of the

147WH
injunction or the use of byelaws, but we need a more imaginative response to disaffected children that involves other Departments. What discussions has the Minister had with his former colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment? Many disaffected children find that the academic rigour of a GCSE course is simply not for them; in many cases they may not have attained the basic skills necessary to achieve a result on such a course. Alternative strategies for them must be developed, particularly for those aged 14 and over.
There is good evidence that children over 14 who are put into a more adult environment—for instance, at their local further education college—may strive much harder when given the responsibility that such an environment requires of them. Indeed, if they are given work places, they may get to know role models, the slightly older people in that workplace, whom they can see have money in their pockets and a future—something to which they can aspire if they can attain basic skills and put them to good use. It is about setting the right example, which goes back to my earlier point about the incident last week. The ASBO's scope is therefore extremely limited.
We could also look at the overall design of estates. When I was a councillor in Paddington, I sat on a housing committee that visited some of the failed estates built in the 1960s and 1970s, which had often failed partly because of the way in which they had been designed. The belief was that long corridors of communication at every level of the flats would engender social cohesion, but, unfortunately, they simply provided the criminal element on the estates with a ready escape route. When we visited the Mozart estate, we decided to do some basic redesign. Many long walkways were bricked up, creating smaller clusters of accommodation and, therefore, a greater sense of identity among council tenants. That went some way towards improving behaviour on the estate.
I would welcome the Minister's comments on how ASBOs and other powers can be brought to bear on those who have exercised the right to buy on council estates. Some tenants in my constituency are complaining about a neighbouring family that has exercised the right to buy and is exhibiting anti-social behaviour towards those around it. The council has found that its powers are more constrained than if the family were still a tenant of the council.
We need a clear view from the Minister of what other action he will take on remand orders and on making agents of the law-enforcement process more aware of ASBOs. In July, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) suggested a training programme for magistrates on the implementation of ASBOs, and a national demonstration project was proposed, which the Home Secretary described as
"an excellent idea, which I shall pursue."—[Official Report, 12 July 1999, Vol. 335, c. 16.]
Will the Minister tell the Committee today, six months later, what the Home Secretary has done about a national demonstration project to highlight the advantages of using ASBOs?
As I said at the outset, it is difficult to know what is happening behind the machismo and new Labour spin. How serious are the Government about tackling the real
148WH
problems? The evidence from the hon. Member for Gedling is that not enough is happening. That, ultimately, is the fault of the Government.
10.51
Caroline Flint (Don Valley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on securing the debate. I had not intended to speak, but I was moved to do so by the contributions from my former colleague on the Select Committee on Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), and from the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). The charge that the Government are not addressing the needs of young people and those who are disaffected with the activities of the majority of young people, whether sport, youth activities or attending school, is astonishing. The Government have put more money into education, starting with the early years, to assist such children. There is a sure start programme in my constituency, which is aimed at families with children under four. We know that disaffection, unfortunately, can start as early as that. In the past few days, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has stated that opportunities should be examined for vocational education with a less academic strand for 14 to 19-year-olds. The hon. Member for Guidlford and I discussed that in the Select Committee, which recommended that the Government should consider such opportunities.
Exclusion has been considered. My authority has one of the highest exclusion rates in the country, and that is in a predominantly white area where less than 1 per cent. of the community comes from ethinic minorities. In the Doncaster area we are considering the introduction of learning mentors, different ways in which to keep young people in school, even if they are not in the same classroom as everyone else for part of the day, and how we can tackle disaffection among young people. There are real problems in some of our communities and not just on council estates. In some mixed tenancy communities, harassment and intimidation occur daily and do not arise only from young people. Anti-social behaviour orders apply not only to young people, but to grown-ups who make people's lives a misery day in and day out.
I am worried that individuals and departments in the local community may thwart the purpose of the orders and the way in which they can be coupled with other opportunities to tackle issues relating to intimidation and harassment. There is evidence of non-compliance, even if it is well intentioned. Everyone must abide by certain laws and certain ways of treating each other, whether in the family, the community or the country. Most of the population, for most of the time, abide by the rules that we, as a community, decide that we should have. Jean-Jacques Rousseau said that people could do whatever they wanted as long as it did not harm anyone else, which, in some sense, is a philosophy by which we tend to try to run our lives.
Some people in our community, however, have not been brought up to obey any rules about how they should live. Children are brought up with no parameters of what is right or wrong, against the law, legal, or of the right way to behave towards an elderly lady walking down the street, an Asian family living in isolation, or their fellow human beings. That is a sad reflection on

149WH
our time. We need to establish parameters, whether in school, where there is a set of rules about how pupils should behave, in the wider community in terms of policing, or in quality of life and how we live with our neighbours. We need to say, "There is a line over which we do not accept you can go." Anti-social behaviour orders have a role to play in that.
Despite all the good intentions of the Government, the direction that they want to give, and the opportunities that they want to provide—for goodness sake—to people at the sharp end who have to pick up the pieces for victims of behaviour that threatens so many people's lives, the orders are not being used. I have had separate discussions with my local authority and the police about that. Some crime and disorder partnerships spend a long time talking about and creating bureaucratic protocols, but, when push comes to shove, and something needs to be done, no one wants to take responsibility. Alternatively, one part of the partnership might not want to take responsibility. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give closer consideration to what is blocking the achievement of our aim of creating a safer and friendlier community.
I am interested by the comments about the design of estates, and the environment in which we live. There is no doubt that some estates almost invite crime. Motor bikes can zoom across them, and people can carry drugs from one estate to another to escape the police; they can move around at will. There is also no doubt that an environment in which everything is falling down is not a pleasant place to live. I read in my local paper this week that the Government have released further money from the sale of council houses to help to improve estates. With that regeneration money, there is no doubt that the Government aim to tackle that aspect of people's quality of life. However, it would be a crying shame and a waste of funds if we were to spend good taxpayer's money on rebuilding and refurbishing estates that the minority of people who cause mayhem tore down again. In 10 years' time, we would have to inject more money to refurbish estates and redecorate houses, and to make those communities look nice. Looking nice is not enough; there must be a community pact about the way in which people behave and treat each other. That is part of the jigsaw in which anti-social behaviour orders are meant to work.
It saddens me that councils often claim that they have no powers over private tenants. In my constituency, there are a number of communities in which mixed tenure is common. People own their council houses, and have private landlords. Getting private or absentee landlords to take responsibility for tenants has been a special problem. If these orders should have been applied anywhere, it is in that area. I am sad to say that that is yet to happen in Don Valley.
I have spoken with passion on this matter, because I care about young people and I care about disaffection. A multi-strand approach is necessary, but, at the same time, children and adults need to know that there is a proper way to treat people in the community. Creating such parameters may be our last chance to tell young people what is right and wrong before they move on to crime. I speak as an hon. Member who has in my constituency three prisons and one of the best young offenders establishments in the country.
10.59 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Croaker) on securing this debate on a subject that concerns us all and on the persistence with which he has pursued this issue. This is not the first time that he has discussed this matter—he asked questions about the orders last year, on 11 June, on 16 June at column 161, on 12 July at column 15 and on 1 November at column 57. He has constantly held the Government to account and he has a record to be proud of. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said that he suspected that the hon. Member for Gedling might be auditioning for entry to the Whip's Office. However, the hon. Gentleman said that when he advances the views that he expressed today he normally finds himself in a minority of one. If he talked to Conservative Members more often, he would find that his views were widely shared, and he might discover that he had found his political friends.
Under this Labour Government, Oppositon Members often feel like Cassandra crying in the wilderness—we predict the effect of Government legislation, but Ministers do not listen to us. It is rare for Opposition Members' comments in Committee to be found to be accurate so quickly after the introduction of an Act, but that has happened in this case. The concerns that we raised in Committee about workability have been echoed by Labour Members, including the hon. Members for Gedling and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).
I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Crime and Disorder Bill, and it is interesting to revisit that debate. The concerns that were raised this morning by the hon. Members for Gedling, for Don Valley and for Colchester (Mr. Russell) were raised in Committee by Opposition Members. Labour Members might be shocked to re-read that debate, especially in view of the Pepper v. Hart decision, which means that Ministers' observations in Committee can be cited as an indication of the intended purpose of an Act.
The then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who now spends his time in the Welsh Assembly, made it abundantly clear—this may come as a shock to the Labour Members who have spoken today—that the legislation was not intended to deal with young or juvenile criminals. He said:
"First, in respect of juveniles, I must make it clear that they are not the main targets of these orders. Their use against juveniles … would be exceptional. They may be used because the juvenile is one of several members of a family involved in a pattern of behaviour.… An order would not be issued in isolation, but as part of an attempt to tackle the general problem."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 April 1998; c. 51.]
My hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for Woking (Mr. MalMs) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and I pointed out in an extensive debate that the proposal was completely at odds with announcements that were made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) before the general election, when he said that such orders would tackle youth crime. After the general election, when he had become Home Secretary, he foreshadowed what became the Crime and Disorder Bill in many speeches

151WH
that he gave about tackling youth crime. My hon. Friends and I said in Committee that the legislation was an over-bureaucratic response that would not deal with the problem. A mere 18 months later, Labour Members are now saying that there have been only 10 such orders in the country. The hon. Member for Don Valley spoke in evocative terms of there being too much bureaucracy and talk—
Caroline Flint: Perhaps I should clarify my remarks. I said that, on the ground, the Government's policy is being thwarted by a tendency towards over-bureaucracy, not by a lack of willingness to enforce such orders. The problem lies not with the Government, but with the way in which the policy is being implemented.
Mr. Hawkins: I understood what the hon. Lady said. The underlying point of her speech, which she has ignored, is that the legislation created the bureaucracy. It was the Government who introduced an overly complex way in which to bring forward such orders. Hon. Members need not take my word for it. Sir Jeremy Beecham, who is not a known Conservative supporter, has written in Criminal Justice Management about the small number of orders. He said:
"There are two main reasons for this—the highly complex nature of getting one in place",
combined with the belief that an order should be seen very much as a last resort. In that article, Sir Jeremy, who is chairman of the Local Government Association and a well-known Labour figure in local government circles, talks about the difficulty of getting clearance from a council department:
"there are all the problems of court procedures. Councils are rightly concerned about protection for witnesses in these cases … with the Orders being carried through the Magistrates courts there is no protection for them"—
and no protection for witnesses—
"once the hearing is started."
Sir Jeremy, who, as I said, is a leading Labour figure in local government, and who is talking about his own Government's orders, continues:
"What we now have is a situation where the law does not solve the problems it was supposed to. There has been criticism that it hasn't been thought out on a practitioner's level."
Indeed. There was criticism from the Opposition Front Bench when the orders were debated in Committee.
Yet again, the Government's proposals are based on good intentions. We all know that anti-social behaviour is a huge problem, as this debate has demonstrated. Since being called to the Bar some 20 years ago, I have had extensive experience of prosecuting such cases in the courts. The Opposition pointed out during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill that it introduced a procedure so complex that it would not work. No less a figure than Sir Jeremy Beecham now says that it has not worked—a point repeated by Labour Members today. We have been proved right in only 18 months.
As we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Government have failed to understand that we must listen to those at the sharp end. For a procedure to work in the criminal courts, it must have one cardinal virtue: it must be simple and
152WH
straightforward, and must ensure that decisions can be taken quickly and simply. Instead, the legislation has imposed a requirement for long and complex discussions between local authority departments and the police. As the hon. Members for Colchester and for Gedling pointed out, all the agencies that must implement the provision have good intentions, and we are not criticising them. However, the provison is not working—and I am not alone in saying that. As chairman of the Local Government Association, Sir Jeremy Beecham talks to local authorities across the country and he, too, is saying that it is not working. The Government must revisit the problem and think again.
The hon. Member for Colchester is right to say that we are talking about only a minority of young people and problem families. If my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and I have the opportunity to revisit the problem after the next general election, when I hope that a Conservative Government will be elected, we will ensure that a simple procedure is put in place. When this over-complex and over-bureaucratic legislation is replaced, decisions about such prosecutions should be put purely and simply in the hands of the police, because the bobby on the beat on the problem estate knows the nature of the difficulties.
I do not for a moment suggest that employees of local authorities should not also be involved—they can give the police evidence about the difficulties that a problem family is causing to local authority staff. Usually one finds that such a family causes problems for every agency with which it comes into contact. However, if the decision to prosecute simply rested with the police—after all, that is the way in which the courts have traditionally worked—it would not be necessary to have umpteen meetings involving representatives from all the relevant departments of the local authority. There should be a straightforward decision to prosecute so that the matter can be brought to court.
The legislation should be amended so that it is targeted at the areas where many of the problems arise, especially in respect of young hooligans. As the hon. Member for Gedling pointed out, such cases often involve gangs of youths—yet the Minister says that the orders were not intended to deal with juveniles. Quelle surprise, therefore, that they have not been used to deal with the kinds of abuse the hon. Gentleman described.
This valuable debate has revealed, beyond peradventure, the need for the 1998 Act to be amended to deal properly with the problem. It is not only the anti-social behaviour orders, but the child curfew orders, that have not been used.
The hon. Member for Gedling referred to a case that occurred near his constituency in Nottingham, about which I have some press coverage. The newspaper states that Councillor Colin Chapman, the leader of Nottingham city council—
Mr. Coaker: Graham.
Mr. Hawkins: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am merely reading from the article.
Mr. Coaker: We cannot believe everything we read in the papers.
Mr. Hawkins: That is true. The newspaper has failed to get the hon. Gentleman's local council leader's name correct, which is extraordinary. Perhaps he is not even a household name in his own city.

153WH
Councillor Chapman said:
"People are fed up with children like these getting away time and again".
I congratulate people in cities such as Nottingham on the hard work that they have done in trying to find a way through the bureaucratic maze. They have not found it easy. If the article is to be believed—I should point out that it is from The Guardian, so perhaps it is not surprising that it got the name wrong—the council leader said that three similar cases were being prepared. That would mean that only four cases were in progress. Sadly, I am sure that there are far more problem cases than that in a city the size of Nottingham, and simpler legislation must be introduced to deal with them.
I have a cutting from the Glasgow Herald about a case in Edinburgh that involved a complaint relating to full volume blasts from Celine Dion, Shania Twain, The Beautiful South and Aerosmith. Although it may be enormously enjoyable to listen to those groups at normal volume, when they issue from a ghetto blaster at full volume, repeatedly disrupting neighbours' lives, that is bound to cause a major problem. I know from my practice at the Bar and from dealing with surgery cases that the broadcasting of very loud music late at night by problem families causes enormous upset and distress, especially to the elderly and families with young children.
The case in Liverpool that involved one of the first anti-social behaviour orders received a great deal of publicity, and was met with a rather hysterical reaction on the part of the Home Secretary. He blamed the fact that so few orders were being imposed on trendy civil rights lawyers who, having defended such people, jumped into their BMWs and went back to leafy suburbs where they did not have to suffer from anti-social behaviour. That caused a huge row in the legal and civil liberties press. The director of Liberty, Mr. Wadham, who was involved in defending the lads from Liverpool, pointed out that he was not at all prosperous and did not live in a leafy suburb.
Mr. Coaker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a genuine feeling that the human rights of people who have perpetrated crimes are sometimes given more importance than those of the victims, who are the majority?
Mr. Hawkins: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the situation is extraordinary when the director of Liberty can write to The Guardian attacking the Home Secretary. The fact that the Government are being attacked from the right and left and by their own Back Benchers shows what a mess they have got themselves into. In summary, they have got it all wrong. The legislation is not working. It must be torn up. The Government must start again or, preferably, a Conservative Government will have to come to the rescue and sort out the mess.
11.15 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on his most entertaining contribution to the debate but, more important, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gelding (Mr. Coaker) on his
154WH
outstanding speech and on introducing such an important debate. I wish to highlight four of the points that he made. They are powerful and should dominate our thoughts. First, he said that we are talking not about all young people, but about the small minority of those who are anti-social in character. Our discussion should not be thought to cast doubt on the behaviour of young people in general, a statement echoed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell).
Secondly, my hon. Friend rightly put at the centre of his speech the issue of intimidation. Violent, physical and mental intimidation is the core of anti-social behaviour. An entire neighbourhood can be oppressed by the activities of a small group of people. We must change the balance between the intimidator and the intimidated, and the 1998 Act was designed to achieve that aim.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend drew attention, as did Opposition Members, to the need for tougher and quicker action—a point that reverberated around the Chamber this morning. Fourthly, he referred to the vicious circle of "Not me, guy". In the past, various agencies, whether local authority housing, social services or the police, have said, "It is not my problem to sort out, it is the other one's problem." The core objective of the legislation under which ASBOs were established was to end that culture and to say that it is the responsibility of us all to work together and deal with such problems, whether strategically in the sense of crime reduction partnerships or through specific relationships with particular agencies. That is one of the reasons why I reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. Returning to a culture of zero partnership in such situations and simply leaving such matters to the police would be a retrograde step. After consideration, the hon. Gentleman may agree that such a move would be ill advised.
I commend the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), especially her emphasis on the need to establish a culture that addresses such issues more effectively. By that, she meant a culture among people in which personal relationships are based on respect and trust rather than on intimidation and fear. There must also be a culture in all the agencies of the state, whether local government or the police, that says that they are about solving such problems rather than thinking that they will go away by some means that does not involve actively addressing them.
I really have only one response to make to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. He said that the problem was very difficult. He was right. We are talking about changing culture and behaviour patterns. We face the choice of whether to address that difficulty and try to solve it or just to sit back, say that it is too hard to deal with and leave it alone. The order filled a gap that had been left in the legisation by the previous Government. We accept that the problem is difficult, but we want to have a go at cracking it, rather than simply say that it is too hard a problem to solve.
Although it is entertaining to revisit the Committee debate—it helps parliamentarians to understand the broader context, as the hon. Gentleman intended—the Conservatives must answer a central political question. They must choose between having a go at solving the

155WH
problem and deciding that it is too hard and that they cannot deal with it. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has chosen the latter course.
Mr. St. Aubyn: The Housing Acts 1985 and 1996 contain powerful provisions to deal with the problems described by the Minister. Why have the Government not yet implemented the remand provisions of the 1996 Act?
Mr. Clarke: I shall come to that in a moment. It was a legitimate point, and I intended to commend the hon. Gentleman for raising it in his speech—but not for the other points that he made.
At the moment, we do not collect figures for the number of ASBOs in force nationally. The order was implemented on 1 April 1999, and we estimate that between 20 and 25 orders are now in force, rather than the six or 10 that were mentioned earlier. The figures are moving forward and we want to encourage that. They operate in areas as diverse as Somerset, Liverpool, Derbyshire, Worcestershire, Blackburn, Coventry, London, Suffolk, Newcastle, York, Huddersfield and Nottingham. Expertise in those areas is building up.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Colchester that his town does not feature in that list. The hon. Gentleman said that he was not against the legislation in principle. I suggest that he ought in principle to be for it, and that he should encourage his friends on Colchester council to operate it. I know that he has great influence on the council, and I hope that he will consider urging his friends to put Colchester on the list. A shift in stance from not being against the legislation to being for it might be beneficial to his constituents and to everyone in that area. It might even help the Liberal Domocrat party's electoral chances, although I have no desire for that.
To our knowledge, only two of the 20 to 25 orders have been breached. In Newcastle, a defendant was imprisoned for 28 days and breached the order again on the day of his release. He was sentenced to two months imprisonment on 27 January for that second breach. The sanction bites when ASBOs are breached. In Nottingham, not far from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, an order was granted in December against a juvenile aged 14. The order has allegedly been breached, and the defendant is now on remand awaiting trial for that breach. I understand that the trial will take place in March.
Derbyshire was included in my list. It is worth quoting from an article published in Police Review by the officer in charge of the case in Derbyshire, Chief Inspector Royston Smith. He wrote:
"The neighbours have stated that it was a triumph of the community working together to fight off the bullies who destroyed their quality of life … as a result we were able to protect the civil liberties of the peaceful, law abiding majority who were at risk".
That is the view of the police officer in Derbyshire who dealt with the problem; it is a testament to the impact that the legislation can have when it is effectively applied. I congratulate the Derbyshire police force and the local authorities.
It is not only a question of successful legal action being taken. The metropolitan borough of Liverpool successfully applied for the first two orders. Over the
156WH
past year, Liverpool has dealt successfully with more than 100 cases of anti-social behaviour, but only two have resulted in orders. I emphasise that although we need tough sanctions, our aim is to stop the anti-social behaviour. That is the purpose of ASBOs, so Liverpool's experience is encouraging.
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister has given us quite a lot of detail about how many orders have been imposed and where. I am slightly puzzled, because, in answer to the written questions that I cited, he said that information on the number of ASBOs granted or in progress was not held centrally. Do his answers today mean that such information is now held centrally and that we can ask further questions? If not, will be consider whether it should be?
Mr. Clarke: I think that I said—I believe that the record will sustain this—that we still do not collect evidence centrally. We do, however, collect the details as far as we can.
The hon. Gentleman has a valid point. As part of the process, which I shall explain in a moment, I am prepared to consider whether data should be collected centrally, assisting not only the House but the rolling out of the whole programme.
Several red herrings have arisen on what ASBOs might cover. The hon. Member for Colchester mentioned Conservatives, hunters and morris dancers. It is not currently our intention that ASBOs, which deal essentially with anti-social behaviour on estates, should apply to those areas. The hon. Member for Guildford mentioned Mike Tyson; as far as I know, the Home Secretary, who considered many issues to do with Mike Tyson, did not consider whether an ASBO was an effective technique for dealing with him. There has even been a suggestion that the problem of Leylandii hedges be dealt with by ASBOs—an eventuality that the Home Office was able to prevent. We are talking about the sort of intimidation and anti-social behaviour that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling raised; that is the key aspect of the whole programme.
Several hon. Members correctly said that a wide range of measures are available. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) mentioned introductory tenancies, for example, which is an excellent idea that is being actively considered. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley also raised the question of school exclusion orders, and parenting orders were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. The range of options available to address the issues are under active consideration. We have not yet come to a view on the specific measures that the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned but are still discussing the best way to proceed. However, this point was legitimate and we are actively considering whether specific measures should be brought forward from the armoury of available measures. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned mediation. As a result of ASBOs, mediation has been able to work in several other specific ways.
It is critically important to develop a better use of ASBOs. That is why we have planned a series of meetings over the coming months to discuss the experience of those at the sharp end, to use the words of

157WH
the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is right: we want to learn the weaknesses in the structure in order to improve it and ensure that it moves forward. We also want to develop standard protocols, so that the wheel is not continually being reinvented, and to develop proper training and guidelines. We need to do better in those regards and are committed to doing so.
I shall deal with the several specific points that were raised. First, lawyers have raised several concerns about human rights. Apart from the rhetorical point on whose human rights are really at risk—on which I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling—the Government strongly believe that there is no human rights implication in the use of ASBOs that should in any way inhibit their use. That is the legal advice we have received, and it is our considered opinion. Those who argue that there is a serious human rights issue that should inhibit the use of ASBOs are, in my view and that of the Government, wrong.
The charge that the ASBO is too complex and bureaucratic was well made. However, apart from the fact that it is a two-stage process, we do not believe that it is unduly complex. It is in two stages because that enables us to address the issue at the first stage and does not immediately criminalise people. A civil remedy is provided at the first level. However, we are prepared to look at the precise way in which it operates to consider whether it can be made more effective. On the requirement, raised by my hon. Friend, for witnesses to attend court, the ASBO is a civil order and hearsay evidence can therefore be used, under section 1(2)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which deals with someone who is "likely to cause" harassment. It is for the courts to decide whether to accept such hearsay evidence, but the Home Office view is that such evidence is acceptable, thereby circumventing the need for physical attendance at court.
It has been suggested that the burden of evidence may be too heavy. Obviously, the amount of evidence required will ultimately depend on the court and the circumstances of the case. The police are aware that evidence needs to be proved only on a balance of probabilities. That is an important consideration. It is clearly in the interests of victims of anti-social behaviour for good quality evidence—
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. We must now move to the next debate.

Magistrates Courts (Devon)
11.30 am
Sir Peter Emery: It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr. Jones, and I am delighted that you will be presiding. I initiate the debate today because of the terrifying effect that may result from the Lord Chancellor's wish to save money by closing magistrates courts throughout the country, and especially in Devon and Cornwall. Lay magistrates, supported by justices' clerks, are best placed to provide local justice in courts throughout the country. However, judicial functions are increasingly being compromised by administrative expediency and financial cuts. That is unacceptable to the public, court users and the cause of justice.
Magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees of local magistrates selected by a selection panel of local magistrates. The committees act under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 and the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.
The Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committee is responsible for the proper and efficient operation of courts in Devon. It must determine not only the overall operation of justice but how many courthouses are necessary and what other accommodation, urban and rural, is required. In so doing, it acts in consultation with the relevant authority that makes money available for that work—in this case, Devon county council. The committee must operate within "the guidelines"—the diktat—of the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is trying to save the Government money.
The Lord Chancellor is obviously out of touch. When I complained about the centralisation of the youth court, which is to be removed from Axminster and sent to Exeter, he wrote:
"The magistrates Court Committee has no proposals to close Axminster or any court house in Devon and Cornwall."
Hon. Members might assume that that was written months or even years ago. The Parliamentary Secretary will probably have been supplied with the letter. On 22 November last year the Lord Chancellor was trying to fob off Members of Parliament in that way, when he must have known that his instructions to the magistrates courts committee would effect such closures. It is equally interesting that only last week the Parliamentary Secretary said in this very Chamber:
"The essential feature of local justice is that magistrates live or work in the locality."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 25 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 34WH.]
The current approach of saving money through the Lord Chancellor's edict will result in exactly the opposite.
Closing the magistrates court at Axminster, which would require people who have been charged to appear in Exeter, is similar to closing a magistrates court in West Ealing and making people go to a court in Reading. That would be mad, and it is equally mad to expect those in the Axminster area to travel to Exeter for justice. What I am saying is not a foolish assumption—it has already happened. The youth court previously in Axminster has been transferred to and centralised in Exeter.
Mr. John Burnett: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful

159WH
speech. He knows Devon and Cornwall well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and knows that there are countless such examples. Does he agree that it is ludicrous even to suggest that people from Okehampton should travel to Barnstaple for those purposes, and that the proposals are short sighted, unlikely to provide any savings and inimical to access to justice?
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. I should tell hon. Members that the House has ordered that people such as me should be addressed by name, not as Mr. Deputy Speaker. My name is Mr. Jones.
Sir Peter Emery: So far as "local" is concerned, I shall quote from a letter from a well-known solicitor in my constituency, Mr. Colin Chesterton. He wrote to me after seeing the Lord Chancellor's letter in November and said:
"What we now have is the worst of all worlds, with cases being heard in the wrong place for the wrong reason. To describe Devon Magistrates Courts as 'locally managed' is a bizarre use of the word local. Devon and Cornwall is a 'region'. It is worth remembering that Axminster is equidistant from Penzance as it is from London. I take it that it is not proposed that somebody from Axminster should have a say in whether South London Magistrates Courts should do Youth Courts work. I am sure that those in the Lord Chancellor's Department are very clever, but geography is not their strongest suit. They could also brush up on their English and the use of the word 'local'. Unless of course they think we can be fobbed off with platitudes about what is really local decision making."
Let me come to the major worry. The magistrates courts committee has proposed that 10 of the 17 courts in Devon should be closed. Those are: Axminster, Exmouth, Kingsbridge, South Molton, Tavistock, Teignmouth, Tiverton, Bideford, Okehampton and Newton Abbot. Exmouth, the second-largest town in the county of Devon, is to have its court closed. Does that really make sense to its population? It is a tragedy for local people and is typical of the Government's lack of attention to the requirements of the countryside.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): As my right hon. Friend is aware, the problems that he referred to are happening throughout the country. Does he share my concern that we are seeing an enormous centralising tendency in which everything local is subsumed to the diktats of the Treasury?
Sir Peter Emery: It is really a tragedy. In the long term, we will see local magistrates being taken over by stipendiary magistrates as part of the centralisation.
One of the major factors understood by everyone with experience of magistrates courts is that local magistrates know the people in their locality. They are most likely to know the local rogues and malcontents, and transferring them to centres a considerable distance away from their locality will soon mean that that important local aspect of justice is lost. To expect justices of the peace sitting in Exeter to have the knowledge of the local justice of the peace sitting in Axminster is nonsense. What is more, it is likely that people living 30 miles from the court will think twice before taking on the responsibility of becoming a local magistrate. Local people will not come forward.
160WH
I turn to the problem of getting respondents to a court many miles from their home. In an urban area, one can jump on a bus, or in London one can take the tube. There are no tubes in Devon or Cornwall, and the bus services in many country districts are so infrequent that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for some people to get to court by 10 am. People living in Beer, Branscombe and Seaton have a limited bus service, and would have to take the bus to Axminster and the train to Exeter. That is immensely time consuming and incurs considerable cost. Moreover, as one of my solicitors pointed out, they may not be able to get back home that night, which would mean finding a bed in Exeter.
Will the Minister tell us how much the Lord Chancellor's Department is trying to save by these amalgamations? I have heard that it is £225 million. I do not know if that is correct, but I would like a figure to be given to us in the debate. Even if the figure is that high, is it not well worth the Government's while to spend such an amount to ensure local justice?
May I analyse some of the effects of the closures of local magistrates courts? I take Axminster as an example because I know it well, and because it is illustrative of the other towns to which I have referred. Once Axminster court closes, it will lose its county court and its tax commissioners hearings, and we shall no longer have coroners' inquests. The probation service will have no office in which to meet its clients on neutral ground anywhere nearer than Exmouth, which could be difficult for female probation officers dealing with male sex offenders. That will be made worse by the announcement that the Exmouth court is to close, so the probation service in Exmouth will have to move to Exeter as well.
Local papers will be unlikely to report petty crimes, as they would if they were dealt with locally, because they will be dealt with in the two major courts in Exeter, with each court often handling 50 cases a day. Local papers will probably report only serious crimes, which is not much help to the elderly who are worried about crime. They would see papers carrying only stories about rape, murder and so on, instead of run-of-the-mill cases such as shoplifting and motor offences.
The Devon and Cornwall constabulary has confirmed that Axminster police station is to close. At the moment, we have a courthouse. Costs of about £7,000 will be incurred to make it comply with disability requirements. East Devon district council, realising the need to keep the local court, has offered to pay half that amount, even though there is no obligation for it to do so. If the courthouse is to disappear, the capital cost of any future replacement would be such as to make its reconstitution unlikely. It is interesting to note that the capital cost of the courthouse was written off many years ago.
I am worried that there has been no proper cost benefit analysis of the closure of this court. The Government do not know how human rights legislation will affect the operation of local courts. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on that? I am told that it will increase the work load in magistrates courts. It is nonsense to have the wholesale closures of courts and the loss of their existing facilities, if their work is to be expanded.
I return to the question of getting people to court. I have checked the following times this morning to ensure

161WH
that they are correct. The people now served by the Axminster court in the villages of Hawkchurch, Dalwood, Branscombe, Chardstock and Membury have buses only once a week—Tuesdays or Thursdays—at only one time, which varies from 1.35 pm, 10.30 am, 12.45 pm, 9.10 am and 10.30 am. I suppose that the Government do not have to consider people living in those areas.
That is a major error of judgment by the Lord Chancellor, who should know better. He is there to defend justice, not to attack it. Undermining local justice to save a relatively small amount of money is a threat to local society, completely misunderstands the problem of those who live in and around the countryside. The Government should know better.
11.45 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr. Jones. It is the first time that I have been required to answer a debate such as this in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary. I look forward to returning on future occasions, as I am sure that hon. Members will return to this subject.
Last week, I congratulated the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on securing a debate on similar issues. I now congratulate the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on securing this debate and allowing us to return to these matters. He has demonstrated the importance of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman made a most interesting speech, making many serious points well, expressing his constituents' concerns and demonstrating the local strength of feeling about this matter. It may help if I set out the current position in Devon and Cornwall.
Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committee, which came into existence on 1 April 1999, undertook a review of all aspects of the service to decide how best to fulfil its statutory duty. As I said last week, it is sensible and rational for these reviews to take place, and the Government expect no less of committees discharging their responsibilities. In conducting reviews, committees must have regard to the level of service that they seek to provide across the area as a whole. They cannot look at any one part of their area in isolation.
The committee has begun a consultation exercise on its proposals to develop the service over the next five years. The consultation period does not close until 7 April. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate from previous debates that at this stage any matters in connection with the proposals are for the Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committee to address.
Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister tell the House whether there are any instructions from her Department, as alluded to by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), in relation to cost savings or overall budgets for Devon and Cornwall?
Jane Kennedy: Having anticipated that those issues might be raised, I shall come to them shortly.
As I was saying, these are only proposals: the end result will not necessarily be the closure of 13 courts. The courts committee will carefully consider the results of its consultation exercise on 13 April, when it next meets.
162WH
The Government already encourage courts committees to extend their consultation processes wider than is required by section 56(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. They usually consult more widely than only among their paying authorities. Consultees typically include magistrates, the staff, the police, the probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service, Members of Parliament and professional users of the courts. Devon and Cornwall magistrates courts committee consults far more widely than the statutory minimum.
If a magistrates courts committee makes a determination to close a courthouse, the paying authority has the sole right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor against the proposed closure. I assure hon. Members that we give detailed consideration to the case that is presented when an appeal is made, and we shall do in this case, should the paying authorities appeal.
Sir Peter Emery: Is the Minister saying that the Government will make available to the local magistrates courts committee the same amount of money that it has had in the past, and that it therefore does not have to close anything because it has the necessary money? Surely closures occur because the committees do not have the funds.
Jane Kennedy: Proposals to change the way in which courtrooms are distributed are not normally cost driven, but are informed by the requirement of the magistrates courts committees to provide modern court services that meet the needs of court users. I shall come to that issue in a few minutes. I shall keep my eye on the clock so that I make sure that I respond to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
All the points made by local representation, the paying authority and hon. Members are listened to carefully. Travelling time, cost, convenience and accessibility to the courts are points frequently raised with the Department. Right hon. and hon. Members will be heartened to learn that not all appeals are dismissed by the Lord Chancellor.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of statutory responsibility, which, as he said, is set out in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. No instructions from the Lord Chancellor order that a court should proceed along a certain route, or that decisions should be driven by cost. I hope that I have reassured the right hon. Gentleman on that point. As I said last week, when he was present, magistrates courts committees are made up of local magistrates, selected by a local panel. We must remember that "local" means different things to different people: for some it means the town, for others the village and for others the magistrates courts committee area.
I want to spend a moment describing the functions of the magistrates courts committees and those elected to serve on them, so that hon. Members are aware of their responsibilities. The changes enacted by the previous Government were designed to make the committees more effective as management boards and to extend the range of skills available. The Government did not envisage individual benches of magistrates no longer having a say in the management of the courts in their area, but saw individual members being selected on the

163WH
basis of the skills and abilities that they could bring to the area as a whole. The committee's function can best be summed up by repeating what Lord McIntosh of Haringey said during the passage of the Access to Justice Bill:
"The committee is there to decide strategy and set standards and to monitor and be accountable for implementation and achievement.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 1265.]
One way in which to modernise and improve the service would be to transfer the work load to better equipped centres. Local magistrates who form courts committees have local knowledge, and are best placed to decide how to make the best use of all their resources. Only when a decision is challenged by the paying authority does the Lord Chancellor become involved. The Government believe that those arrangements are working well and that committees are comprised of those who can best serve the needs of the area as a whole. It would not be consistent with our aim to modernise the service if we were to return, as has been suggested, to a system of geographical representation that may serve the interests of individual benches rather than the magistrates courts overall.
It is crucial that the committee should be able to plan strategically for the whole of its area. I can only reiterate that it is entirely for local magistrates courts to make any decisions on the number and location of courthouses, in consultation with the relevant paying authorities—in this case, Cornwall county council, which is the lead authority, Devon county council, Torbay unitary council, Plymouth unitary council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
Those matters lie solely within the responsibility of local magistrates courts committees. When resources are tight, it is up to the local committee to manage within available resources. However, the central council of magistrates courts committees has produced a good practice guide on the subject of court closures, and the Government encourage magistrates courts committees to follow that advice.
I turn to funding. I am sure that hon. Members are aware that the Government provide 80 per cent. of the revenue grant to magistrates courts committees and local authorities contribute 20 per cent. Individual committees are given an annual allocation, but it is left to each committee to determine how best to use the funds to provide services, including courthouses in each area.
I was asked last week about the funding formula. We are reviewing the mechanism for allocating grant to magistrates courts committees. One of the issues that is being considered is whether there should be a sparsity factor to reflect higher costs associated with providing services in generally rural areas. We expect to finalise that review in time for the financial year 2001–22.
The right hon. Member for East Devon asked about amalgamations. In the long term, it is reckoned that amalgamations will save 6 per cent. of the budget of a magistrates courts committee overall. Consultants were commissioned by the previous Government to look into proposed amalgamations at Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull. Efficiency savings are not just cost savings.
164WH
They include improvements in the court service delivered to court users, as I discussed at length last week.
Dealing with Devon alone, prior to the amalgamation with Cornwall, in cash terms the total revenue resources available increased by £220,000 in the four years to 1998–29. We are not discussing an issue that is being driven by costs and cost savings. We are discussing issues that the magistrates courts committees must decide, bearing in mind their local information and experience, and bringing that to bear on the services that they provide to the court users and to the delivery of justice in their locality.
Sir Peter Emery: The Minister is being most helpful and I know that she is trying to assist me, but I shall come to the nub of the matter. Will the Devon committee receive this year the same amount in the 80 per cent. that comes from the Government as it received last year, although presumably with a 3 per cent. increase for inflation?
Jane Kennedy: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him in reply to that question, because I do not want to mislead him.
Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister also extrapolate the projections for the two following years and send me a copy of the letter?
Jane Kennedy: I shall be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my letter to the right hon. Member for East Devon.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Human Rights Act 1998 and I have only a few minutes left. He will be pleased to learn that the Government are considering the whole question of ensuring that magistrates courts premises provide, as far as possible, facilities that are compatible with the European convention on human rights. I do not anticipate any closures resulting directly from implementation of the 1998 Act on 2 October this year. However, magistrates courts committees may need to apply a higher threshold than now when considering, for example, the standard of custody, interview and witness facilities that are required in courthouses. When the viability of rural courts houses is assessed, many factors need to be taken into account, including the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Our overriding concern must be to provide facilities that can deliver the required service at an acceptable standard. We must take a pragmatic—
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Ambulance Service
12 noon
Ms Joan Walley: I am glad to have this opportunity to discuss best practice in the ambulance service, which has an excellent record in Staffordshire, where my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) are located. I also speak as someone who avidly watches "Casualty" every Saturday night.
A "Panorama" investigation that was broadcast on 17 January raised important questions about training, the pre-emergency hospital care that is available throughout the country and the management of the national health service ambulance service. That programme, which was criticised for concentrating on six incidents that I shall not discuss, shed a spotlight on wider issues, including the differences in ambulance services and training and response times between regions. I hope that we can discuss those matters constructively. The Government need to consider their response to the disparities in standards and performance that the "Panorama" programme highlighted.
I want to put Staffordshire's record straight and to discuss with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), whether Britain can benefit from my county's best practice and what best practice should be applied throughout the country. Ministers recognised in paraliamentary answers that were given to me in February 1998 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands in July 1998 that the Staffordshire ambulance service is a beacon. My county's approach should be in the main stream. My county's performance could help the Government to develop new standards.
Service provision in Staffordshire will be subject to an independent audit by the Sheffield university medical care research unit. We shall know, when that audit is published, whether the practice in Staffordshire could help to influence ambulance service provision. When we need an ambulance, it is important that we get it quickly and that it has a suitably qualified and experienced crew. I pay tribute to the work of paramedics and ambulance service crews across the country. We must ensure that they receive appropriate training and management and that they have career prospects that will help them to deliver the services that the public want.
What scope is there for ensuring greater standardisation of best practice? I want to ensure that there is a higher minimum standard; I do not want to stifle local variations and regional differences, which contribute to the overall performance of the ambulance service. That higher minimum standard would ensure that regional disparities were better understood and resourced and that all services were levelled upwards. Paramedics are about to become a state-registered profession run by a board that will operate under the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. What progress—I ask this in a spirit of constructive criticism—has been made in that regard? Will the new way of organising paramedics in the ambulance service contain sufficient powers to ensure that they can do the job that the public expect them to do?
166WH
I turn to the training of paramedics. I do not doubt their commitment and dedication, but do we offer enough? For example, compared to the training offered by other countries, or that offered to military technicians in our defence services, we could perhaps offer more. The standard of paramedic training in the United Kingdom is far below that required for emergency medical technicians and paramedics in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. We must consider best practice not only across the country but internationally.
We must also consider national funding, and the structures and mechanisms that are needed to improve training. How is that process being reviewed? I am slightly worried by research conducted at Sheffield university, which suggests that there is a detrimental variation in treatment offered by ambulance crews.
Should not greater attention be given to various clinical protocols throughout the country? On the "Panorama" programme, Barry John, who is chairman of the Ambulance Service Association, admitted that some services do not use best practice at the moment. We must ensure that the association is able to achieve best practice.
Some counties authorise certain life-saving drugs and others do not. Paramedics in some counties are trained in life-saving techniques and others are not. Is there any longer an excuse for such variations? In the light of the fact that three counties that have different protocols have merged to form an east midlands trust, the time has come for a national minimum standard.
Does the Minister agree that now is the time to rethink the new targets that will be linked to core prioritisation by April 2001? I recognise that progress has been made, but core prioritisation studies and the achievements revealed by Department of Health statistics make it clear that not all pilot projects have met the new national standards. New priority dispatch ambulance performance standards have been adopted. The aim is that 75 per cent. of category A calls—emergencies—will be responded to within 8 minutes, and 95 per cent. of all other calls will be responded to within 14 minutes. However, in adopting those standards and targets, are we not going backwards? Only Staffordshire ambulance trust has met them.
We should examine best practice and assess whether it can be applied elsewhere. We should consider implementing a system of modelling that has helped to identify peak demand areas and plan staff deployment, thereby providing better standards across the country. We should learn lessons from that, and from the target response times that have consistently been met during the past four years. I am worried that we are adopting a two-tier response system. Two out of eight pilot ambulance services have been unable to meet their targets. Time must be taken to assess that problem before further progress can be made.
During the time remaining, I shall focus on achievements in Staffordshire. Of course, we have wonderful crews and paramedics, a good working relationship with Staffordshire's Members of Parliament, input from trade unions and an enormous

167WH
amount of community liaison work taking place every day throughout the country. I refer particularly to the 40 automated exterior defibrillators that we have in Staffordshire, and I support The Observer campaign for more defibrillators and put in a request for at least two more in north Staffordshire.
Under the Staffordshire partnership, about 1,000 pupils every year are trained in first aid by the ambulance trust. The lunchtime for lifeline programme offers training in first aid for those in industry and other workplaces. Above all, Staffordshire's records and response times far exceed those of anywhere else in the country and if we can achieve them, why cannot other places do so?
I pay tribute to the work that has been done to win Staffordshire a beacon award. The award is a standard of excellence for the retirement and retention scheme, which enables those ambulance workers who cannot continue working full-time to return, but to work different hours. That is an example of good personnel work. I also congratulate the Staffordshire ambulance service on winning a charter mark award for providing quality services.
All those factors can be linked to the modernisation programme that the new Labour Government want to put into place. I would be the first to accept that we cannot always get it right. Certainly, Staffordshire has had problems with the health authority's specification for its patient transport service, and it has proved difficult to meet response time targets. However, the new system that Staffordshire is modelling would benefit the rest of the country. I would like to see much closer links between hospitals and general practitioners and GP trusts. If a new category of beacon award is wanted, the North Staffordshire hospital trust primary group, which is seeking trust status, could act as a pilot scheme.
The time is now right to take stock and scrutinise. Above all, it is time to involve the professionals, the managers and the unions, who work so hard for the ambulance service. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to visit Staffordshire. We have been visited by ambulance service personnel and Ministers from all around the world, most recently from New South Wales. I would be very happy if a member of the new Labour Government could visit Staffordshire and discuss those matters in detail with Staffordshire's Members of Parliament.
12.12 pm
Charlotte Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing this important debate, and thank her for allowing me a little share of it. As my hon. Friend said, Staffordshire ambulance service has achieved outstanding results. What surprised me about the "Panorama" programme was the reluctance of the service nationally to explore the reasons for Staffordshire's success. It is no surprise to Staffordshire's Members of Parliament, but it must be incomprehensible to many others.
168WH
The changes in Staffordshire were brought about with considerable angst. Inevitably, staff were reluctant to be thrown out of their comfortable ambulance stations, but the results speak for themselves. Ultimately, all ambulance staff want to perform at their best. They are professionals who want to see a job well done.
We have a national health service that has national standards and national training courses. Why do we not have a national ambulance service? As we saw on "Panorama", different ambulance services make different drugs available. Each service purchases its own ambulances. That purchasing policy produces no economies of scale, and some services have made bad mistakes. There seems to be little exchange of ideas when it comes to choosing the right vehicles for such an essential job.
As my hon. Friend suggested, the most significant factor for patients is the absence of nationally funded training. Each ambulance trust has to fund its own training. Staff have to pay back their training costs to the trust if they leave the job. I cannot imagine nurses having to pay back the costs of their training when they find new posts at other hospitals. That might not be a problem if, as the "Panorama" programme suggested, training for paramedics lasted only six weeks, but it does not. Initially, basic grade ambulance technicians have six weeks' training, after which they work with an experienced person for one year. The technicians are then tested on their confidence and undertake practical and written tests. After a further two years, all prospective paramedics must pass a stringent examination before being accepted for training. Only then do they undertake six weeks' introductory training. They have also to undergo a series of study days during the following year.
Prospective paramedics are accepted as qualified paramedics only when they pass written and practical examinations. They are tested by consultants in hospitals. They must then undertake regular refresher courses. Training is rightly an important part of the ambulance service, because lives are at stake. Because trusts have to fund their own training budgets, training inevitably becomes squeezed. I have received complaints that ambulance staff have had problems being accepted on paramedic courses.
Ambulance services provide additional facilities. Because of its rural nature, Staffordshire, particularly my constituency of Moorlands, developed the first responder scheme. Trained volunteers are on call to provide initial support and assurance to people within their own communities before the ambulance arrives. That can be vital in isolated rural areas, especially in the winter when it can be extremely difficult to reach houses and farms. Such services must rely on the generosity of local vehicle dealers to provide suitable transport. Since 1991, Staffordshire has had an air ambulance service, which can ensure that patients arrive at the north Staffordshire trauma centre quickly enough to have a real chance of survival and a speedy recovery. However, that service is having to raise £120,000 just to build a new helipad outside the accident and emergency department. For it to operate, it needs sponsorship on a daily basis. As we enter the 21st century, is that the right way forward for a modern ambulance service? I think not. I should be grateful to receive my hon. Friend's response.
12.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing the debate today, not least because she has had a longstanding interest in the performance of her local ambulance trust. I understand that she met my predecessor in 1998 together with the chief executive of the trust. She raised several issues, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), referring to the "Panorama" programme, the training of staff and regional variations. Lessons are being learned from what is happening in Staffordshire. I shall come on to core prioritisation and explain how it will not create a two-tier system, but allow us to prioritise. I agreed some time ago to visit my hon. Friend's constituency in Staffordshire and I shall be delighted to see what is happening there for myself.
Today's debate is very appropriate, because the ambulance service is at the cutting edge of the patients' experience in what are often life-threatening circumstances. The Government's commitment to a fair, fast and efficient service will be tested to its limits. We must consider what is happening to ambulance services in the context of the whole modernisation programme, which also covers NHS Direct and what is being done in accident and emergency departments to enable patients to receive a seamless service.
Training standards are important. The public expect a prompt response by skilled assistants when they call an ambulance in emergencies or life-threatening situations. That applies whether the response is from a conventional two-man ambulance or a lone paramedic in a fast-response vehicle.
It is also important to recognise that for some patients, particularly in cases of coronary heart disease or a stroke, the clinically based eight-minute recommended response time—Staffordshire is currently the only trust that meets the target—is extremely significant for recovery and long-term prospects. For that reason, we are keen to encourage every ambulance trust in the country to examine its practices. Such systems as Staffordshire's first responder scheme are also particularly helpful in rural areas.
I spent last Friday in an ambulance because I thought that I should know what I am talking about. That experience brought home to me how challenging the eight-minute response is. However, it is not just about making a rapid initial response; we also need trained control room staff and facilities so that vital advice can be given to the crew as they deal with the patient from arrival and during the journey to hospital. The evidence on what should and should not be done in the pre-hospital phase of an emergency is significantly lacking. That is a major obstacle that must be recognised. However, we have put into place clinical audits and research to devise the best model for the patient.
The Government modernisation agenda is based on improving our standards and service delivery on the basis of clinical evidence. That is also our approach to the ambulance service.
Ms Walley: As we are about to start the next round of the comprehensive spending review and the modernisation programme for the NHS is such an
170WH
important part of that, does my hon. Friend agree that we should press the Chancellor to ensure that ambulances feature significantly in the NHS modernisation programme, with ring-fenced money to enable them to play their part in the integrated whole of the NHS that we know and love?
Ms Stuart: We all know that the comprehensive spending review and manager negotiations are complicated and tricky, but I assure my hon. Friend that, as part of my ministerial responsiblity, I will fight my corner as best I can.
Having looked at the general concepts, I turn to the example of Staffordshire. Ministers have frequently been accused of ignoring Staffordshire. That is far from the case. Not only is research being conducted by Sheffield to consider Staffordshire in its regular visits, but some of the lessons that we have learnt from Staffordshire are already being implemented. However, it is important that we have a clear picture of why things work in Staffordshire and, more to the point, of what can be transferred. I was interested to read this morning's parliamentary briefing from the NHS Confederation, which largely welcomes what we are doing. It states:
"It is important not to assume that good practice can necessarily be transferred without adaptation from one location to another. We must therefore be quite clear where Staffordshire is succeeding."
I emphasise that Staffordshire has been at the cutting edge in technological development and has generously shared its experience with other services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned targets. The current target is to respond to 75 per cent. of category A—immediately lifethreatening—calls within eight minutes. Staffordshire has shown significant improvement in its handling of such cases, which has resulted in improved patient outcomes. Some of Staffordshire's radical and innovative measures have benefited the local population. That should be recognised.
Staffordshire and others are implementing more efficient services in several areas. One is improved dynamic location practices. I am sure that many of us have sometimes seen an ambulance waiting in a lay-by and wondered what it is doing. It is there deliberately—as part of a system of predicting demand patterns. Extremely successful statistical models are in use, so in Staffordshire ambulances stand by at the best locations in relation to expected demand patterns. Something similar is the case for improved relief levels. Having staff on call so that they can be brought in to meet unexpected peaks in demand has been effective, but is extremely demanding on the staff. There is a danger that they feel that they are on call for 24 hours.
Much the same applies to improved activation times, which require better control room procedures, preparation of crews and ambulance availability. All that cuts vital seconds in those essential fast response times. There must also be improvements in the matching of resources to demand, which means flexible rostering to ensure that the shifts match expected demand levels. It is only sensible to use the staff available most efficiently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North fears that core prioritisation may lead to a two-tier system. We must recognise the great variation in the

171WH
kind of calls that ambulance crews receive in a day. Any system must ensure that the most urgent calls—those when response is clearly critical within eight minutes—receive the first priority. Some calls—those in category C, for example—allow huge scope for NHS Direct to use a second stage of triaging to assess appropriate response levels. I assure my hon. Friend that core prioritisation is not a means by which we intend to create a two-tier system, but simply a means to ensure that the response is appropriate to the need.
We shall have the report on the research in Staffordshire by the end of the month, and it is important that we learn from it. I would like to make a couple of brief remarks about state registration and training. My hon. Friend wanted to know about the board, which I understand met for the first time yesterday. We are delighted that is up and running. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands is right to believe that "Panorama" misrepresented the amount of training involved. Comparisons have been made with America, but gunshots and stabbings, which are common critical injuries in that country, require different kinds of response.
I would like to ensure that we all leave the debate with a recognition that ambulance facilities are part of our emergency service. The development of NHS Direct, ambulance facilities and accident and emergency facilities will provide important services. The failure of the vast majority of ambulance trusts to meet some response targets requires us to consider closely how we deliver the service. A patient needs a speedy response from the right people and to be taken to the right hospital at the right time. Staffordshire is giving us a good lead on how we should develop that.
Similarly, we will ensure that patient care is improved by considering how staff are used while the patient is in transit. We shall introduce state registration for paramedics and ensure that the people who respond to calls are appropriately trained and continue to be trained. We should also recognise what a difficult job those in the ambulance services have—a job in which demand is continually increasing. They make life-and-death decisions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and have had responded to around 3 million calls in the past year. However, there is no room for complacency. We must consider the needs of rural and urban areas, and above all ensure that we respond in time when clinical conditions are the relevant indicators, especially for an eight-minute response time.

Pig Industry
12.30 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on the crisis in the pig industry. This is my debut appearance in this Chamber. Today's debate is especially timely, because it coincides with the National Farmers Union annual conference. Pig farms face unprecedented hard times and a complete lack of sympathy and understanding of the crisis in the countryside from the Government. That was displayed most recently by the Prime Minister this weekend, although he was, perhaps, slightly more sympathetic in his speech at the conference today. I invite the Prime Minister, as part of his tour of the countryside, to visit the Vale of York, meet local pig producers and witness their plight for himself. A glimpse of the reality in North Yorkshire would quickly change his tune.
The British pig industry is the innocent victim of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy regime. Simply removing meat and bonemeal articles from the animal food chain adds a cost of more than £5 per pig. Prices in the United Kingdom are depressed, as the Prime Minister today recognised. We face cheaper imports and a strong pound. The Government have failed to pay agrimonetary compensation for the high pound and the weak euro.
In addition, on 1 January, the UK unilaterally imposed a sow stall-and-tether ban. All other European Union countries, including our main competitors, Denmark and Holland, will face the ban only six years hence, on 1 January 2006. The cost to the UK producer of that one measure alone is estimated to be £220 million. That is unfair, and puts UK producers at a competitive disadvantage, as Dutch, Danish, Belgian, French and German producers are not expected to comply.
As a result, pound for pound and kilo for euro, British pork prices will increase, and the price of continental competitive imports will be reduced. Those disadvantages are aggravated by the increasingly strong pound and the crippling additional costs of implementing the European Union integrated pollution prevention and control directive, which will have a singularly negative impact on the UK pig industry. Early conservative estimates suggest an initial start-up cost of £18,000 a farm, and annual running costs thereafter of £6,000, equating to £1,200 a day, which will add an extra £2.50 to the production of each pig in this country. The annual cost of implementing the integrated pollution prevention and control directive in this country alone is estimated to be £13 million.
A three-pronged attack is the very least that the Government should consider. A one-off Treasury grant should be made to pig producers in order to restructure the pig sector—not to subsidise pig farmers' incomes, which is strictly forbidden under EU competition rules. The Prime Minister invites pig producers to diversify, but how can they afford to do so in the present crisis? They merely want a Treasury grant on a strictly comparable basis to those provided in other EU countries, such as the Belgian national aid provided to restructure the market in the wake of the dioxin scandal.

173WH
The aid scheme that pig farmers envisage would offset the cost of BSE-related measures that have been imposed on the pig industry on public health grounds. There was a general belief, which the Government encouraged, that the Commission received such a package from the Government last year. I received a letter from the European Commission dated 11 November last year, formally notifying me that no such package had been received. A gentleman whom I am sure the Minister knows extremely well, Mr. Legras, the director general for agriculture, wrote:
"The services of the Commission are aware"—
perhaps more aware than the Government—
"of the difficulties confronting the pig sector in the UK and informal contacts have taken place between my staff and the British authorities to discuss what form an aid might take. At the present time, however, we have not received from the UK any formal notification of proposals to grant aid.
In order to be acceptable any aid must of course meet the conditions laid down by the Treaty. In particular, the aid should facilitate the economic development of the sector. Aids which are simply intended to offset trading losses are in principle not acceptable under the Community rules."
There has been some movement today. BBC News Online states that the Prime Minister said in a speech to the National Farmers Union conference this morning that he
"did not rule out the possibility of cash help for the beleaguered pig industry"
and was
"prepared to listen to ideas."
However, he went on to say that
"while investment could help, it had to be tied to long-term change and reform."
Commissioner Franz Fischler, in correspondence with pig farmers nationally, had indicated that such a package would be favourably viewed, provided it did not cause distortion to the market. In his letter of 9 December 1999, he set out the acceptability of state aid being granted to compensate British pig producers for higher production costs for pigmeat resulting from restrictions on disposal of offal. In the past, such aid from the UK to pig farmers was authorised by the Commission under article 87(2)(b) of the treaty, as an exceptional occurrence intended to make good the damage caused by the BSE crisis. If the Government are to reintroduce such aid, they must prove that the losses that are being incurred by UK pig producers are the direct result of an exceptional occurrence recognised by the Commission, and are not due to other factors.
I am dwelling on the matter in some depth because I was a trainee in the Commission's competition directorate, and perhaps more familiar with the terminology than are many hon. Members. In his letter of 9 December, Commissioner Fischler set out an alternative head of aid. He stated that aid to facilitate development of the pig sector must be justified under article 87(3)(c) of the treaty—that is, to help to restructure the industry to meet changed market conditions.
174WH
There seems to be some convergence between the Prime Minister's hopes and aspirations for pig farmers and the requests that pig farmers wish to submit to the Government. I fully accept that aid that is simply intended to offset current trading losses is unacceptable. Given the exceptional circumstances that those in the pig industry have endured for at least the past six months, I make a plea to the Minister—and, through her, to the Prime Minister—to demonstrate the Government's big heart by making a one-off payment to the industry, subject to the European Commission approval that I outlined. That would enable pig farmers to deal with the unprecedented and uncompetitive conditions that they face, satisfy EU criteria and give pig farmers a means of earning their living, now and in future.
Mr. John Swinney: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss McIntosh: I welcome the support of the hon. Gentleman, and that of other hon. Members who are here, but unfortunately he did not advise me or the Minister that he wished to intervene.
Will the Government be big-hearted and brave-hearted enough to show an understanding of the crisis and of the despair in the countryside? That would be very welcome in the Vale of York and elsewhere. Today, the Prime Minister invited farmers to diversify, but they simply do not have the funds to do so.
Today's speech by the Prime Minister suggested that there may be some movement in favour of positive animal welfare-friendly labelling. That was welcome. If pork is imported and processed here, the label should say so. Marking the country of origin of pork would assist consumers in choosing which meat to buy. If it does not meet this country's stringent animal welfare criteria, the label should say so, and consumers should be allowed to decide for themselves. Cheaper pork of inferior quality, which is produced under less humane conditions that do not meet our animal welfare specifications, could be introduced.
Working within the parameters of agenda 2000 and the new objective 2 funding I accept that objective 5b status has gone. The possibilities of rural development funds will apply increasingly in the future. North Yorkshire qualifies for a generous allocation of new objective 2 funding. I hope that all hon. Members can work together to ensure that objective 2 benefits North Yorkshire and other regions that have been badly affected by problems in the pig sector. I hope that consideration will be given to certain aspects of rural development policy, and especially to areas threatened by abandonment. I hope that we make an imaginative application of the limited funds available.
I shall now conclude to allow other hon. Members to speak before the Minister's reply. I urge the Minister to agree that there is a crisis in the countryside, and nowhere more visibly than in the pig sector. I invite the Minister to work closely with the pig industry to agree a one-off grant of assistance with the approval of the European Commission. That is not a novel idea; it was successfully pursued by the Irish Government in June 1998, the Belgian Government in July 1999, and the

175WH
French Government, who submitted a £17 million application this year. Farmers in the Vale of York have been heavily involved in the application to the Government, and I would like to pay tribute to Stewart Houston, who farms at Thornborough in Bedale. He said:
"The industry believes we can put forward a scheme for support which is legal and operable and which Brussels would support."
I therefore urge the Government, and the Minister, to save our pig industry and show their human face in recognising the plight of the countryside in general, and of pig farmers in particular.
12.41 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate on an important subject. She referred to the importance of the industry to her constituency and to her part of the world, of which I am well aware. That is because I have visited the area on a number of occasions, and because of the way in which she and other hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, have raised these issues in recent weeks and months. I am also aware not only of the number of pig farmers in her area but of the related pig processing industries and of the work involved in delivering pigmeat and pork products to our supermarkets.
I share the hon. Lady's concern about the pig industry and I hope that, on some points at least, I can respond in a positive manner. I believe that the Government have done a great deal in recent weeks and months to address concerns in the pig industry, although it is true that some of the ideas that have been put forward are difficult to implement. The hon. Lady and I will be especially aware of the reason for that, as we have both been Members of the European Parliament and know the European Commission and the European system. Some of the constraints in agricultural sectors do not receive high levels of intervention and market support. The pig industry, of course, does not come under such provisions. The hon. Lady also referred to certain significant events, especially the annual conference of the National Farmers Union, in London, and the Prime Minister's speech to the NFU this morning.
The pig sector is in serious difficulties; there is no way of disguising that. It is acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides. Although the industry has had to contend with peaks and troughs on many occasions in the past—the cycle of the pig industry is well known—the current crisis is deeper and we must take certain special factors into account.
Miss McIntosh: As the Minister said, pigmeat is not a supported sector in the European Union. Would it not be appropriate for the Government to look kindly on the provision of one-off aid? Most of the cost to the pig industry has been imposed by the ban on sow stalls and tethers, by the IPPC directive and by the so-called BSE tax.
Ms Quin: In responding to the hon. Lady, I shall mention each specific sector in turn. The Government
176WH
have proposed specific schemes in recent months, notably the agricultural development scheme. Furthermore, in December the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made an announcement about the future direction of agriculture under the rural development regulation.
An important aspect and asset of that development regulation is that it is a way of helping sectors not traditionally supported under the common agricultural policy regime. We welcome the flexibility in the rural development regulation to look at all sectors of agriculture and not only those that have traditionally received a great deal of public support through the common agricultural policy. That point needs to be placed firmly on the record.
UK pig producers contributed to the production increases in Europe in 1996 and 1997. In 1998, our pigmeat production reached a level not achieved for many years. However, when prices started to fall, producers here responded in the way in which they always have, by cutting back on production. That would normally have resulted in shortages of pigmeat, which would in turn have resulted in higher prices. That did not happen for a number of reasons. Production continued to rise in some countries, and, even now, after nearly two years of crisis, production levels in countries such as Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and France have only just started to fall. Consequently, large quantities of pigmeat are available on the market at very low sterling prices. The hon. Lady mentioned the problems for pig producers caused by the high level of sterling and the low level of the euro during the past year.
UK production still attracts a premium, and we are still net exporters of pork. It is important that those calling for disruptive action against legal imports should bear that in mind, as they may not realise that any retaliation would affect many pig producers still exporting pork products.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Can the Minister confirm that the competition from abroad is not subject to the same humane restrictions that are imposed on our pig industry? Will she also confirm that, since those restrictions are imposed by our own Government's requirements, there is a strong case for the industry to be given special support?
Ms Quin: I shall come to those points, which the hon. Member for Vale of York raised in her speech.
Mr. Swinney: I wish to develop the point raised by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Will the Government consider raising consumer awareness of the higher quality of produce created in this country? That would enable shoppers to make a more discerning choice between pigmeat produced here and imports from overseas that may be of inferior quality.
Ms Quin: That is an important point on an issue on which we have been active for some time. I hope, if time permits, to list the initiatives that we have taken in that direction.

177WH
The industry in Britain faces problems that our competitors in the European Union and the rest of the world do not. There is no doubt that the BSE crisis has caused the pig industry difficulties. Ironically, at the beginning of the crisis the pig industry, which the hon. Member for Vale of York described as an innocent victim, was an innocent beneficiary. As we know, for a considerable time there was much lower confidence in beef, and many consumers switched to pork and pigmeat. We are all glad that British consumer confidence in the beef industry has been restored, but that has involved a switch in consumption back to beef, which has added to the pig industry's difficulties.
The BSE crisis also resulted in strict health controls that are not mirrored in other countries. There has been a great deal of discussion with the European Commission to look at ways of assisting the industry to combat the effects of the BSE tax, as the pig industry has started to call it. Indeed, the hon. Lady referred to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech to the NFU this morning about the pig industry.
However, the hon. Lady did not give a fair account of our contacts with the Commission. She quoted a letter that she had seen from the European Commission. Another from Commissioner Fischler to the head of the NFU confirmed our contacts in the autumn. However, even that letter did not convey the whole picture, because I had meetings with the National Pig Association in December, and further contacts took place subsequently between the United Kingdom permanent representative in Brussels and various Commission officials.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Northern Ireland Executive and I met Commissioner Fischler only a week ago, at the time of the Agriculture Council in Brussels, specifically to talk about the pig industry. There have been a number of contacts and we continue to be willing to work with the industry to find ways forward, but the rules cause difficulty. I do not want to be partisan, but in many ways it is a pity that the effects of the BSE crisis on the pig sector were not identified in contacts with the European Commission at the beginning of the crisis in 1996. As a result, it has been much more difficult to argue for aid subsequently, as it was not part of the crisis measures relating to BSE that were introduced at the beginning.
Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Quin: I am sorry, I shall not give way, because I want to refer to some important issues that the hon. Lady raised.
The consumer is a significant factor to take into account. In an intervention the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) referred to the quality and standards of our pigmeat production, and the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) talked about our animal welfare standards. As we are part of the European market and net exporters of pork, we cannot and do not want to take illegal action against imports. However, although the animal welfare regulations, which are important in the pig sector, were introduced with cross-party support in the House—one of the
178WH
colleagues of the hon. Member for Vale of York, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body), introduced them in 1991—if we are to introduce stringent and welcome animal welfare regulations, it is sensible to agree them as soon as possible, at least at European level. If we impose stricter, although welcome, standards on ourselves, given European rules, our producers may find themselves with higher costs than our competitors. I welcome the fact that the laying hens directive is an animal welfare regulation that we are taking via the European route, rather than simply via the national route. It is important to bear that in mind.
We have taken a lot of action on misleading labelling. Labelling is crucial, as the hon. Lady said. I commend the work of our verification officer in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Mike Roper, who has been working with supermarkets, caterers and retailers to tighten the labelling on British pork and has worked for wider recognition of the quality and welfare standards of our own product. I believe that we have made progress in recent months. During my ministerial visits to supermarkets and retailers, I have been conscious that the pork quality mark is being used more often and that consumers are more aware of the issues than they were. However, a lot more can be done.
At the National Farmers Union conference this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State would announce a change in the guidance on country of origin marking to avoid consumers being confused by misleading labels and to give them genuine choice. Consumers have no choice if they are misled by wrong information on labels. Consumer choice is precious and we want to advance it. In his speech this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an example and said that the changes being introduced will mean that Danish pork can no longer be labelled "British" or "Produced in Britain" simply because it had been cured here. We are aware that people believe that it is wrong to label something as having been made in Britain, if only the packaging or the final part of the process is dealt with here.
In response to an intervention, I referred briefly to the agricultural development scheme and the possibilities under the rural development regulation. The agricultural development scheme initially provided £2 million, which has been used by the pig industry to introduce some interesting and worthwhile applications that have been approved. I pay tribute to the work done by Ladies in Pigs—an organisation that has been active in drawing the attention of consumers to our quality standards and providing them with information when they are shopping about labels and the importance of our standards on pork and pigmeat. I am pleased that a successful project under the auspices of the National Pig Association has been approved under the agricultural development scheme. It involves an interesting innovation in training in the pig sector.
Discussions with the industry continue on how to use additional marketing promotional money for the pig sector, particularly in support of a welfare-linked promotion campaign, which is relevant to the points made by the hon. Member for North Tayside in his intervention.

179WH
A number of initiatives show that the Government want a thriving and prosperous pig industry. No Government have a magic wand to make that happen. Pig production is a global industry, but it has
180WH
tremendous marketing opportunities based not just on the price of the product but on quality and the methods used in production. I believe that our industry can put itself into the position to provide that.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will take measures to ensure that the composition of the staff of the proposed Policing Board, Northern Ireland Office Police Division and Office of Police Ombudsman are broadly reflective of the population of Northern Ireland as a whole; [107814]

  (2) when he intends to report on the role of district policing partnerships in Belfast; and what representations he has received on this matter; [107806]

  (3) pursuant to his oral statement of 19 January 2000, Official Report, columns 845–48, when he will appoint the Oversight Commissioner; and if he will set out the person specification and job description for the Oversight Commissioner; [107810]

  (4) who he plans will be responsible for the periodic review of progress towards a routinely unarmed police service in Northern Ireland recommended by the Patten report; how often these reviews will take place; and if their findings will be laid before the House; [107811]

  (5) if he will outline the criteria by which the Policing Board will make a decision on the badge for the proposed Police Service for Northern Ireland; and if he will ensure that proposals be made public; [107809]

  (6) what plans he has to develop a tenure policy for police officers; and if he will ensure that officers involved in security work are included in it. [107813]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State made a statement in the House on 19 January 2000,Official Report, columns 845–48, setting out the Government's response to the Patten Report. The Government are considering a number of detailed issues in relation to the Report and will make its decisions clear in due course.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that the proposed policing board will possess the power to call upon the chief constable to retire in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness, subject to the approval of the secretary of state. [107805]

  Year

  Handgun

  Shotgun

  Air weapon

  Rifle

  Machine gun

  Other

  Imitation/replica firearms

  1989–90

  772

  90

  17

  142

  28

  231

  58

  1990–91

  797

  107

  8

  122

  38

  86

  51

  1991–92

  861

  105

  8

  169

  28

  60

  44

  1992–93

  1,035

  126

  15

  148

  28

  12

  57

  486W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Government accept the recommendations of the Patten report that the Policing Board should, with the Secretary of State's approval, be able to call upon the chief constable to retire in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met members of the Northern Ireland Police Federation to discuss his plans to reform the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [107614]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met with members of the Northern Ireland Police Federation on Tuesday 11 January 2000 to discuss the Patten report.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will establish a public register of interests and associations for the police in Northern Ireland which will include currently serving officers. [107816]

  Mr. Ingram
  No. The Patten report does not recommend a public register.

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105796]

  Mr. Mandelson
  NIO has a well established policy on smoking in the workplace which was first introduced in 1991 and a complete ban on smoking, apart from designated smoking rooms, has been in operation in all NIO premises since 1995. The policy has been supported through participation in the annual no-smoking day campaign and various health awareness events where professional and medical advice and information has been made available to encourage staff who smoke to give it up. The Department also intends to participate in the Quit Year 2000 initiative which has just been launched by the Ulster Cancer Foundation.

  The Department is currently participating in a detailed Health Survey of all its staff which will identify the mental and physical health of our staff including basic data on smoking habits which will be used to plan future employee well-being activity.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many crimes were committed in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years in which legally-held(a) shotguns, (b).22 rifles, (c).22 handguns, (d) fullbore handguns and (e) fullbore rifles were used by (i) their legal owners and (ii) others. [106065]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable has advised me that the information about the ownership of the firearms used in criminal activity is not readily available and obtaining it would incur disproportionate cost. The table, however, shows the number of offences involving the use of firearms, and the type of firearm used over the last 10 years.
  487W

  Year

  Handgun

  Shotgun

  Air weapon

  Rifle

  Machine gun

  Other

  Imitation/replica firearms

  1993–94

  905

  86

  10

  166

  39

  31

  67

  1994–95

  570

  80

  14

  73

  41

  34

  53

  1995–96

  438

  60

  28

  11

  4

  7

  57

  1996–97

  475

  92

  39

  23

  6

  9

  50

  1997–98

  610

  72

  65

  17

  10

  35

  56

  1998–991 (old rules)

  506

  87

  69

  23

  2

  23

  45

  1998–991 (new rules)

  510

  92

  211

  23

  2

  44

  47

  1 On 1 April 1998 the Home Office introduced a new counting system under which crime is recorded. The new rules figures can not be directly compared to previous years.

  Intelligence Activity
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he had to draw up a code of practice on covert law enforcement techniques and other intelligence activity overseen by a complaints tribunal; [107804]

  (2) what plans he has to appoint a covert policing commissioner to regulate the activities of Special Branch and other intelligence activity. [107807]

  Mr. Ingram
  The recommendations about covert law enforcement made by the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland will be implemented by forthcoming legislation. The legislation will require the publication of Codes of Practice on covert law enforcement techniques which will apply on a UK-wide basis.

  Union Flag
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review the existing practice on the display of the Union Flag from(a) police premises and (b) other public buildings. [107817]

  Schools given specialist status since May 1997

  School

  Parliamentary constituency

  Arts Colleges

  Bishopshalt School

  Uxbridge

  Blatchington Mill School and Sixth Form College

  Hove

  Brentwood Ursuline Convent School

  Brentwood and Ongar

  Bridgewater County High School

  Warrington South

  Bridgewater Hall School

  North East Milton Keynes

  Castle Hills Community School

  Gainsborough

  Charles Edward Brooke High School

  Vauxhall

  Chestnut Grove School

  Tooting

  Churchfields School

  South Swindon

  Cotham Grammar School

  Bristol West

  Egerton Park High School

  Denton and Reddish

  Egglescliffe School

  Stockton South

  English Martyrs School and Sixth Form College

  Hartlepool

  Estover Community College1

  Plymouth Devonport

  Lipson Community College1

  Plymouth Sutton

  Fox Hollies School1

  Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath

  Queensbridge School1

  Birmingham Selly Oak

  Fred Longworth High School

  Worsley

  Greenfield Comprehensive School

  Sedgefield

  Greenlands High School

  Blackpool North and Fleetwood

  488W
  Mr. Ingram
  Regarding the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I refer him to the answer I gave him earlier today on questions regarding this subject. On the second part, I will not be reviewing the flying of flags on public buildings in Northern Ireland under my authority. Other public buildings in Northern Ireland, following devolution on 2 December 1999, now fall within the responsibility of the devolved administration.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the value of additional private sector money levered in for educational use through the specialist school regime since May 1997. [106994]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The value of additional private sector money raised through the Specialist Schools programme since May 1997 is approximately £25,000,000.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools given specialist status since May 1997, and the parliamentary constituencies in which they are located. [106995]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is provided in the following table.
  489W

  Schools given specialist status since May 1997

  School

  Parliamentary constituency

  Guthlaxton College

  Harborough

  Heathfield Community School

  Taunton

  Icknield High School

  Luton North

  Intake High School

  Leeds West

  John Masefield High School

  Leominster

  Kidbrooke School1

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  Thomas Tallis School1

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  Kings School, The

  Wolverhampton South West

  Lindsey School, The

  Cleethorpes

  Lord Lawson of Beamish School

  Blaydon

  Newall Green High School

  Wythenshawe and Sale East

  North Kesteven School

  Sleaford and North Hykeham

  North Leamington School

  Warwick and Leamington

  Rawlins Community College

  Loughborough

  Sharnbrook Upper School and Community College

  North East Bedfordshire

  Sir William Ramsey School

  Chesham and Amersham

  Somervale School

  Wansdyke

  South Axholme School

  Brigg and Goole

  Springwood High School

  North West Norfolk

  St. John Fisher Catholic High School

  Harrogate and Knaresborough

  St. Laurence School

  Westbury

  St. Marylebone School (The)

  Cities of London and Westminster

  St. Paul's Way Community School

  Poplar and Canning Town

  St. Peter's School

  Bournemouth East

  Thomas Tallis School

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  Thornden School

  Romsey

  Wheatley Park School

  Henley

  Language Colleges

  Ashcombe School

  Mole Valley

  Clevedon Community School

  Woodspring

  Colfox School

  West Dorset

  Didcot Girls' High School

  Wantage

  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School

  Islington South and Finsbury

  FitzWimarc School, The

  Rayleigh

  Harwich School, The

  Harwich

  Haydon School

  Ruislip—Northwood

  Hele's School

  South West Devon

  Highcliffe School

  Christchurch

  Hockerill Anglo European School

  Hertford and Stortford

  Holt School, The

  Wokingham

  Holy Family RC School, The

  Sunderland South

  Hummersknott School

  Darlington

  Ian Ramsey CE School

  Stockton South

  Imberhorne School

  Mid Sussex

  Impington Village College

  South East Cambridgeshire

  Judgemeadow Community College

  Leicester East

  King Edward VII School

  Sheffield Hallam

  Kingsthorpe Upper School

  Northampton North

  Little Lever School

  Bolton South East

  Lord Grey School

  Milton Keynes South West

  Montsaye School

  Kettering

  Mountbatten School, The1

  Romsey

  Romsey School, The1

  Romsey

  Northgate High School

  Ipswich

  Notre Dame High School

  Norwich South

  Oulder Hill Community School

  Rochdale

  Our Lady's Convent High School

  Hackney North and Stoke Newington

  Park View Community School

  North Durham

  Penrice School

  Truro and St. Austell

  Prince Henry's Grammar School

  Leeds North West

  Ryton Comprehensive School

  Blaydon

  Saint George's CofE School

  Gravesham

  Shireland High School

  Warley

  Sir Thomas Rich's School

  Gloucester

  St. Bede's RC Comprehensive School

  North West Durham

  St. Clement Danes School

  Chesham and Amersham

  St. Mary's RC High School

  Chesterfield

  St. Wilfrid's RC High School and VI Form College

  Hemsworth

  490W 491W

  Schools given specialist status since May 1997

  School

  Parliamentary constituency

  Tile Hill Wood School

  Coventry North West

  Trinity School

  Carlisle

  Weald of Kent Grammar School

  Tonbridge and Malling

  Wirrall Grammar School for Girls

  Wirral South

  Sports Colleges

  Abraham Guest High School

  Makerfield

  Angley School

  Maidstone and The Weald

  Angmering School

  Arundel and the South Downs

  Arrow Vale High School

  Redditch

  Ashton on Mersey School

  Altrincham and Sale West

  Benfield School

  Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend

  Biddick School

  Gateshead East and Washington West

  Bishop Challoner RC School

  Birmingham Selly Oak

  Boston Spa Comprehensive School

  Elmet

  Brookfield High School

  Knowsley North and Sefton East

  Callington School

  South East Cornwall

  Chesterfield High School

  Crosby

  Colne School

  North Essex

  Davenant Foundation School

  Epping Forest

  Deanes School (The)

  Castle Point

  Droitwich Spa School

  Mid Worcestershire

  Durham Gilesgate

  City of Durham

  Ernest Bevin School

  Tooting

  Failsworth School

  Ashton under Lyne

  Featherstone High School

  Ealing Southall

  Hailsham Community College

  Wealden

  Haydon Bridge High School

  Hexham

  Ivybridge Community College

  South West Devon

  King Alfred's School

  Wantage

  King Edward VII High School

  North West Norfolk

  Kingdown Community School

  Westbury

  Lancaster School

  Leicester South

  Langdon School

  East Ham

  Leon School

  Milton Keynes South West

  Manor School (The)

  Mansfield

  Newsome High School

  Huddersfield

  Northfield School

  Stockton North

  Oldfield School

  Bath

  Park House School

  Newbury

  Penryn Community School

  Falmouth and Camborne

  Poltair Community School

  Truro and St. Austell

  Priory School

  Barnsley Central

  Rawmarch Comprehensive School

  Wentworth

  Roade School

  Northampton South

  Shaftesbury School

  North Dorset

  Southfields Community College

  Putney

  St. Benedict's Catholic High School

  Cheltenham

  St. Edmund's Girls' School

  Salisbury

  St. Joseph's RC High School

  Bolton West

  St. Mary's Comprehensive School

  Pudsey

  Thorpe St. Andrew School

  Norwich North

  Walford High School

  Ealing North

  Westcroft Special School

  Wolverhampton North East

  Whickham Comprehensive School

  Blaydon

  Whitefield School

  Finchley and Golders Green

  William Parker School

  Hastings and Rye

  Wood Green High School

  West Bromwich West

  Write Robinson School

  Manchester Gorton

  Wye Valley School (The)

  Beaconsfield

  Technology Colleges

  Abbey Hill School1

  Stockton North

  Beaumont Hill School1

  Darlington

  Ailwyn Community School1

  North West Cambridgeshire

  Ramsey Abbey School1

  North West Cambridgeshire

  Alcester High School

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Allertonshire School1

  Richmond (Yorks)

  Northallerton College1

  Richmond (Yorks)

  492W 493W

  Schools given specialist status since May 1997

  School

  Parliamentary constituency

  Ashby Grammar School

  North West Leicestershire

  Ashfield School

  Ashfield

  Aston Manor School1

  Birmingham Ladywood

  Heartlands High Secondary School1

  Birmingham Ladywood

  Babington Community College

  Leicester West

  Balcarras School

  Cheltenham

  Bedlingtonshire Community High School

  Wansbeck

  Benjamin Britten High School

  Waveney

  Beverley High School

  Beverley and Holderness

  Bicester Community College

  Banbury

  Birchwood High School

  Hertford and Stortford

  Bishop Hereford's Bluecoat School

  Hereford

  Bishop Luffa School

  Chichester

  Brine Leas County High School

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Broughton Hall High School

  Liverpool Wavertree

  Bury St. Edmunds County Upper School

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Castleford High School

  Pontefract Castleford

  Chase High School, The

  West Worcestershire

  Clapton School for Girls

  Hackney North and Stoke Newington

  Cleeve School

  Tewkesbury

  Clough Hall Technology School

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Cockshut Hill School

  Birmingham Yardley

  Court Fields Community School

  Taunton

  Crispin School

  Wells

  Crosshill Special School1

  Blackburn

  Queen's Park High School1

  Blackburn

  Davison CoE High School

  East Worthing and Shoreham

  Dene Magna Community School

  Forest of Dean

  Dorcan Comprehensive School

  North Swindon

  Downend Comprehensive School

  Kingswood

  Duchess's Community High School, The

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  Edenham High School

  Croydon Central

  Fakenham High School and College

  North Norfolk

  Foxhills School

  Scunthorpe

  George Farmer School, The

  South Holland and the Deepings

  Gordano School

  Woodspring

  Grangefield School

  Stockton South

  Great Cornard Upper School

  South Suffolk

  Great Yarmouth High School

  Great Yarmouth

  Guilsborough School

  Kettering

  Haggerston School

  Hackney South and Shoreditch

  Hampstead School

  Hampstead and Highgate

  Hartsdown School

  North Thanet

  Hayesfield School

  Bath

  Hazelwick School

  Crawley

  Heaton Manor School

  Newcastle upon Tyne East

  Henbury High School

  Macclesfield

  Hereford School, The 1

  Great Grimsby

  Western School1

  Great Grimsby

  Highams Park School

  Chingford and Woodford Green

  John F. Kennedy RC School

  Hemel Hempstead

  Joseph Leckie School

  Walsall South

  Joseph Rowntree School

  Vale of York

  King Edward VII Upper School

  Rutland and Melton

  King James's School

  Harrogate and Knaresborough

  Kirk Hallam Community Technology College

  Erewash

  Ladymead Community School

  Taunton

  Launceston College

  North Cornwall

  Longbenton Community College

  North Tyneside

  Lutterworth Grammar School

  Blaby

  Lytham St. Annes School

  Fylde

  Manor College of Technology

  Hartlepool

  Millom School

  Copeland

  Moor End Technology College

  Colne Valley

  Norton Hill School

  Wansdyke

  494W 495W

  Schools given specialist status since May 1997

  School

  Parliamentary constituency

  Parkside Comprehensive School1

  Plymouth Devonport

  Tamarside Community College1

  Plymouth Devonport

  Parliament Hill School

  Hampstead and Highgate

  Parmiter's School

  Watford

  Plessington Catholic High School

  Birkenhead

  Priory Community School A Technology College

  Weston-super-Mare

  Queen Elizabeth's Community College

  Tiverton and Honiton

  Queensmead School

  Ruislip-Northwood

  Rainford High School

  St. Helens North

  Reepham High School

  Mid Norfolk

  Ribblesdale County High School

  Ribble Valley

  Richard Lander School

  Truro and St. Austell

  Ridings High School

  Northavon

  Ripon College

  Skipton and Ripon

  Rivington and Blackrod High School

  Chorley

  Robert Manning School, The

  Grantham and Stamford

  Robert Smyth School

  Harborough

  Shoeburyness Community High School

  Rochford and Southend East

  South Bromsgrove High School

  Bromsgrove

  Southam School

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Southfield Technology College

  Workington

  Southlands High School

  Chorley

  Spennymoor School1

  Bishop Auckland

  Tudhoe Grange Comprehensive1

  Bishop Auckland

  Speedwell School

  Kingswood

  Sponne School

  Daventry

  St. Ambrose Barlow RC High School

  Eccles

  St. Augustine's Catholic College

  Westbury

  St. Birinus School

  Wantage

  St. John's School and Community College

  Devizes

  St. Leonard's RC Comprehensive School

  City of Durham

  St. Marks's Catholic School

  Brentford and Isleworth

  St. Matthews RC High School

  Manchester Blackley

  St. Anthony's Girls' School

  Sunderland South

  Stanley School

  North Durham

  Steyning Grammar School

  Arundel and South Downs

  Tewkesbury School

  Tewkesbury

  Thomas Alleyne's School

  Burton

  Trinity School, The

  Warwick and Leamington

  Varndean School

  Brighton Pavilion

  Wade Deacon High School

  Halton

  Walker School

  Newcastle upon Tyne East

  Warwick School, The

  Reigate

  Washington School

  Houghton and Washington East

  Washwood Heath School

  Birmingham Hodge Hill

  Weald School, The

  Horsham

  West Craven High School

  Pendle

  Westfield School

  South Dorset

  Westleigh High School

  Leigh

  Whitstone Community School

  Wells

  Winifred Holtby School

  Kingston upon Hull East

  Woodham Comprehensive School

  Sedgefield

  Woolwich Polytechnic Boys School

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  Wyvern Community School, The

  Eastleigh

  1 Joint designations

  Disability Rights Commission for Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultation took place between himself and the National Assembly for Wales on the appointment of the Disability Rights Commission for Wales. [107015]

  Ms Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and his officials have been consulted at every stage of the recruitment process 496W
  to appoint a Commissioner with special knowledge of Wales to the Disability Rights Commission.

  Summer Camps
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement, including the cost, on his proposal that all 16-year-olds should attend summer camps. [107495]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 389W.
  497W

  Science Teachers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many recruits for the teaching of(a) Physics, (b) Chemistry and (c) Biology in secondary schools were recruited into initial teacher training courses in each of the last five years. [107176]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There are no national data available for secondary initial teacher training courses in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Data are available for secondary initial teacher training Science courses. Recruitment to Science for England over the last five years is given in the table.

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  2,794

  1996–97

  2,937

  1997–98

  2,789

  1998–99

  2,279

  1999–2000

  2,353

  Source:

  TTA Survey of ITT Providers

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Physics teacher trainees he expects to be in his target figure for recruitment into initial teacher training courses for Science teaching in secondary schools in(a) 2000–01 (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [107180]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There are no secondary initial teacher training targets for Physics. Physics is included in the secondary target for Science. The DfEE secondary initial teacher training target for Science in England for 2000–01 is 2,690. Indicative targets for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are also 2,690.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the impact on schools' budgets of the use by parents of mobile phone numbers as a point of contact for school staff. [107610]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have made no such estimate. It is for individual schools to determine, and agree with parents, the most cost-effective way of contacting parents in particular circumstances.

  School Transport
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statutory requirement applies to the provision of transport for children to their nearest state school; and what obligation there is for local education authorities to fund such transport(a) from the nearest bus stop to the school and (b) from the child's home to the bus stop. [107568]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local Education Authorities must provide free transport for a pupil of compulsory school age who attends his or her nearest suitable school, if it is beyond statutory walking distance from the child's home. These distances are two miles for pupils aged under eight, and three miles for those aged eight and over. If these criteria are not met, a Local Education Authority must still decide whether free transport is necessary, taking 498W
  account of a pupil's age, the possible routes he or she might take to school, and a parent's wish for denominational education where the parent adheres to the denomination of the school. Free transport may be provided from the child's home or from a bus stop convenient to the pupil's home.

  Teachers' Review Body
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the report of the School Teachers' Review Body. [108105]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The 2000 report of the School Teachers' Review Body has been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. This is an historic pay round, centred on modernising the pay system for the entire teaching profession. I am grateful to the Chair and members of the Review Body for their important work.

  I asked the School Teachers' Review Body to ensure that, in making its recommendations, six key considerations were taken into account:
  the strategy for modernising the teaching profession set out in the Green Paper "Teachers: meeting the challenge of change" (this strategy was similarly set out in the Green Paper "The BEST for Teaching and Learning in Wales);
  the need to minimise additional burden on head teachers and line managers, while ensuring effective implementation of the new arrangements to reward excellence in schools;
  specific items of non-pay expenditure for delivering a high quality education service should not be diverted to fund a pay settlement;
  firm three year plans for my Department's Expenditure Limit and for all local authorities set by the Comprehensive Spending Review, from which we must fund all service improvements and pay settlements, and similar constraints in Wales;
  the Government's inflation target, which requires responsibility in all pay settlements;
  the need for schools to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient teachers, deputy headteachers and headteachers of the required quality.

  I have considered the report carefully against these considerations and am satisfied that they are met. I have decided to accept the Review Body's main recommendations. They are in line with the Government's prudent and disciplined approach to public spending and its commitment to deliver high quality public services and low inflation.

  My proposals, which include minor modifications of the STRB recommendations where indicated, are as follows:

  General Pay Increase
  with effect from 1 April 2000 the values of the pay spines for qualified classroom teachers, Advanced Skills Teachers, heads and deputies, and the pay scale for unqualified teachers, should be increased by 3.3 per cent;
  also with effect from 1 April 2000, London allowances other than the inner London Supplement should be increased by 3.3 per cent.
  499W
  Pay reform: classroom teachers
  The existing pay spine will be replaced by a new pay spine and an upper pay range:

  Pay spine
  the pay spine will comprise nine full salary points (half points are to be abolished;
  teachers with a second class honours degree or better should be entitled to one point for qualifications, and the relevant body should have the discretion to award additional points on the pay spine for relevant experience outside teaching;
  teachers should receive a point on the pay spine for each year of service subject to the discretion of the relevant body to discount unsatisfactory service on the same basis as applies under the existing pay system;
  a teacher whose performance is exceptionally good in a particular year should, at the discretion of the relevant body, be awarded two points on the pay spine for that year of service;
  points awarded on the pay spine should become a permanent entitlement for the teacher concerned;

  Upper pay range
  the upper pay range will comprise five salary points;
  teachers at the top of the pay spine who apply to cross the threshold to the new upper pay range and are assessed as meeting national performance standards being developed by the Government will be placed on the first point of that range, which will be £2,000 above point nine on the pay spine;
  further progression on the upper pay range will be at the discretion of the relevant body to recognise substantial and sustained performance and contribution to the school as a teacher. Points should not be awarded annually other than in exceptional circumstances, and normally at least two years should elapse between crossing the threshold and being awarded the next point above the threshold uplift. I propose that the first such points should be available in September 2002;
  once awarded, the first point on the upper pay range will be a consolidated addition to pay and transferable if the teacher moves to another school (the STRB will consider the status of subsequent pay points in their next report);

  Management allowances
  the existing system of responsibility points will be replaced by a range of four management allowances;
  management allowances should be awarded at the discretion of the relevant body to teachers who undertake clearly defined and significant management tasks additional to their normal duties as classroom teachers. I will consult further on the way such management allowances should be defined in the light of information about the way responsibility points are used at present;
  management allowances may be awarded while a teacher is holding a particular post or on a short-term basis at the discretion of the relevant body;

  Recruitment and retention allowances:
  the existing system of recruitment and retention points will be replaced by a range of three recruitment and retention allowances;
  the first or second allowance should be awarded at the discretion of the relevant body to teachers in schools generally; a third allowance could additionally be used in inner London, and in schools in special measures, to help ease particular recruitment and retention problems;
  the STRB has recommended that as an alternative to using recruitment and retention allowances as a normal salary enhancement in areas covered by the DfEE's "Excellence in Cities" initiative, the relevant body should also have discretion to use an annual allowance wholly or in part in the form of a lump sum payment subject to satisfactory completion of service in the year concerned. Where lump sums are paid they will not be covered by the normal presumption that teachers' pay and allowances are consolidated and pensionable. I have accepted this recommendation with the modification that the
  500W
  recommended discretion should be available for use by all relevant bodies rather than just those in Excellence in Cities areas.

  Special educational needs
  the existing system of special needs points will be replaced by two levels of allowance which should be awarded on the same basis as the existing points.

  The reformed pay structure for qualified classroom teachers should be introduced on the following basis:
  the new structure will be introduced with effect from 1 September 2000, from which date the existing system should cease to exist;
  appropriate assimilation arrangements will be drawn up in consultation with interested parties, based on the principle that no teacher should be worse off unless there has been a change in relevant circumstances;
  discretionary points and the mandatory special needs point awarded under the existing system should normally be expected to be converted into an appropriate allowance under the new system, but half points and excellence points should be protected on an individual basis; and
  discretionary points and the mandatory special needs point awarded under the existing system should not be offset against the threshold uplift.

  Advanced Skills Teachers
  The separate pay spine for Advanced Skills Teachers should be retained and their possible inclusion in strategic school leadership arrangements should be at the discretion of the governing body.

  Leadership Group
  The relevant body, having determined the pay of the head, must determine the pay of other leadership group members with effect from 1 September 2000 on the following basis:
  the relevant body must determine an appropriate five point individual salary range on the leadership pay spine for each member of the group other than the head;
  salary ranges must be positioned between the individual school range adopted for the head and the salary level of teachers immediately below the leadership group. Assimilation must ensure that no one is worse off as a result of the introduction of the new arrangements; and
  subsequent movement within the individual salary range must reflect performance as for heads under the arrangements introduced with effect from 1 September 1999.
  The maxima for the range of points for each of the eight school groups for heads will be raised by two points, and the top of the pay spine extended accordingly, with effect from 1 September 2000.
  To provide relevant bodies with additional flexibility for the initial setting of pay ranges for leadership group members, the existing rule which restricts the circumstances under which a head's individual school range can be reopened must be waived temporarily.
  Acceptance of these recommendations is subject to two modifications: first, senior teachers and deputies joining the leadership group should normally assimilate to the nearest point above their existing salary, except where the relevant body judges a higher point is appropriate to ensure that the pay ranges at the school properly reflect the relative responsibilities of jobholders; and secondly, that at the point of assimilation deputies should be on a higher point on the leadership spine than senior teachers in the same school who are not deputies.
  I propose to consult on the basis that leadership group members who are not heads should have the same professional duties as deputy heads, save that those who are senior teachers rather than deputies should not be required to undertake the professional duties of the head in the head's absence.

  Special School Heads
  With effect from 1 September 2000, the existing interim basis on which special schools are assigned to a school group for the purposes of determining the pay of the head will be replaced

  501W
  by a new formula which links job weight with pupil numbers and teaching and non-teaching staff numbers. Once the school is assigned to a group, the pay arrangements for the head should be the same as for the head of mainstream schools. The group for hospital schools will be determined on an individual basis, but the pay arrangements must otherwise be the same as for schools generally.

  School Performance Award scheme
  Governing bodies of schools in receipt of an award under the proposed School Performance Award scheme will be able to distribute some or all of it on the advice of the head in the form of non-consolidated, non-pensionable bonuses to staff.

  Fast Track Teachers
  The STRB has recommended that teachers on proposed fast-track programmes should have an additional spine point up to the proposed performance threshold, and that such teachers should not be subject to the working time limits that apply to classroom teachers generally. I propose to accept this STRB recommendation with the modification that the additional spine point should be available only to newly qualified teachers who join the fast-track. Other serving teachers below the threshold who join the fast track will benefit from double jumping of experience points so should receive an extra point anyway.

  Existing Pay Allowances and Safeguarding

  Out of school learning
  The existing scope for relevant bodies to make discretionary payments to classroom teachers who participate in out-of-school activities will be maintained but heads, deputies, other leadership group teachers, Advanced Skills Teachers and fast-track teachers will not be eligible for such payments.

  In-service training
  The existing scope for relevant bodies to make discretionary payments to teachers and deputy heads who undertake in-service training will be maintained and cover leadership group teachers other than the head but not fast-track teachers.

  Acting duties
  The existing discretionary scope for relevant bodies to pay acting allowances to classroom teachers who are assigned and carry out the duties of a head or deputy, but who have not been appointed as acting heads or deputies, will be maintained and cover teachers who are assigned and carry out the duties of other leadership group members.

  Social Priority Allowance and Inner London Supplement
  The existing basis for safeguarding residual entitlements to the SPA and ILS will be maintained.

  1993 pay restructuring
  I will take account of residual entitlements arising from the 1993 restructuring of teachers' pay when consulting interested parties on the appropriate basis for assimilation to the proposed new pay structure from 1 September 2000.

  General safeguarding
  I will also consult interested parties about the continued basis for general safeguarding with reference back to the STRB as appropriate.

  Financial implications

  The full cost of the settlement in 2000–01 will arise from the 3.3 per cent. increase in teachers' pay spines and allowances from 1 April 2000, and from the reforms of the qualified teachers' pay system and other changes consequent on previous restructuring which will come into effect from 1 September 2000. The cost of the April increase in 2000–01 will be £420 million in England and Wales. This will be affordable within the resources available to local authorities. In England, Education Standard Spending will rise by £1,103 million (5.4 per cent.) in 2000–01 compared with 1999–2000. Local authorities in England will also benefit in 2000–01 from increased spending power of £90 million resulting
  502W
  from rescheduling of increased employers' contributions to teachers' pensions, and a general increase in Revenue Support Grant of £35 million. In addition to the allocation through the Revenue Support Grant, I have confirmed today that I have identified an additional £50 million from my Department's budget which will be available to schools in England, paid as a Special Grant to ensure that there are additional resources available to meet the challenging standards agenda and the new basic pay increase.

  In Wales, following decisions by the National Assembly, local authorities will be able to increase spending on education by £75 million in 2000–01, compared with 1999–2000.

  Additional specific funding will support the costs of the reform of the qualified teachers' pay system from September 2000. This will take the form of a new Special Grant in England and specific extra allocations to local authorities in Wales.

  In the initial years of the new pay system, the Government will make additional funds available in England to support extra costs incurred by schools as follows:
  a Special Grant, established under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which will fund fully the threshold salary uplift of £2,000 payable from September 2000 for every full-time-equivalent teacher moving to the upper pay range in the current year. There will be no quota on threshold successes. All eligible teachers who apply and are assessed as meeting the national standards will move to the upper pay range. This grant will operate until at least March 2002;
  a one-off payment of £2,000 from the same Special Grant for every full-time-equivalent classroom teacher appointed directly to the new leadership group in academic year 2000–01. This payment will help support the additional salary costs of teachers joining the leadership group; it will be for schools to decide on a case-by-case basis what pay point on the leadership pay spine would be appropriate taking into account the nature of the post. These payments will be available for academic year 2000–01 only. Thereafter, the additional resources will be included in the local authority funding system and schools' delegated budgets in the normal way.

  In addition, the Government will in England make a specified amount of extra resource available for the same period of time as the threshold grant to support the costs to schools of high-performing heads, deputies and Advanced Skills Teachers progressing up their individual pay ranges from September 2000. This will help ensure that excellent achievement among these teachers is recognised and rewarded more consistently—an issue to which the Review Body has drawn attention in paragraph 147 of the current report. The DfEE will consult stakeholders on the operation of this funding, including the most appropriate mechanism for distributing these funds.

  In Wales, funding for the pay consequences of teachers' pay restructuring will be made as additional increases to local authorities to enable them to meet the costs of the various elements. The National Assembly is providing an additional £14.5 million in 2000–01, bringing the overall increase in local authorities' spending power in 2000–01 to £91 million. The National Assembly has been consulting on the arrangements for distribution of those additional amounts.
  503W
  Taking account of this funding, the additional costs arising within Education Standard Spending from 1 September 2000 are estimated as £7.5 million in respect of the assimilation of classroom teachers to the new pay system and of restructuring the pay of special school heads. Other assimilation costs may arise depending on local decisions by schools; the Review Body is therefore unable to estimate the overall level of such costs.

  Next Steps

  I am grateful to the Review Body for recommending a general increase at a level which is fair and which can be implemented without staging. I hope teachers will welcome the fact that they will receive their pay increase in full on 1 April this year. I will now initiate consultation with the teacher associations, the employer organisations and other interested parties, as required under section 2(1) of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991, before I make provision by order for teachers' pay and conditions in 2000–01.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to take on further consultants and service providers for intervention work in local education authorities. [108317]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We will shortly be advertising for organisations interested in providing consultancy support and delivering education services in the event of intervention in local education authorities. This will include extending the remit of the work undertaken by consultants to provide a wide range of general management consultancy and advice. Advertisements will appear in the national press and specialist press from 2 February.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the percentage of children with moderate learning difficulties who are fully included in education in mainstream schools in each local education authority in England; and if he will make a statement. [107672]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information by specific types of learning difficulty is not collected centrally.

  However, in January 1999, returns of the Annual Schools' Census showed that, in England, 59 per cent. of all pupils with statements of SEN were being educated in mainstream schools.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the inclusion of children with moderate learning difficulties in mainstream schools. [107671]

  Jacqui Smith
  Promoting the inclusion of children with learning difficulties within mainstream schools, where parents want it and appropriate support can be provided, is a cornerstone of the Government's special educational needs strategy. The education of children with special needs is a key challenge for the nation, and critical to the creation of a fully inclusive society. There are strong educational, as well as social and moral, grounds for educating pupils with special needs or disabilities with their peers.
  504W
  The SEN/Disability Rights Bill—which will be introduced later this session—will strengthen the right to a mainstream place for pupils with special needs. Where parents want a mainstream setting for their child our policy is to try to provide it. Equally, when parents want a specialist setting for their child it is important that their wishes are respected. Our approach has been practical, not dogmatic. We are advocating inclusion by choice and have underlined that there remains a continuing and vital role for special schools. The key objective must be to safeguard the interests of all children and to ensure that they achieve to their full potential.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of those who leave the unemployment pool based on the claimant count reapply for benefit within 12 months of securing employment by region. [107229]

  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. Dafydd Wigley, dated 1 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to answer your parliamentary question about the proportion of those leaving the claimant and finding work who rejoin within 12 months. Following are estimates based on the 5% sample cohort of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance.
  Of those leaving the claimant count during 1998 and known to have found work as the reason for ceasing their claim, the proportions of these who started another claim within 12 months of ceasing their original claim, were as follows.

  Government Office Region

  Percentage

  North East

  45

  North West

  38

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  42

  East Midlands

  37

  West Midlands

  35

  Eastern

  35

  London

  28

  South East

  33

  South West

  36

  Wales

  40

  Scotland

  43

  Northern Ireland

  31

  United Kingdom

  37

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hunting
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which members of the inquiry team chaired by Lord Burns investigating hunting have been members of a pro-field sports organisation; [106954]

  (2) which of the members of the inquiry team into hunting, chaired by Lord Burns, have made a (a) financial and (b) in kind contribution to a pro-field sports organisation (i) event and (ii) hunt; [106955]
  505W
  (3) which members of the inquiry team chaired by Lord Burns benefited (a) from hospitality given by a pro-field sports organisation, (b) from income from a pro-field sports organisations either as (i) an employee consultant and (ii) a paid advocate and (c) from other financial benefits from such organisations before they were appointed to the inquiry; [106958]

  (4) which members of the inquiry team chaired by Lord Burns into hunting have (a) presided over, (b) been commissioned by and (c) worked for an organisation with affiliation to a (i) pro-field sports organisation and (ii) hunt; [106956]

  (5) which of the members of the inquiry team chaired by Lord Burns into hunting have (a) taken part in and (b) attended a hunt as a subscribing member, supporter or follower; and when and where they did so. [106957]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: Inquiries with the Secretariat of the inquiry informs me that none of the members of the inquiry team has made a financial or in-kind contribution to a pro-field sports organisation, event or hunt. Nor have any of the inquiry team been members of a pro-field sports organisation.

  With one exception, none of the members of the inquiry team has attended a hunt in any capacity. As part of research into hunting Professor Winter was present to observe a hunt on two occasions in 1991–92. The published research, "Economic and Social Aspects of Deer Hunting on Exmoor and the Quantocks", was funded by the National Trust. As a child, Professor Winter was taken to hunts on about half a dozen occasions.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) of 9 December 1999, Official Report, column 617W, announcing the membership of the inquiry, gave details of Dr. Edwards' and Professor Michael Winter's association with the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester. Professor Marsh is a Governor of the College. None of them has had any connection with the beagle pack, which is owned and managed by a Trust (separate from the College) and available to students through a College Student Union Club.

  In 1993, the Royal Agricultural College received a small grant from the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports to carry out research into the implications of pheasant shooting.

  Local Authority

  Number of wards

  Application to pilot

  Amber Valley BC

  Whole authority

  1. Electronic voting

  Whole authority

  2. Extend entitlement to postal voting

  Birmingham MBC

  Whole authority

  Early voting

  Blackburn with Darwen BC

  Whole authority

  Early voting

  Blackpool BC

  Whole authority

  Early voting

  Bolton MBC

  3 wards

  1. All postal voting

  2. Weekend voting

  Broxbourne BC

  12 wards

  Electronic counting

  Bury MBC

  1 ward

  1. Electronic voting

  Whole authority

  2. Early voting

  Chester CC

  Whole authority

  Early voting

  Coventry CC

  Whole authority

  Early voting

  Doncaster MBC

  1 ward

  All postal voting

  506W
  Professor Sir John Marsh was Director of the Centre for Agricultural Strategy, which, like the Royal Agricultural College, attended meetings of the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports.

  Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior was commissioned by the British Field Sports Society to carry out an evaluation of the report on deer hunting, "The Behavioural and Physiological Effects of Culling Red Deer", by Professor Patrick Bateson, together with other evidence. Lord Soulsby received expenses, but no payment, for this work.

  The Secretariat informs me that Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, Professor Sir John Marsh and Professor Winter received refreshments when attending meetings organised by the Countryside Alliance and, in Professor Marsh's and Professor Winter's case, by the Standing Conference on Countryside Sports. We are informed that neither they nor the other members of the Inquiry team have received any income or other financial benefits from any pro-hunt organisation.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is satisfied that the Committee of Inquiry will provide an objective view on the issues before the Committee.

  Local Election Pilot Schemes
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what applications he has received from local authorities wanting to run pilot schemes at local elections in May. [108275]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We hope that the Representation of the People Bill will receive Royal Assent in time to allow the first pilot schemes of innovative electoral procedures to be run at local elections in May.

  Clause 10(11) of the Bill allows for applications to be submitted before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

  44 local authorities have submitted applications to run 64 pilot schemes.

  Of these, 21 involve early voting, 14 involve all postal ballots, eight involve electronic voting or counting, seven involve changes to the absent vote arrangements, six involve weekend voting, four involve a mobile ballot box, two involve an extension to polling hours, one involves voter notification, one involves a freepost facility. Details are set out in the table.

  My officials will notify local authorities by 14 February whether my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be minded to approve their applications should the Bill receive Royal Assent in time for schemes to be run in May.
  507W

  Local Authority

  Number of wards

  Application to pilot

  Eastleigh BC

  15 wards

  1. Extension of entitlement to postal vote

  2. Saturday voting

  Gateshead MBC

  2 wards

  All postal voting

  Gloucester CC

  3 wards

  Extension of entitlement to postal vote

  Halton BC

  2 wards

  Early voting

  Ipswich BC

  2 wards

  All postal voting

  Kingston upon Hull CC

  Whole authority

  Early voting

  Knowsley MBC

  3 wards

  Early voting

  Leeds CC

  Whole authority

  Extend hours of polling

  Manchester CC

  Whole authority

  Early voting

  Milton Keynes

  3 wards

  1. All postal voting

  14 wards

  2. Extend entitlement to postal vote

  Whole authority

  3. Electronic counting

  Mole Valley DC

  Whole authority

  Extend hours of polling

  North Hertfordshire DC

  16 wards

  1. Saturday voting

  2. Early voting

  3. Change to absent vote arrangements

  Norwich CC

  2 wards

  1. All postal ballots

  2 wards

  2. Voting on Sunday (using different hours)

  Whole authority

  3. Early voting

  Whole authority

  4. Mobile polling stations

  Pendle DC

  Whole authority

  Early voting

  Plymouth CC

  Whole authority

  Early voting

  Redditch BC

  9 wards

  Early voting

  Salford MDC

  1 ward

  1. All postal voting

  2 wards

  2. Electronic voting

  Solihul MBC

  1 ward

  All postal voting

  St. Helens MBC

  6 wards

  Early voting

  Stevenage BC

  2 wards

  All postal voting

  Stoke CC

  Whole authority

  Early voting

  Stratford on Avon DC

  18 wards

  Electronic voting

  Sunderland CC

  8 wards

  1. Mobile voting

  Whole authority

  2. Early voting

  Swindon BC

  4 wards

  All postal voting

  Telford and Wrekin

  2 wards

  Early voting

  Three Rivers DC

  Whole authority

  1. All postal voting

  2. Early voting

  3. Electronic counting

  Thurrock C

  3 wards

  All postal voting

  Trafford MBC

  2 wards

  Change to absent vote arrangements

  Wakefield MDC

  Whole authority

  Weekend voting

  Warrington BC

  22 wards

  Electronic voting

  Watford BC

  Whole authority

  1. Freepost arrangements as in parliamentary elections

  2. Weekend voting

  3. Early voting

  4. Mobile ballot box

  5. Voter notification

  6. Proxy voting deadline extension

  Wigan MBC

  3 wards

  All postal voting

  Windsor and Maidenhead RB

  2 wards

  Mobile polling facility

  Wirral

  1 ward

  All postal voting

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of his Department's staff were(a) registered disabled, (b) women, (c) from ethnic minorities and (d) from (i) independent, (ii) grammar and (iii) other schools in (1) 1970, (2) 1979, (3) 1989 and (4) 1999. [106763]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The percentage of permanent staff recorded centrally as having a disability in the Home Office, including the Prison Service, was 0.6 per cent. on 1 April 1999. Detailed figures were given in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 21 December 1999,Official Report, columns 473–74W.

  The recorded percentage of female permanent staff in the Home Office, excluding the Prison Service, was 51.8 per cent. on 1 April 1999. The recorded percentage
  508W
  of female staff in the Prison Service was 26.5 per cent. on 21 December 1999. Detailed figures were given in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary on 12 January 2000, Official Report, columns 176–77W.

  The percentage of permanent staff of ethnic minority origin recorded centrally as being in the Home Office, including the Prison Service, was 5.0 per cent. on 1 April 1999. Detailed figures were also given in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 20 December 1999, Official Report, columns 367W–68W.

  Detailed disability, ethnicity, and gender breakdowns for 1970, 1979, and 1989 are not available except at disproportionate cost. The available published staffing figures may be found in Civil Service Statistics, a copy of which is in the Library.
  509W
  Information on the schools attended by civil servants is not recorded centrally and therefore is not available for the periods requested except at disproportionate cost.

  Mike Tyson
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he discussed with the Prime Minister or his Office the matter of whether to allow Mr. Mike Tyson into the UK before announcing his decision. [106650]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: It is the normal convention under this and previous Governments that discussions that take place between Ministers are not disclosed.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Data Protection Registrar on the Data Protection (conditions under paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule 1) Order 1999; and if he will make a statement. [107067]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In the course of consultations during the preparation of the Order, the Data Protection Registrar indicated her preference for it to include a requirement for data controllers to record the third party source of information processed subject to its terms, but that she was otherwise content with its provisions requiring them to provide data subjects with information and to record the decision-making process in cases where disclosure of information where a notice has been received from an individual would involve disproportionate effort. In considering the provisions of the Order, we concluded that a third party recording requirement would impose a burden on business disproportionate to any data protection benefits which it might yield.

  State Visits
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet the Metropolitan police in advance of events with security requirements similar to those of a State Visit. [107116]

  Notifiable offences 1 recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used, by type of weapon and degree of injury, Great Britain, 1994 to 1998

  Total number

  Fatal injury Of which firearm legally held or certificate not required

  Other injury

  No injury

  Total

  Handguns

  1994

  28

  —

  298

  2,833

  3,159

  1995

  40

  1

  271

  3,083

  3,394

  1996

  49

  20

  269

  3,215

  3,533

  1997

  44

  1

  284

  2,468

  2,796

  1998

  29

  —

  230

  2,418

  2,677

  Other firearms 2

  1994

  9

  3

  2,092

  8,310

  10,411

  1995

  11

  2

  1,994

  8,633

  10,638

  1996

  4

  —

  1,956

  9,009

  10,969

  1997

  4

  2

  1,831

  8,322

  10,157

  1998

  9

  —

  2,245

  9,042

  11,296

  510W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Liaison between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Metropolitan police normally takes place prior to State Visits or similar events involving overseas visitors. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be considering whether the Home Office should also contribute to such discussions.

  Firearms
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total number of criminal incidents in which shotguns were used in the United Kingdom, excluding Northern Ireland, which resulted in(a) unlawful death, (b) unlawful wounding and (c) no physical injury, and in each category showing the total number of incidents in which a licensed weapon was used by a person with legal access to that weapon, for 1994 to 1999; [107054]

  (2) how many criminal incidents involving illegally modified shotguns resulting in (a) unlawful death, (b) unlawful wounding and (c) no physical injury there were in Great Britain in each year since 1994, separately identifying the number of incidents in which a licensed weapon was used by a person with legal access to that weapon; [107112]

  (3) what was the total number of criminal incidents in which (a) firearms, excluding revolvers and automatic pistols, and (b) (i) revolvers and (ii) automatic pistols were used in the United Kingdom, excluding Northern Ireland, and which resulted in (1) unlawful death, (2) unlawful wounding and (3) no physical injury, in each category showing the total number of incidents in which a licensed weapon was used by a person with legal access to that weapon, for 1994 to 1999. [107059]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The table relates to Great Britain and provides the readily available information. 'Handguns' include pistols/revolvers, no further breakdown being available in the statistics collected centrally. 'Other firearms' includes all other firearms except shotguns (ie rifles, air weapons, imitations, 'supposed' and 'other' firearms). Fatal and other injuries involve weapons being fired and, for England and Wales only, being used as a blunt instrument. Only in cases of fatal injury (ie homicide) is the legal status of the firearms collected centrally and this is shown in cases where the weapon was known to be legally held.

  Figures for 1999 are not yet available.
  511W

  Notifiable offences 1 recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used, by type of weapon and degree of injury, Great Britain, 1994 to 1998

  Total number

  Fatal injury Of which firearm legally held or certificate not required

  Other injury

  No injury

  Total

  Sawn off shotguns

  1994

  14

  1

  53

  529

  596

  1995

  10

  —

  50

  419

  479

  1996

  7

  —

  30

  368

  405

  1997

  5

  —

  12

  266

  283

  1998

  7

  1

  28

  290

  325

  Long barrelled shotguns

  1994

  24

  7

  106

  659

  789

  1995

  20

  6

  81

  543

  644

  1996

  14

  4

  71

  534

  619

  1997

  12

  1

  47

  302

  361

  1998

  6

  1

  38

  314

  358

  1 Crimes and offences in Scotland

  2 Rifles, air weapons, imitations, 'supposed' and 'other' firearms

  Source:

  Home Office, Crime and Criminal Justice Unit and Scottish Executive, Justice Statistics Unit

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) revolvers, (b) automatic pistols, (c) other firearms and (d) shotguns have been obtained from (i) civilian registered owners, (ii) public bodies and (iii) owners who are unregistered or illegally in possession of such a weapon since 1997. [107113]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the source of firearms is not collected centrally.

  Radio Communications Project
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the proposals made by John Jarvis in a letter to him of 19 November 1999 for provision of the requirements of the Public Sector Radio Communications Project; and if he will make a statement. [107409]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Mr. Jarvis wrote jointly to me and to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 19 November with a proposal for an alternative to the Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP). Officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will shortly be advising Mr. Jarvis that his proposed approach would not meet the user specification for the PSRCP.

  The PSRCP will provide the police with new, state-of-the-art radio communications using the most suitable available standard, Trans European Trunked Radio (TETRA). This standard will, unlike Mr. Jarvis's proposed solution, provide a common platform for voice and data communication services.

  As I announced in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) on 13 January 2000, Official Report, column 214W, we have invited the
  512W
  chosen service provider, British Telecom plc, to proceed with the necessary preparatory work in the expectation that a contract will be signed shortly.

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. [107386]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government keep the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 under review to combat changes in drug misuse patterns, and currently have plans to bring 36 ecstasy-type substances (phenethylamine derivatives) under the control of Schedule 2 to the Act. When this change is made, guidance will be issued, for example to the police, courts and British Medical Association.

  We are also currently considering whether further guidance is needed in respect of Section 8 of the Act, under which it is an offence for the occupier or manager of any premises knowingly to suffer or permit the premises to be used for the producing or supplying of a controlled drug.

  Sexual Abuse
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were reported to the police alleging sexual abuse in the last year for which figures are available in(a) South Yorkshire and (b) the United Kingdom; how many cases progressed to a court hearing in (a) and (b); and how many in each category resulted in a conviction. [107519]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of alleged sexual abuse cases reported to the police is not available. The total number of sexual offences recorded by the police, and the number of prosecutions and convictions for sexual offences for South Yorkshire, and England and Wales, are as follows.
  513W

  South Yorkshire

  England and Wales

  Number of sexual offences recorded in year ended June 1999

  676

  37,104

  Number of prosecutions for sexual offences in year ended June 19991

  143

  7,726

  Number of convictions2 for sexual offences in year ended June 19991

  109

  4,375

  1 Includes provisional figures

  2 Includes persons proceeded against in earlier years or for other offences

  It should be noted that as the recorded crime figures relate to offences, and the number of prosecutions and convictions relate to offenders, the two types of data cannot be directly compared.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for sexual abuse of children under the age of 10 years there were in the last year for which figures are available, in(a) South Yorkshire and (b) the United Kingdom. [107520]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not available centrally.

  The Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not hold information about the characteristics of individual cases (in this instance the age of a victim) apart from those that are evident from the description of the offence with which the defendant has been charged.

  Police Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number and percentage of police vehicles involved in accidents while responding to an emergency or otherwise in pursuit were(a) motorway patrol vehicles, (b) armed response vehicles and (c) other police vehicles for each year since 1995. [107399]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information available centrally does not include the categories of vehicles requested. But a Home Office study of deaths and serious injuries resulting from police vehicle accidents which was published in 1997 contains this table giving the sorts of police vehicles involved in 1990–93:

  Table 17: Role of the police vehicles involved in fatal/serious injury Police Vehicle Accidents: 1990–1993

  Number

  Percentage

  Traffic

  215

  27.5

  Area/response

  116

  14.9

  Beat patrol

  321

  41.2

  Criminal Investigation Department(CID) Divisional

  40

  5.1

  CID Central

  11

  1.4

  Surveillance

  13

  1.7

  Protection

  4

  0.5

  Territorial Support Group

  3

  0.4

  Police Support Unit

  4

  0.5

  Dog

  22

  2.8

  Other

  31

  4.0

  Total

  780

  100.0

  Note:

  Figures in Table 17 exclude 64 cases where the information was no longer available at the time of the research

  ORBIS Computer System
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the ORBIS computer system for the administration of firearms was installed by 514W
  the Metropolitan Police; what was the cost of the installation; what was the cost of the system in the last financial year for which figures are available; what is the contract cost in the current financial year; and for what time period was the initial contract and with what options. [107402]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that the installation of the ORBIS computer system was completed and accepted by the Metropolitan Police on 15 October 1999. The cost of installation, inclusive of computer hardware and software costs and the salaries of the Metropolitan police staff involved, totalled £265,000. The only costs for the system have been incurred in the current financial year and, inclusive of the first year's maintenance, amount to £114,350. The contract is for two years initially, renewable thereafter by payment of the appropriate support costs.

  Research (Primates)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many primates were used in research in the United Kingdom in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [107595]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on the use of animals in scientific procedures is published each year in the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals (Great Britain). Tables 1, 18d and 18e refer to the numbers of primates used by type and also provide information on the primary purpose of the procedure. In 1997, the total number of primates used was 3,908. In 1998, the total was 3,655. There were no primates used in Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998.

  Firearms (Compensation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many compensation payments are outstanding under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 compensation scheme; and if he will make a statement. [108066]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at 27 January, there were just 748 claims outstanding under the firearms compensation schemes. Of these, 643 claims were ones in which payment offers have been made to the claimants concerned but have yet to be accepted.

  Prisons (Illegal Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost of the monitoring of illegal drugs in prisons for each of the last three years. [106562]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table shows expenditure on mandatory drug testing in prisons for each of the last three years, excluding staff costs which are not collected.
  515W

  Expenditure on mandatory drug testing in prisons

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  1,599,137

  1998–99

  1,550,254

  1999–20001

  1,252,357

  1 Year to date figure for April to December 1999

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 373W, on departmental research contracts, if he will place a copy of the standard research contract in use by his Department in the Library. [107097]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A copy of the standard research contract used by the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate has been placed in the Library. The document is currently being reviewed and an updated version will be placed in the Library once available. There is no standard contract in the case of scientific research due to the unique nature of each contract let.

  Police Recruits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many bids have been received for funding for extra police recruits under year one of the Crime Fighting Fund; if he will list the amount of money and number of officers requested in each bid and in total; and if he will make a statement; [107956]

  (2) how many additional police recruits he estimates are to be funded in response to bids from police forces for funds from year one of the Crime Fighting Fund; and if he will make a statement. [107957]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Forty three forces have bid for a total of 2,908 officers under year one of the Crime Fighting Fund Recruitment Scheme. Details are set out in the table. Based on the costs set out in the Bidding Guidelines, which were issued for forces and a copy placed in the Library on 2 December 1999, funding for 2,908 officers would total more than £96 million. We are currently assessing the bids against the criteria set out in the Guidelines and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, will be announcing the results shortly.

  Crime fighting fund—bids for year one 2000–01

  Force

  Number bid for

  Funding if bids met in full Home Office calculation £

  Avon and Somerset

  65

  2,112,500

  Bedfordshire

  34

  1,105,000

  Cambridgeshire

  43

  1,397,500

  Cheshire

  25

  812,500

  City of London

  16

  562,080

  Cleveland

  34

  1,105,000

  Cumbria

  20

  650,000

  Derbyshire

  100

  3,250,000

  Devon and Cornwall

  70

  2,275,000

  Dorset

  30

  975,000

  Durham

  21

  682,500

  Dyfed Powys

  50

  1,625,000

  Essex

  44

  1,430,000

  Gloucestershire

  30

  975,000

  Greater Manchester

  334

  10,855,000

  Gwent

  34

  1,105,000

  Hampshire

  40

  1,300,000

  Hertfordshire

  16

  520,000

  516W

  Crime fighting fund—bids for year one 2000–01

  Force

  Number bid for

  Funding if bids met in full Home Office calculation £

  Humberside

  85

  2,762,500

  Kent

  60

  1,950,000

  Lancashire

  51

  1,657,500

  Leicestershire

  60

  1,950,000

  Lincolnshire

  20

  650,000

  Merseyside

  120

  3,900,000

  Metropolitan

  600

  21,078,000

  Norfolk

  35

  1,137,500

  North Wales

  25

  812,500

  North Yorkshire

  17

  552,500

  Northamptonshire

  51

  1,657,500

  Northumbria

  60

  1,950,000

  Nottinghamshire

  40

  1,300,000

  South Wales

  30

  975,000

  South Yorkshire

  50

  1,625,000

  Staffordshire

  34

  1,105,000

  Suffolk

  39

  1,267,500

  Surrey

  60

  1,950,000

  Sussex

  45

  1,462,500

  Thames Valley

  120

  3,900,000

  Warwickshire

  34

  1,105,000

  West Mercia

  36

  1,170,000

  West Midlands

  160

  5,200,000

  West Yorkshire

  60

  1,950,000

  Wiltshire

  10

  325,000

  Total

  2,908

  96,130,080

  Press Releases
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Press releases his Department issued in each year from 1995 to 1999. [107955]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information for my Department is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  308

  1996

  404

  1997

  386

  1998

  524

  1999

  450

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that local authorities should from 1 April, take over financial responsibility for asylum seekers disposed to their areas before that date; and if he will make a statement. [108042]

  Mrs. Roche
  Asylum seekers who claim asylum and support after 1 April will make their claim for support from the National Asylum Support Service in the Home Office. It will be the responsibility of the National Asylum Support Service to determine eligibility for support and to identify a suitable support package. Where local authorities provide accommodation and support for these asylum seekers, it will be under contract to the National Asylum Support Service.

  Asylum seekers who claimed asylum and support prior to 1 April will continue to be supported under the existing arrangements.
  517W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of places which will be needed to accommodate asylum seekers under the new arrangements, due to come into force on 1 April; and what progress he has made towards achieving that target. [108043]

  Mrs. Roche
  In the financial year 2000–01, we are planning on the basis that 35,000 will require full accommodation support. The remainder will either seek support to meet their essential living needs only or will not seek support.

  We issued an invitation to tender to a number of accommodation providers. Negotiations are still proceeding. Contracts are expected to be awarded towards the end of February. In parallel, we are in discussion with local government with a view to them providing a substantial amount of the accommodation requirements.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will receive a reply to his letters of 20 September and of 10 November 1999 regarding the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [107960]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 1 February 2000. I am very sorry for the delay.

  Animal Experiments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals hold a Home Office licence to experiment on animals. [107459]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The most recent figures available are for December 1999. There were 14,777 live personal licences, issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, in Great Britain.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many institutions hold a licence to experiment on animals which covers students who may not be required individually to hold a licence while performing their studies. [107460]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Certificate of Designation for an institution does not license individuals. Anyone performing a regulated procedure on a live animal must hold a personal licence in accordance with the 1986 Act. The procedure must be applied as part of a programme of work specified in a project licence which authorises the application of that procedure.

  Currently, there are 60 project licences for the use of animals in education and training, held mostly by university employees. In each case, a licence has been granted for an educational objective which cannot be realistically taught by alternative methods. Some procedures are demonstrated by the tutor rather than conducted by the students themselves.

  Spray Paints
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restrict further the sale of spray paints. [107461]
  518W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are concerned about the damaging effects of graffiti on neighbourhoods and there are substantial penalties available under the Criminal Damage Act 1971: where the criminal damage is more than £2,000, the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment for those aged 18 or over, and up to two years detention in a Young Offenders Institution for those aged 15–17. However, within the maximum limit sentencing is a matter for the courts to decide in the light of all the circumstances of the case.

  The police already have the power to arrest anyone whom they reasonably suspect has committed or is about to commit the offence of criminal damage. Where vandals are found in possession of a paint spray can with the intention of damaging property or already having done so, the criminal law can he brought to bear. We do not have any plans, therefore, to legislate specifically against the sale or carrying of spray paints but, of course, the matter will be kept under review.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those councils which have(a) sought and (b) had meetings with him or his ministerial colleagues in the last three months in order to make representations about their standard spending assessment allocation. [106817]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We consulted local authorities on our proposals for the Local Government Finance Settlement for 2000–01 on 25 November 1999. We made it clear that, given the degree of stability we introduced into the settlement this year, we would not invite local authorities to hold meetings with Ministers during consultation on our proposals. During this period we received written requests for meetings from or on behalf of eight local authorities. These were:

  Surrey County Council

  London Borough of Merton

  Poole District Council

  Reigate and Banstead District Council

  Shropshire County Council

  South Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  Leicester City Council.

  No Minister from this Department met those authorities to discuss their representations. I did however have separate meetings during that period with the representatives of county councils, district councils and metropolitan district councils on 21 December at the suggestion of the Local Government Association. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions also met with the Association of London Government on 10 January and the Local Government Association on 13 January. All representations, whether made in writing or at meetings, were fully considered in reaching final decisions on the settlement.
  519W

  RAF East Camp
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in considering the planning issues arising from the RAF East Camp site proposed development in Mill Hill; and when he will announce his decision. [107285]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This is a complex case and it was necessary to re-open the public inquiry in September 1999. The Inspector's supplementary report was received on 22 October 1999 and the Secretary of State's consideration of this case is at an advanced stage. His decision will be issued shortly.

  Recycling
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the recycling of materials produced by his Department. [107388]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department's policy is to promote recycling of office waste. Our target is to recover 40 per cent. of total office waste, with at least 25 per cent. coming from recycling or composting, in 2000–01 and to continue to increase the amount recovered and recycled by 10 per cent. each year to achieve 70 per cent. recovery or recycling in 2003–04.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish tables showing the levels achieved by each local authority in relation to the percentage of household rubbish recycled. [107959]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have placed a list in the House of Commons Library setting out ranges of household recycling rates for local authorities in England and Wales based on data from the 1997–98 Municipal Waste Survey.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a table showing the airlines operating out of and having scheduled flights to the UK and the number of crashes of planes of each airline broken down in terms of(a) crashes per one million passengers carried, (b) crashes per 10,000 take offs and landings and (c) crashes per one million miles travelled, occurring in the last year. [107530]

  Mr. Mullin
  As aircraft accidents are very rare events, statistics in this format serve no useful purpose and are not used by either the Department or the Civil Aviation Authority. For UK registered aircraft, the CAA use an accident rate per million hours flown averaged over three years as a performance indicator. These figures are published in the CAA's annual report. In addition, the CAA has carried out a review of fatal accidents by world regions. The results of this review were published in CAP 681 "Global Fatal Accident Review 1980–96". Copies of both documents are already in the Library.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if Her Majesty's Government have received the report prepared for the 520W
  Irish Government on the radiological and environmental implications of the disposal in the Irish Sea of radioactive waste arising from United Kingdom sources, published in January 2000. [107511]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has received a copy of the report prepared by the Irish Task Force on the Dumping of Radioactive Material in the Maritime Area.

  The Irish report supports the findings of the UK National Radiological Protection Board's report "Assessment of the Radiological Implications of Dumping in Beaufort's Dyke and Other Coastal Waters from the 1950s" (November 1997). It concludes that the potential radiation doses from the dumped material are well below those considered significant for radiological protection purposes.

  Korean Airlines Crash
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the depleted uranium weights that were on board the Korean Airlines plane that crashed outside Stansted Airport in January. [107447]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 24 January 2000, Official Report, column 122W.

  Mortgage Rates
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the standard national rate on mortgages set by local authorities; and if he will change the way the rate is set to bring it closer to commercial interest rates. [108037]

  Mr. Mullin
  The standard national rate of interest on local authority mortgages is declared from time to time by the Secretary of State in accordance with Schedule 16 to the Housing Act 1985, taking into account prevailing building society interest rates. The current standard national rate is 6.51 per cent. There are no current plans for changes to the way in which the standard national rate is calculated.

  Private Rented Property
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact on his policy of the Spath-Holme Judgment of 20 January regarding rent increases in private rented property. [107632]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: We are giving careful consideration to the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision to quash the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. We remain committed to protecting tenants from excessive increases in fair rents. We intend to petition another place seeking permission to appeal the Court's decision.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what percentage the average local authority social services budget exceeds the corresponding SSA element. [107986]
  521W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The average local authority social services budget exceeds its corresponding SSA for 1999–2000 by 10.9 per cent.

  Property Insurers
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require insurance companies to insist on minimum standards of maintenance and repair of leased properties they insure. [107732]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have no plans to do so. An insurance company could only enforce such standards by refusing to pay any claim where minimum standards had not been met. This would not help leaseholders. Where landlords are responsible for maintaining property but fail to do so properly, leaseholders should consider asking a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to appoint a new manager for the building.

  However, we are considering options for regulating managers of residential leasehold property as part of our wider leasehold reform package. Such arrangements could be used to tackle poor management standards and to ensure that leasehold property is properly maintained.

  Parish and Town Councils
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the role of parish and town councils. [107307]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Parish councils are an essential part of the structure of local democracy in our country and they will continue to play a key role in many of our towns and villages. Modern and dynamic parish councils have a real part to play in the democratic constitution of this country.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 338W, on departmental research contracts, if he will place in the Library a copy of the standard research contract in use by his Department. [107098]

  Mr. Mullin
  As requested, a copy of the standard research contract conditions in use by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. Minor variations are made to the contract conditions from time to time.

  Local Authority Pension Funds
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish tables showing the amounts of income lost to each local authority pension fund since budget changes to dividend tax credits. [107958]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Information on any loss of income by individual local authority pension funds due to budget changes to dividend tax credits is not available centrally.
  522W

  West Sussex County Council
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his assessment of the permanent annual increase in costs accruing to West Sussex County Council resulting from recent changes in the rules for the taxation of investments. [107872]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Information to assess the financial effect of changes in the rules for the taxation of individual local authority investments is not available centrally.

  Driving Test
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on the theory element of the driving test; how many such representations were from national organisations; and what plans he has to ensure that all eligible members of the public have equal access to a theory test. [107456]

  Mr. Hill
  Since October 1999, one Parliamentary Question has been asked about the driving theory test—I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 November 1999,Official Report, column 601W—and we have answered five letters. One letter was from a driving instructor association, and one from a road safety organisation. As part of our social inclusion agenda, we make every effort to ensure that all candidates have their needs accommodated. Test centres have been furbished to meet the needs of the physically disabled. Candidates normally select their answers by touching the screen, but help is available where required. Audio support using headphones is provided in English and Welsh, and in 14 other languages. The test is available with British Sign Language. Candidates with special needs are allowed up to double the normal time to complete the test.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what allowances the Driving Standards Agency makes for people with dyslexia to take the theory test during a driving test. [107455]

  Mr. Hill
  Since 4 January, the driving theory test has been delivered using a touch screen computer system. This has significant benefits for dyslexic candidates, who can use earphones to listen to an English language voice-over reading the questions and answer options. Dyslexic candidates are allowed up to double the normal time to complete the test.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he will reply to the letter of 6 July 1999 from the hon. Member for South Suffolk; [108044]

  (2) when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member from South Suffolk of 12 January. [108045]

  Mr. Hill
  I replied to the hon. Member on Monday 31 January. I have supplied a copy for ease of reference.
  523W

  Waste Incinerators
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the circumstances in which planning inquiries may be held on proposals to build waste incinerators, and the rights of objectors to such proposals to have a public inquiry. [108320]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The building of a waste incinerator requires planning permission, for which an application must be made to the local planning authority. Where a local planning authority refuses an application for planning permission, grants it subject to conditions or fails to determine it within eight weeks, the person applying for permission may appeal. The appeal may be dealt with by public inquiry or hearing, although most are dealt with by written representations. An inquiry is likely to be held in the very small proportion of cases where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers it necessary to call in a planning application to determine it himself, instead of leaving it to the planning authority.

  My right hon. Friend's policy on call-ins was stated in a written answer by my predecessor on 16 June 1999, Official Report, column 138W and this remains the position. He will be very selective about calling in planning applications. He will, in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which in his opinion:

  may conflict with national policies;

  could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality;

  give rise to substantial regional or national controversy;

  raise significant architectural and urban design issues; or

  may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments.

  However each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.

  Objectors to planning applications, including those for waste incinerators, do not have a right to a planning inquiry into their objections. However, they may put their objections to the local planning authority considering the application to which they are opposed, and the authority must have regard to their objections in reaching its decision. Similarly, where an appeal has been lodged against a refusal to an application, objectors may put their points to the inspector, either in writing or, where an inquiry or hearing is held, in person.

  Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will appoint a new chairman of the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee. [108366]

  Mr. Hill
  I have today announced the appointment of Stewart Francis as the new Chairman of the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee.

  LTS Trains Ltd.
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there is a further exemption order for the fleet of new trains to be introduced 524W
  into service by LTS Trains Ltd. in respect of any of the provisions of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998; and if he will make a statement. [108367]

  Mr. Hill
  As my predecessor explained in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) on 26 May 1999,Official Report, column 174W, following an application by LTS Rail Ltd., an Order relating to the exemption of Class 357 trains was laid in Parliament. The Order subsequently came into force on 18 June 1999.

  We have received a further application from LTS Trains Ltd. relating to Class 357 trains. This seeks to revoke the original Order and replace it with a new Order to extend the original exemptions to additional vehicles and add new exemptions. This has been discussed with our statutory advisers the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

  An exemption Order relating to the exemption of the Class 357 trains has been laid in Parliament today. Copies are available from the Library.

  These further exemptions will not prevent disabled people from using the new trains. Indeed, we believe that their introduction will make a significant contribution to improving mobility opportunities for disabled people.

  Government Panel on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the response to the Government Panel on Sustainable Development's fifth annual report will be published. [108414]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am pleased to announce that the Government's Response to the Fifth Annual Report of the Government Panel on Sustainable Development has been published, and that we have been able to respond positively to the Panel's recommendations. The Panel is a valuable source of advice for Government in the achievement of sustainable development. I wish to express my gratitude to the Convenor of the Panel, Sir Crispin Tickell, and his colleagues for their continued commitment to helping to identify new sustainable ways of enhancing the quality of life and prosperity for everyone.

  Examples where the Government has been able to respond positively to the Panel's recommendations are:
  on sustainable development and employment: we are forging links between employment and sustainable development, through the National Skills Agenda and the Environment Task Force option under the New Deal;
  on environmental issues and European Union: the Prime Minister's Step Change Initiative is encouraging closer co-operation in environment policy issues. The Government's continued support for the Cardiff principles is also key to achieving effective integration of sustainable development in policy making;
  on land use legislation: we have introduced new draft Planning Policy Guidance demonstrating the Government's commitment to developing positive policies to deliver sustainable development;
  also the forthcoming Urban and Rural White Papers will underline our commitment to protecting and enhancing the environment, and building sustainable communities to foster an inclusive society;
  finally, on the international front, we continue our efforts to protect and enhance biodiversity.

  I am placing copies of the response in the Library.
  525W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many arms export licence applications for Zimbabwe her Department has examined for each month since August 1997. [106986]

  Clare Short
  Since August 1997, my Department has examined, for each month, for Zimbabwe the following numbers of applications for Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) concerning the export of goods listed as subject to control in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, usually known as the military list:

  August 1997: None

  September 1997: 2 SIELs

  October 1997: 4 SIELs

  November 1997: 4 SIELs

  December 1997: 4 SIELs, 2 OIELs

  January 1998: 2 SIELs, 2 OIELs

  February 1998: 4 SIELs, 1 OIEL

  March 1998: 5 SIELs, 4 OIELs

  April 1998: 4 SIELs, 5 OIELs

  May 1998: 5 SIELs, 2 OIELs

  June 1998: 1 SIEL, 4 OIELs

  July 1998: 2 SIELs, 7 OIELs

  August 1998: 2 SIELs, 4 OIELs

  September 1998: 4 SIELs, 2 OIELs

  October 1998: 3 SIELs, 4 OIELs

  November 1998: 3 OIELs

  December 1998: 1 SIEL, 3 OIELs

  January 1999: 1 SIEL, 5 OIELs

  February 1999: 1 SIEL, 5 OIELs

  March 1999: 4 OIELs

  April 1999: 2 SIELs, 7 OIELs

  May 1999: 3 SIELs

  June 1999: 7 SIELs

  July 1999: 4 SIELs, 2 OIELs

  August 1999: 1 SIEL, 3 OIELs

  September 1999: 3 OIELs

  October 1999: 1 SIEL, 3 OIELs

  November 1999: 1 OIEL

  December 1999: None

  January 2000: 1 SIEL, 4 OIELs.

  Serbia (Humanitarian Aid)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on providing humanitarian aid to towns in Serbia under political control of parties in opposition to the Government. [105362]

  Clare Short
  My Department's policy on humanitarian assistance is to target the most needy on the basis of verified assessments and full accountability, and not on the basis of political allegiance. We believe it is important that any assistance to Serbia as elsewhere should be based on a proper and reliable assessment of needs, that implementing partners should be carefully selected with an emphasis on reliability, and that scrupulous attention should be paid to accountability and transparency.
  526W

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, columns 337–38W, on departmental research contracts, if she will (a) state total expenditure on research let by her Department since May 1997 and (b) list the titles of all research contracts let by her Department during 1999 and costing £20,000 or more, stating what is the value of each contract, and in each case whether the contract included (i) departmental veto over publication of the research results, (ii) departmental control over the date of publication of the research and (iii) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments; and if she will place a copy of the standard research contract in use by her Department in the Library. [107105]

  Clare Short
  The best estimate of total expenditure on research remains as stated in my answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, columns 337–38W. No figures are yet available for this financial year.

  I have arranged for a list of research projects over £20,000 let in 1999 to be placed in the Library of the House. This covers 254 projects with a total value of nearly £54 million. The list is not necessarily exhaustive (because research contracts are let by several units in DFID) but shows the overwhelming majority of contracts let during that period.

  It also remains the case that the Department's contracts do not provide for departmental veto over publication of research results (except, rarely, where intellectual property rights might otherwise be infringed) or for control over the date of publication of the research. There is no requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments.

  I have also arranged for a version of the research contract used by DFID to be placed in the Library of the House. There are slight variations in this contract where it has been tailored to meet the particular needs of different research funding units in the Department.

DEFENCE

  Turn-around Times
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average turn-around time to full serviceability in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 for(a) Tornado GR1/4, (b) Tornado F3, (c) Harrier, (d) Jaguar, (e) Nimrod, (g) Sentry, (h) Tristar, (i) Puma, (j) Sea King and (k) Chinook which had been allocated to undergo (i) servicing at 1 Line, (ii) servicing at 2 Line and (iii) servicing at 3/4 Line. [107280]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Tornado
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many replacement engines are available for the Tornado aircraft. [107049]
  527W
  Mr. Spellar
  As at Thursday 27 January 2000, there were 30 spare engines available to support the RAF Tornado fleet.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106293]

  Dr. Reid
  During the last five years the numbers of public consultations undertaken by the Scottish Office and in relation to which the Departmental Library hold public files were as follows:

  Year

  Number of public consultations

  19991

  78

  1998

  107

  1997

  76

  1996

  112

  1995

  86

  1 to 30 June 1999

  Detailed information in the form requested by my hon. Friend is either not available or could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which projects relating to his Department that appeared in the Private Finance Panel's list of 29 November 1995(a) have been completed, (b) are still pending, (c) have been dropped and (d) are being pursued by means other than a public private partnership. [105879]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 January 2000, Official Report, column 118W.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 386W, on departmental research contacts, if he will (a) state the total expenditure on research let by his Department since May 1997 and (b) list the titles of all research contracts let by his Department for the financial year 1998–99 and costing £20,000 or more, stating what was the value of each contract, and in each case whether the contract included (i) departmental veto over publication of the research results, (ii) departmental control over the date of publication of the research and (iii) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [107101]

  Dr. Reid
  Information about individual research contracts could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  528W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Broadcasting
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the regulatory environment for broadcasting in the United Kingdom. [105956]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government's assessment of the regulatory environment for broadcasting in the United Kingdom was set out in the joint DCMS/DTI Green Paper "Regulating Communications—approaching convergence in the information age" and, in the light of responses, our conclusions were published in June last year as "Regulating Communications: The Way Ahead". But it is now clear that a more fundamental reassessment is needed. I shall shortly be announcing how this is to be taken forward.

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies spent in total on extra bonuses above usual payments for staff working over the New Year period; what were the(a) maximum and (b) minimum bonuses paid; how many people received the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum payments; and if he will make a statement. [104500]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  DCMS and Royal Parks Agency would have difficulty in identifying the actual amounts spent or the maximum and minimum payments made to staff working over the new year period from other overtime payments. The pay information for non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally. The information required could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Only a small number of DCMS and Royal Parks Agency staff were required to work over this period.

  World Class Performance Programme
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the sports eligible for the World Class Performance Programme. [107654]

  Kate Hoey
  These activities are as follows:

  Aikido

  American football

  Angling

  Archery

  Arm wrestling

  Association football

  Athletics

  Aussie rules

  Badminton

  Ballooning

  Baseball

  Basketball

  Baton twirling

  Bicycle polo

  Billiards and Snooker

  529W

  Bobsleigh

  Boccia

  Bowls

  Boxing

  Camogie

  Canoeing

  Caving

  Chinese martial arts

  Cricket

  Croquet

  Crossbow

  Curling

  Cycling

  Disability sports

  Dragon boat racing

  Equestrian

  Fencing

  Fives

  Flying

  Gaelic football

  Gliding

  Golf

  Gymnastics

  Handball

  Hang-gliding and Paragliding

  Highland games

  Hockey

  Horse racing

  Hovering

  Hurling

  Ice hockey

  Ice skating

  Jet skiing

  Ju jitsu

  Judo

  Kabaddi

  Karate

  Kendo

  Korfball

  Lacrosse

  Lawn tennis

  Life saving

  Luge

  Modern pentathlon

  Motor cycling

  Motor sport

  Mountaineering

  Movement, dance, exercise and fitness

  Netball

  Orienteering

  Parachuting

  Petanque

  Polo

  Pony trekking

  Pool

  Quoits

  Racketball

  Rackets

  Racquetball

  530W

  Rambling

  Real Tennis

  Roller hockey

  Roller skating

  Rounders

  Rowing

  Rugby league

  Rugby union

  Sailing/Yachting

  Sand/land yachting

  Shinty

  Shooting

  Skateboarding

  Skiing

  Skipping

  Snowboarding

  Softball

  Sombo wrestling

  Squash

  Street/skater hockey

  Sub-aqua

  Surf life saving

  Surfing

  Swimming

  Table tennis

  Taekwondo

  Tang soo do

  Tenpin bowling

  Trampolining

  Triathlon

  Tug of war

  Unihoc

  Volleyball

  Water skiing

  Weightlifting

  Wrestling

  Yoga.

  Lottery Grants (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the total amount of National Lottery grant awarded to organisations in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since the National Lottery's inception; and if he will make a statement. [107259]

  Kate Hoey
  The value of National Lottery awards to organisations based in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency for each year since 1995 (the first year in which awards were made) is shown in the following table. The figures are taken from my Department's National Lottery awards database, using information supplied by the National Lottery distributing bodies.

  £

  Value of awards to Shrewsbury and Atcham

  1995

  808,571

  1996

  1,610,447

  1997

  1,238,685

  1998

  3,053,478

  1999

  3,198,489

  531W

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies spent in total on extra bonuses above usual payments for staff working over the new year period; what are the(a) maximum and (b) minimum bonuses paid; how many people received the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum payments; and if he will make a statement. [104490]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested for the headquarters Department is not yet available; I will provide a fuller response within the next few weeks.

  I have asked the Chief Executives of the Department's agencies to respond directly.

  The information in respect of the Department's associated public bodies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 1 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to your question about extra bonus payments for Insolvency Service staff who worked over the New Year period.
  The Service has not yet made any New Year bonus payments: I am in the process of approving 9 payments of £300 (gross) each.

  Letter from Ian Jones to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 1 February 2000:
  I am responding on behalf of the Employment Tribunals Service to your question about payments to staff over the New Year. I can confirm that no extra bonuses, above usual payments to staff working over the New Year period, were paid by the Employment Tribunals Service.

  Letter from David Hendon to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 1 February 2000:
  The Radiocommunications Agency adopted the DTI scheme of £65 for work between one and six hours subject to an upper limit of £130. 13 staff qualified under this scheme with 5 of these receiving the higher rate.
  The Agency also has a Special Bonus Scheme (representing 0.4% of its total Pay budget) to reward exceptional performance in demanding circumstances and 5 staff will receive £500 under that scheme.

  Letter from Alison Brimelow to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 1 February 2000:
  The Patent Office paid a total of £41,000 in special payments to key staff over the New Year period. This represented payments to 41 individuals of £1,000 each. All staff received the same amount. They were required to undertake final confidence testing of systems, prepare the systems for normal operations, and carry out any remedial work required between 31 December 1999 and 4 January 2000.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 1 February 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Agency bonuses paid over the New Year period. The information you require for Companies House is as follows:

  Extra bonuses paid over the 1999/2000 New Year Period

  Total amount paid: £28,200

  Maximum bonus payment: £550

  Minimum bonus payment: £50

  No. receiving maximum payment: 31

  No. receiving minimum payment: 1

  532W
  Other staff received payments between the maximum and minimum, typically £250–£300, to make up the remainder of the total of £28,200.

  Alstom
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the management of Alstom. [106676]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last met the senior management of Alstom on 4 February last year. Officials in my Department are in regular contact with the company.

  Power Industry
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the extent of the United Kingdom's capacity for manufacturing related to the power industry. [106675]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The following table gives figures for value added and other relevant data. The statistics cover the products in Standard Industrial Classifications 28.30 (manufacture of steam generators), part of 29.11 (manufacture of turbines and parts thereof), 3.10 (manufacture of electric motors, generators and transformers) and 31.20 (manufacture of electricity distribution and control apparatus). 1997 is the latest year for which complete figures are available.

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Gross value added at factor cost (£ million)

  3,084

  2,898

  2,973

  Sales and work done (£ million)

  7,400

  7,213

  7,331

  Exports (£ million)

  3,542

  3,998

  4,388

  Imports (£ million)

  3,474

  3,926

  4,020

  UK market (£ million)

  7,332

  7,141

  6,963

  Employment (thousand)

  120

  109

  106

  Notes:

  1. Gross value added, sales and employment for turbines (as part of SIC29.11) are an estimate only, based on individual product data.

  2. Trade data for turbines (as part of 29.11) is calculated on a slightly different basis using individual product data.

  Source:

  ONS

  UK Competitiveness Indicators
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors underlay the conclusions contained in his report, UK Competitiveness Indicators 1999, that United Kingdom consumers show more inertia and are generally less demanding than in other countries with similar income levels; and if he will make a statement. [106520]

  Dr. Howells
  Our White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" (Cm 4410) sets out how knowledgeable and assertive consumers can spur businesses to compete and innovate, thereby leading to better quality and lower prices. The White Paper contains a series of policies to drive this virtuous circle between consumer demand and business performance. The competitiveness indicators will provide a means of tracking our success vis a vis our leading competitors.
  533W

  Nuclear Materials (Safeguards)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 2000,Official Report, columns 487–88W, on nuclear materials, if he will set out, in each of the 20 cases of advance notification, the quantity and type of nuclear material, including its isotopic composition, involved; and if he will indicate for what reason nuclear materials from the unsafeguarded military stockpile were not used for the functions set out. [107267]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: As I indicated in my answer on 19 January 2000, Official Report, columns 487–88W, a study bringing together data on these and other withdrawals from safeguards is being conducted. More information on withdrawals from safeguards will be provided later in the year when that study has been completed.

  The withdrawals described in my previous answer comprised small quantities of material for use in instrument calibration or radiation detectors, or as analytical tracers or radiological shielding. There are no facilities outside safeguards which manufacture material in such quantities and forms from the military stockpile. Defence establishment requirements for these commercially available specialist materials are currently met by purchase from civil operators.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many permanent withdrawals of nuclear material from safeguards have taken place since the Tripartite UK-Euratom-IAEA Voluntary Safeguards Agreement came into force; and to what purpose material permanently withdrawn was put. [107498]

  Dr. Howells
  As I indicated in my answer on 19 January 2000,Official Report, columns 487–88W, a study bringing together data on these and other withdrawals from safeguards is being conducted. I expect to be able to provide more information on withdrawals from safeguards later in the year when that study has been completed.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to initiate negotiations with the European Commission, Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency towards the deletion of Article 14 of the Tripartite Safeguards Agreement of August 1978. [107500]

  Dr. Howells
  No. Government policy on future withdrawals of nuclear material from safeguards was described in the White Paper published in July 1998 to announce the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR).

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 487W, on nuclear materials safeguards, if he will set out (a) the number of facility attachments, (b) the number of particular safeguards provisions and (c) the material balance areas existing at each of the plants respectively from which nuclear materials were withdrawn from safeguards. [107512]

  Dr. Howells
  European Commission particular safeguards provisions (PSPs) exist for the National Physical Laboratory, Nycomed Amersham, and RSL Equipment Ltd., but have yet to be finalised for UKAEA Harwell and Centronics Ltd. None of the plants has been 534W
  designated by the IAEA for routine safeguards inspection under the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement (INFCIRC/263) and so no facility attachments exist for them. Disclosure of detailed information on nuclear material accountancy arrangements, including on Material Balance Areas (MBAs), would harm national security and would not be in the public interest.

  Car Insurance Market
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment he has made of the extent of competition in the UK car insurance market; and if he will make a statement. [107400]

  Dr. Howells
  Under UK competition law in the first instance it is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) to investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour and possible abuses of a dominant position. I am not aware of any ongoing investigation into the car insurance market by the Office of Fair Trading.

  If my hon. Friend has any evidence that competition in the market is not working he should draw it to the attention of the DGFT.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the last three years, how many bankrupt people who appointed the Official Receiver to act on their behalf as trustee were transferred to a private trustee; and after what periods. [107438]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: The number of bankruptcy orders made and the number of cases transferred to Insolvency Practitioners in the years 1997–98,1998–99 and in the nine months to 31 December 1999 is as follows:

  Period

  New cases

  Cases transferred

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  19,713

  5,811

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  20,508

  6,013

  1 April 1999 to 31 December 1999

  15,812

  4,838

  The age of cases transferred is not recorded centrally and could only be ascertained at disproportionate cost. However the great majority of cases are transferred as a result of an Insolvency Practitioner being appointed trustee by the Secretary of State on the application of the Official Receiver. Statistics are maintained centrally regarding the age of cases where such applications are made as to whether they are less than or more than five months old. Those statistics show that there is an almost equal split between the two categories.

  Street Lighting
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he will take to ensure that competition in electricity connections for street lighting columns can proceed quickly; and if he will make a statement. [107582]
  535W
  Dr. Howells
  The Director General of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) will shortly be publishing a paper setting out his proposals for increasing competition in electricity connections. This paper will also address the specific issue of developing competition in electricity connections for street lighting columns.

  Cabling (Licences)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it a requirement for the granting of licences to companies for the laying of cables that they share cable trenches with other companies; and if he will make a statement. [107604]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are no plans to introduce a requirement to share trenches within the scope of Telecommunications Act 1984 licences. While trench sharing between two or more operators often occurs, circumstances of timing and routing make this impractical as a requirement. However, the licences currently issued require operators to explore the possibility of using existing ducts or conduits and the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 places a duty on the highway authorities to co-ordinate the execution of works in the highway.

  Additionally the Department has written at both Ministerial and official level to all telecommunications operators with code powers reminding them of their obligation to explore duct sharing and encouraging them to consider trench sharing as a means of reducing unnecessary digging. We have also drawn operators' attention to a new private sector initiative to encourage dig co-ordination.

  Recycling
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy on the recycling of materials produced by his Department. [107859]

  Dr. Howells
  At present this Department has schemes in place to recycle all paper, toner cartridges and tin cans. The Department regularly reviews the scope for recycling other materials.

  European Southern Observatory
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the authorities of the European Southern Observatory and Governments of nations participating in the European Southern Observatory about United Kingdom involvement in the project. [106370]

  Ms Hewitt
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor my noble Friend the Minister for Science have had any discussions with the authorities of the European Southern Observatory (ESO), or with Governments of ESO member states about UK participation in ESO.

  Any potential future UK membership of, or involvement with, ESO would be funded by the science vote through the budget of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC). Senior officials from PPARC have had initial exploratory discussions with ESO officials about potential UK involvement with ESO, but this has not led to any specific recommendations for Ministerial consideration.
  536W

  Renewable Energy Sources
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conclusions have been reached in response to the public consultation on Government policy for renewable sources of energy. [108365]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Renewable sources of energy are an essential element of the Government's Climate Change Programme. They are set to make an increasingly important contribution to the provision of secure, diverse and sustainable energy supplies. Renewable sources of energy will become increasingly important in the new millennium as electricity consumption increases and existing nuclear generating capacity is retired. For all these reasons the Government are committed to increasing the contribution from renewable sources of energy to the UK's energy supplies.

  The Government believe that our objective for the renewables industry can best be achieved within the framework of a competitive market. This will give the industry the greatest opportunity for technological innovation and the optimisation of efficiency so that the most cost-effective renewables can be brought forward. In order for this to be achieved the Government intend to give a clear signal to the industry that we are targeting a 10 per cent. share of electricity supply to be provided from renewable sources.

  Key elements of our strategy to achieve the policy aim will be:
  a new Renewables Obligation on all electricity suppliers;
  exemption of electricity and heat from renewables from the Climate Change Levy;
  an expanded support programme for new and renewable energy including research, development, demonstration and dissemination; and,
  development of a regional strategic approach and targets for renewable energy.

  The Renewables Obligation will enable us to make progress towards a target of generating 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Clearly hitting this higher target may, at least in the medium term, mean slightly higher costs to consumers and the acceptability of those higher costs must be fully considered. The necessary legislative powers will be taken in the Utilities Bill which the Government introduced on 20 January. The Renewables Obligation and the associated Renewables (Scotland) Obligation will be an obligation on all licensed suppliers to supply a specified proportion of their electricity supplies from renewable sources of energy. Any additional cost of supplying electricity from renewables will be met by suppliers and may be passed onto their customers. There will be no new levy for these arrangements. The Renewables Obligation will be imposed by a Statutory Instrument that will contain the detailed requirements. The Government expect to require all suppliers to obtain a specified proportion of their electricity from renewables rising year by year to achieve the 2010 target. I shall be consulting the industry, as well as electricity consumers, on the costs of achieving the precise obligation (and the rate of progress towards the overall target and price cap) in advance of the enabling Order being laid before Parliament later this year.
  537W
  It will be essential to ensure that commercially viable projects already contracted under the NFFO and SRO arrangements continue to attract and retain project finance so that the UK stays on track to source 5 per cent. of its electricity from renewables by 2003. Accordingly, transitional arrangements are being developed by the contracting parties. The Utilities Bill will give powers for secondary legislation to be developed to facilitate this process. The Bill includes powers to continue the operation of the current sections 32 and 33 of the Electricity Act 1989 (relating to NFFO and SRO Orders and the Fossil Fuel Levy) and these measures may be amended to adjust to the new arrangements as necessary.

  The renewables industry has made great strides in recent years. It has reduced the costs of the more mature renewable technologies over the last decade to the point where they are rapidly becoming competitive with other energy sources in the UK. The Government hope that the industry can rise to the challenge of the new policy by meeting the proposed targets at an acceptable cost that will not have a major impact on electricity prices. We will be consulting on what increase would be acceptable to consumers in order to promote renewables, but have in mind an increase of 1–2 per cent. in electricity prices by 2010, in return for which there will be real benefits to society from lower greenhouse gas emissions and a more diverse energy supply. This new approach to bringing forward renewables works with the grain of other developments in the electricity supply market. These other changes that the Government and the Regulator are taking forward should more than offset any increase arising from our support for renewables, so electricity prices should continue to fall in real terms over the coming years.

  In addition, the Government's new policy will provide a positive strategic approach to planning for renewable energy from the regional level downwards to facilitate its development while continuing to protect the countryside. The Government are therefore proposing that regional renewable energy assessments should set the framework for a more strategic land-use planning approach at regional level, itself providing the framework for local authorities' development plans and decisions on individual energy projects.

  This is an exciting time for the renewables industry, and an opportunity for it to move from being a fledgling industry to becoming a mainstream business activity. This policy offers good business opportunities in the home market, which will provide a good base for developing exports. Most importantly, it will make an important contribution to the protection of our environment, while contributing to diversity and security of energy supplies.

  I have published today "New and Renewable Energy—Prospects for the 21st Century—Conclusions in Response to the Public Consultation", to coincide with the introduction of the Utilities Bill. This is an initial policy statement to inform discussion of the powers in the Bill to introduce a Renewables Obligation on electricity suppliers. I am also planning to provide a full report containing the proposed programme for renewables later in the year after further discussion with interested parties in the light of this document.
  538W

WALES

  Child Abuse Inquiry
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish the report of the North Wales Child Abuse Inquiry. [108321]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The printing and translation arrangements for this report are drawing to completion and I intend to present the report and make a statement to the House in the week beginning 14 February.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 370W on departmental research contracts, if he will (a) state the total expenditure on research contracts let by his Department since May 1997 and (b) list the titles of all research contracts let by his Department during 1999 costing £20,000 or more, stating the value of each contract, and in each case whether the contract included (i) departmental veto over publication of the research results, (ii) departmental control over the date of publication of the research and (iii) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments; and if he will place a copy of the standard research contract currently in use by his Department in the Library. [107092]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As I indicated in the answer I gave on 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 370W, the term 'research' covers a wide range of activities. The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his most recent estimate of the number of Serbs who have been ethnically cleansed from Kosovo since June 1999. [107483]

  Mr. Vaz
  Protection of the Kosovo Serbs and other minorities is a top priority for KFOR and UNMIK. KFOR devotes around half of its resources at present to maintaining a presence in minority areas. In the UK-led sector, there are KFOR soldiers present in Serb towns and villages, as well as soldiers deployed to protect individual homes and farms. KFOR conducts patrols and escorts individuals to school and to work. In September 1999 UNMIK and Mr. Kouchner estimated 97,000 Serbs remain in Kosovo from a pre-war population of around 200,000. Since then there have been population movements in both directions of similar size.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on KLA involvement in terrorism and drug running. [107523]

  Mr. Vaz
  The KLA was demilitarised in September 1999 in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1244 and has ceased to exist. The UN Mission in Kosovo
  539W
  and the NATO-led Kosovo force monitor individuals and armed groups for any illegal activity and pay particular attention to tackling violence and drug trafficking.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current strength of and support for the KLA in Kosovo. [107524]

  Mr. Vaz
  The KLA was demilitarised in September 1999, in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1244 and has ceased to exist. Recent opinion polls indicate that the PPDK (Democratic Progress Party of Kosovo), the political party formed by the former commander of the KLA, Hashism Thaqi, has about 29 per cent. support and its leader about 15 per cent. We are committed to early democratic elections in Kosovo.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the levels of(a) rape, (b) murder, (c) torture and (d) intimidation of Serb civilians in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [107525]

  Mr. Vaz
  There were 430 reported murders and 180 kidnappings in Kosovo in the period between KFOR's deployment there on 12 June and 25 December last year. We do not have a breakdown of these figures by ethnic origin but of the 383 murders reported up to mid-November, 139 were Serbs, 145 Albanians and 99 of unknown ethnic origin. UNMIK and KFOR are putting substantial resources into protecting ethnic minorities. Currently over 50 per cent. of KFOR troops are on minority protection duties, providing a permanent presence in Serb towns, villages, neighbourhoods and individual houses. KFOR's presence has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of reported major offences from over 300 in the last week of June to fewer than 50 in the last week of November. There are no figures available for the other crimes.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British soldiers are involved in full-time protection of Serb civilians in Pristina from attacks by Albanians. [107522]

  Mr. Vaz
  Some 3,500 British soldiers are deployed with KFOR in Kosovo, of whom some 2,300 are serving in Pristina. KFOR currently devotes about half of its resources to protecting Serbs and other minorities.

  Visitor Visas
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are taking place with the Home Office regarding the restarting of the appeals against refusal of visitors visas. [107353]

  Mr. Vaz
  Discussions are taking place with the Home Office about the proposed new appeal right for family visitors, with a view to implementation later this year.

  Colonel Gaddafi
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made by the Government to Mr. Prodi on his decision to invite Colonel Gaddafi to visit Brussels; and if he was aware of the proposal to invite Colonel Gaddafi to visit Brussels before it was made. [107367]
  540W
  Mr. Vaz
  The questions of a visit to Brussels came up in an unscheduled telephone conversation between Prodi and Gaddafi in December. We were not informed in advance of this conversation and no formal invitation was made. Following a Libyan suggestion in January that Gaddafi was to make a visit, we made clear to the Commission that such a visit would be premature until Libya had confirmed that it accepted the Barcelona Declaration and the acquis of the Barcelona Process unconditionally and in full. A visit to Brussels could only then be considered.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extension of co-decision as it relates to the Intergovernmental Conference discussions. [107363]

  Mr. Vaz
  We will shortly publish a White Paper covering all aspects of institutional reform. This will set out our position on the possible extension of the codecision procedure.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Portuguese Presidency regarding an extension of the agenda for the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. [107358]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are in regular contact with the Portuguese Presidency on all aspects of the IGC.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet representatives of the Portuguese Presidency to discuss the Intergovernmental Conference. [107366]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are in regular contact with the Portuguese Presidency about the IGC. I will next meet my Portuguese counterpart, Sexias da Costa, on 8 February.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the extension of the powers of the President of the European Commission. [107359]

  Mr. Vaz
  We will shortly publish a White Paper on the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. This will cover all aspects of the IGC, including the possibility of extending the powers of the President of the European Commission.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on extension of the provisions for flexibility in the Amsterdam Treaty. [107360]

  Mr. Vaz
  We will shortly publish a White Paper on all aspects of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. This will set out our policy on flexibility.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish his White Paper on the Intergovernmental Conference. [107362]

  Mr. Vaz
  We intend to publish the White Paper in the week beginning 7 February.
  541W

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his statement of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 669, whether border controls, defence, taxation, social security, own resources and Treaty amendments represent a definitive list of issues in which he will not countenance an extension of qualified majority voting at the IGC. [107397]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have long made it clear that we will not support the extension of QMV to areas of key national interest. Border controls, defence, taxation, social security, own resources and Treaty change are examples of such areas.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the level of the blocking minority threshold for votes in the EU Council of Ministers. [107348]

  Mr. Vaz
  The threshold for a blocking minority has for many years been set at around 30 per cent. of the votes. The Government's view is that this sets about the right balance between ease with which legislation can be passed or blocked.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 670, what is his policy on extension of qualified majority voting to all areas which are currently the subject of dispute between Spain and the UK in respect of their application to Gibraltar. [107398]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will consider the extension of qualified majority voting on a case by case basis. Where it is in Britain's interests we will support it. But in key areas of national interest we shall insist on retaining unanimity.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the EU Treaties; and if he will make a statement. [107364]

  Mr. Vaz
  We believe that a Charter which sets out rights already enjoyed by EU citizens in a clear and accessible way will help to deepen and strengthen the culture of rights and responsibilities at all levels across the EU. We consider that these objectives can best be met if the Charter is drafted as a declaratory document, identifying and complementing existing legal instruments on fundamental rights. We do not therefore favour the Charter's incorporation into the Treaties.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Estonia, (e) Slovenia and (f) Cyprus with respect to the accession negotiations, and the timetable for accession to the EU; and if he will make a statement. [107349]
  542W
  Mr. Vaz
  Whenever my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets his counterparts from Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia, he discusses accession negotiations with them. When he met them in December in the margins of the Helsinki European Council, he noted that their countries have been making good progress in their preparation for accession. He emphasised that the UK wants the applicant states to join the European Union as soon as they are able to meet the obligations of membership. It is too soon to say when this will be.

  European Resolutions
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed(a) amendment 14 to resolution B5-0308/1999, (b) resolution A5-0058/1999 and (c) resolution B5-0327/1999 with representatives of the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [107368]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not held discussions with MEPs on these resolutions.

  Counter-terrorism (USA)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) of 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 477W, if he will place in the Library a copy of the US Senate testimony on counter-terrorism to which he refers. [107830]

  Mr. Battle
  I placed a copy in the Libraries of the House today, Tuesday 1 February.

  Commonwealth Institute
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Institute's relationship with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office [108184]

  Mr. Hain
  The Commonwealth Institute ceased to be a Non-Departmental Public Body under the direction of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 31 December 1999. This was a Commonwealth Institute initiative. Its new status is that of an independent charity, in the form of a company limited by guarantee. I am arranging for copies of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the new body to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Under the terms of its agreement with the Commonwealth Institute, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is investing £8.055 million in a severance package in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The funding will restore and develop the building, support new programmes and provide the Institute with financial stability while its plans take effect.

  This development means that the Imperial Institute Act 1925 and the Commonwealth Institute Act 1958 need to be repealed, and we shall be seeking that this be done as soon as possible.

  I wish the Institute well as it becomes a pan-Commonwealth agency dedicated to promoting the Commonwealth.
  543W

  GCHQ
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the compensation schemes for the 14 trade unionists dismissed from GCHQ. [108189]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I can announce that I have today laid before Parliament the two schemes that will put into effect the compensation of the 14 former GCHQ employees for their loss of pension rights. Details of the two schemes will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make arrangements for the hon. Member for North Cornwall to visit GCHQ Morwenstow and receive a briefing on that station's purpose and performance. [107866]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  GCHQ would be delighted to make arrangements for the hon. Member, as constituency MP, to visit its outstation at Morwenstow to receive an unclassified briefing and to meet members of staff there.

  Details of the station's purpose and performance are classified. The hon. Member will be aware that, as part of GCHQ, the Morwenstow outstation is subject to the scrutiny of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the members of which have access to classified material concerning GCHQ and its outstations under the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 20 December concerning a constituent. [107852]

  Mr. Vaz
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 29 January about this case.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to discuss the French ban on United Kingdom beef with the French Foreign Minister. [107357]

  Mr. Vaz
  The European Commission began legal proceedings against France's illegal ban on British beef on 4 January. This is now a matter between the Commission and the French Government, though my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary maintains a regular dialogue with the French Foreign Minister, M. Hubert Vedrine, to discuss a range of bilateral issues, such as the beef ban.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Defence
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 537W, on European Defence, if he will place Mr. Liddle's speaking notes in the Library. [107052]
  544W
  The Prime Minister
  I am advised that Mr. Liddle used brief speaking notes. They are not a comprehensive record. It would therefore not be appropriate for them to be placed in the Library of the House.

  British-Irish Council
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to seek the consent of other parties to the Agreement on the joint ministerial Committee of the British-Irish Council to publishing the names of those who attend meetings. [107125]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) on 19 January 2000,Official Report, columns 472–73W.

  European Integration
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last had discussions with the Prime Minister of Portugal on European integration. [107504]

  The Prime Minister
  I last spoke to Prime Minister Guterres of Portugal at a private dinner in Lisbon on 7 January. We discussed a range of international and EU issues, in particular Portuguese Presidency priorities.

  Colonel Gaddafi
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the EU Commission on Mr. Prodi's official invitation to Colonel Gaddafi to visit Brussels. [107502]

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Prodi has spoken to Colonel Gaddafi on the telephone about a possible visit, but has made it clear that the next step in the development of EU/Libya relations is for Libya to accept the Barcelona acquis without conditions. The United Kingdom has made the same point in discussion of this matter with Libya and EU Partners. The question of high level visits to Brussels could only then be considered.

  Balkans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking as a result of his conversations in London with the Prime Minister of Montenegro on(a) lifting sanctions against Serbia, (b) restoring river traffic on the Danube and (c) pollution caused by NATO military action. [107761]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: My meeting with President Djukanovic focused on the prospects for stability in the Balkans. I made clear Her Majesty's Government's support for President Djukanovic's programme of political and economic reform.

  Privy Council (Judicial Committee)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister who appoints judges to serve on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [107626]
  545W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: Only judges who are Privy Councillors may serve on the Judicial Committee and it is of course The Queen who appoints Privy Councillors on the recommendation of Her Ministers. The senior Law Lord decides which judges are invited to make up a particular Board of the Judicial Committee.

  Month/year

  Minister

  Purpose

  July 1997

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Bilateral consultations

  October 1997

  Myself

  Bilateral consultations

  November 1997

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Bilateral consultations

  March 1998

  President of the Board of Trade

  G8 Energy Ministerial

  July 1998

  Under-Secretary of State for International Development

  Bilateral consultations/Know-How-Fund co-operation

  July 1998

  Minister for Science, Energy and Industry

  Bilateral discussions/UK-Russia Science and Technology Committee

  September 1998

  Minister for Farming and the Food Industry, Lord Donoughue

  'Britain: Window for Business' exhibition

  September 1998

  Minister for Trade

  'Britain: Window for Business' exhibition

  September 1998

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Quin)

  Bilateral consultations

  September 1998

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Baroness Symons)

  Bilateral consultations

  March 1999

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Bilateral consultations

  September 1999

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Hoon)

  Bilateral consultations

  October 1999

  Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Clarke)

  G8 Meeting of Justice and Interior Ministers

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the expected date of publication of the report on deprived areas by the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team. [108072]

  The Prime Minister
  The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal will be published in the summer. In order to allow individuals and organisations as much opportunity as possible to contribute to its preparation, the Social Exclusion Unit will be publishing a consultation version of the strategy in the next few weeks, and then holding a wide range of consultation events and seminars around the country.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Videolinks
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the companies which supply, provide and service secure videolink technology for use in British courts; and what arrangements are in place to prevent the interception of transmissions by third parties. [107871]

  Jane Kennedy
  Videolink technology is used occasionally in the Crown Court to enable witnesses to give evidence from abroad. The installation is arranged locally by the party whose witness is giving evidence in this way. No information is held centrally on the suppliers used or the arrangements put in place to prevent interception. A pilot is currently in place to provide a videolink between Strangeways Prison and the Crown Court in Manchester.
  546W

  Russia
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister which United Kingdom Ministers have visited the Russian Federation since 1 May 1997; and for what purpose. [107627]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: Details of visits are as follows:

  Departmental Targets
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made in relation to his Department's targets for increased efficiency in the Departmental Annual report. [108046]

  Mr. Lock
  The LCD's objectives and measurable efficiency and effectiveness targets are contained in a Public Service Agreement published in December 1998. Management systems put in place to monitor achievement of the targets commenced on 1 April 1999. Progress against each of the targets will be reported in the LCD Departmental Report 2000–01 to 2001–02 to be published in April 2000.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Decisions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of claims in each of the last three years for(a) disability living allowance, (b) attendance allowance and (c) incapacity benefit; in each category, how many and what proportion of the total (i) were successful on the original application and (ii) resulted in an appeal; of those that were successful how many and what proportion of the total (1) were successful on appeal and (2) resulted in an appeal to the commissioners; and of those applications that resulted in an appeal to the Commissioners, how many and what proportion of the total were successful. [106671]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  547W

  Disability living allowance decisions on initial claims, reviews, and appeals

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Decisions on initial claims

  All decisions

  486,566

  391,583

  373,645

  Successful decisions

  220,228

  178,802

  176,371

  Proportion successful

  45%

  46%

  47%

  Reviews2, 3

  All decisions

  374,494

  319,501

  278,365

  Successful decisions4

  140,245

  108,842

  91,994

  Proportion successful

  37%

  34%

  33%

  Appeals

  All decisions

  35,696

  47,025

  49,857

  Successful decisions5

  19,335

  22,350

  24,051

  Proportion successful

  54%

  48%

  48%

  Attendance allowance decisions on initial claims, reviews, and appeals

  1997

  1998

  1999 1

  Decisions on initial claims

  All decisions

  425,903

  394,354

  381,378

  Successful decisions

  301,908

  291,353

  280,967

  Proportion successful

  71%

  74%

  74%

  Reviews2,3

  All decisions

  121,474

  102,520

  94,289

  Successful decisions4

  70,241

  57,999

  50,345

  Proportion successful

  58%

  57%

  53%

  Appeals

  All decisions

  5,215

  6,538

  6,066

  The numbers of claims for Incapacity Benefit (IB), awards and decisions relating to application of the incapacity tests

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Claims received by BA

  1,054,340

  1,062,817

  1,012,981

  930,002

  Disallowed at outset due to failing the contribution conditions

  382,443

  439,645

  435,095

  398,605

  IB awards commencing in the period1

  535,100

  495,560

  455,380

  409,980

  Examinations performed2

  434,617

  716,084

  615,324

  n/a

  Awards subsequently disallowed

  Disallowed following OOT test

  1,288

  2,170

  2,664

  2,750

  Disallowed following AWT

  66,367

  112,046

  104,339

  88,904

  Disallowed—non-return of questionnaire

  7,710

  9,134

  10,887

  10,578

  Disallowed—did not attend examination

  2,416

  6,652

  7,069

  8,687

  1 The sum of the IB awards and those disallowed at outset does not equal the number of IB claims, as this figure includes claims that are subsequently withdrawn and accident declarations (which are made in case a claim to benefit becomes necessary at a later date as a result of an industrial accident). It is not therefore possible to give proportional figures.

  2 Examinations performed includes Severe Disablement Allowance cases and cases where only National Insurance Credits are awarded.

  Source:

  Claims received—100 per cent. clerical count work.

  IB spells commencing—1 per cent. sample of claimants.

  Disallowance figures—100 per cent. count of the computer system.

  IB appeals and decisions (calendar years)

  1996

  1997

  1998

  A

  A

  B

  B

  Number of IB AWT appeals lodged

  55,813

  30,512

  37,405

  68,541

  Number of IB AWT appeals heard and decided

  37,740

  46,411

  5,551

  61,931

  Found in favour of appellant

  18,026

  20,301

  2,175

  25,107

  Proportion found in favour of appellant

  47%

  44%

  39%

  40%

  Original decision upheld

  1—

  1—

  3,342

  36,597

  Proportion where original decision upheld

  1—

  1—

  60%

  59%

  Number of IB appeals lodged (not AWT)2

  6,490

  3,097

  5,118

  11,259

  Number of IB appeals heard and decided (not AWT)2

  3,120

  4,133

  661

  6,801

  Found in favour of appellant (not AWT)2

  1,035

  1,182

  121

  1,732

  548W

  Attendance allowance decisions on initial claims, reviews, and appeals

  1997

  1998

  1999 1

  Successful decisions5

  3,003

  3,382

  2,899

  Proportion successful

  58%

  52%

  48%

  1 The figures for 1999 include reconsiderations and supercessions under the new system of decision making and appeals.

  2 Includes some cases where the initial decision was in a previous year.

  3 Figures relate both to awards made following review of unsuccessful initial or renewal claims, and to cases where the value of the award has increased as a result of the review.

  4 Figures relate both to awards made following an appeal against unsuccessful reviews, and to cases where the value of the award has increased as a result of the appeal.

  5 Successive decisions may be made in different years, so the figures for each stage of decision making are likely to relate to different caseloads.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division
  100 per cent. data.

  Entitlement to Incapacity Benefit is based on a person's incapacity provided they satisfy the National Insurance contribution conditions. An award of benefit is made from the outset if the contribution conditions are satisfied and there is acceptable medical evidence to support the claim. Subsequently, incapacity is assessed under the relevant medical test (either the Own Occupation Test (OOT) during the first 28 weeks of incapacity where the claimant has a recent work record or the All Work Test (AWT) after 28 weeks or from the start of the claim where the claimant has not recently worked). If the test is not satisfied, benefit is disallowed from that point.
  549W

  IB appeals and decisions (calendar years)

  1996

  1997

  1998

  A

  A

  B

  B

  Proportion found in favour of appellant

  33%

  29%

  18%

  25%

  Original decision upheld (not AWT)2

  1—

  1—

  438

  5,039

  Proportion where original decision upheld

  1—

  1—

  66%

  74%

  1 Information not available

  2 Includes OOT cases

  Note:

  1. The appeals lodged in a particular period may not necessarily go on to tribunal in the same time period.

  2. The figures provided are counts of each event in each time period.

  Source:

  A—100 per cent. extract from ITS computerised records.

  B—100 per cent. download from the Generic Appeals Processing System (GAPS) which replaced the earlier computer system in 1997.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state, for each of the last three years, and the present year to date, how many(a) applications for and (b) reviews of (i) disability living allowance, (ii) attendance allowance and (iii) incapacity benefit were (1) decided on paper and (2) decided after a medical examination; and how many in each category resulted in (x) continuation of benefit, (y) an increase in benefit and (z) withdrawal of benefit. [106685]

  Disability living allowance applications

  Decision and evidence used

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Decisions based on claim form

  83,886

  59,733

  46,637

  Decisions based on claim form in conjunction with an external medical practitioner's report

  171,719

  131,593

  146,078

  Awards based on claim form

  30,130

  23,843

  20,592

  Awards based on claim form in conjunction with an external medical practitioner's report

  77,005

  52,578

  61,079

  Attendance allowance applications

  Decision and evidence used

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Decisions based on claim form

  178,830

  160,700

  138,823

  Decisions based on claim form in conjunction with an external medical practitioner's report

  60,419

  45,675

  57,627

  Awards based on claim form

  131,242

  127,114

  114,222

  Awards based on claim form in conjunction with an external medical practitioner's report

  26,946

  18,133

  23,191

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data

  Incapacity Benefit is awarded on the basis of medical evidence at the outset of a claim, provided the contribution conditions are satisfied, and continues to be paid subject to satisfaction of incapacity tests.

  There are two tests of incapacity, the Own Occupation Test (OOT), which applies for the first 28 weeks for people who had a regular occupation, and the All Work Test (AWT) which applies to all cases where incapacity lasts more than 28 weeks. The AWT may be reapplied periodically to ensure that the entitlement conditions continue to be met. Where, following the application of

  IB cases allowed and disallowed following application of medical control

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Benefit continued following referral to Medical Services1

  561,502

  840,679

  773,741

  740,067

  Disallowed following OOT test

  1,288

  2,170

  2,664

  2,750

  Disallowed following AWT

  66,367

  112,046

  104,339

  88,904

  Disallowed—non-return of questionnaire

  7,710

  9,134

  10,887

  10,578

  Disallowed—did not attend examination

  2,416

  6,652

  7,069

  8,687

  1 Includes cases where no medical examination was carried out and where benefit was allowed following medical examination.

  Note:

  From April 2000 the All Work Test will be replaced by the Personal Capability Assessment

  Source

  100 per cent. count of the computer system
  550W
  Mr. Bayley
  Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is a non-contributory benefit available to severely disabled people aged under 65 on the basis of their care and mobility needs; Attendance Allowance (AA) is available to those over 65 with care needs.

  Information on the use of medical examinations in determining entitlement is available only for applications for benefit, and is in the tables.

  the relevant test, a person is found capable of work, the incapacity decision is reviewed and benefit will be disallowed. An unfavourable determination on incapacity is not made without the claimant being given the opportunity for a medical examination, except where they fail without good cause to respond to requests for information in relation to the All Work Test.

  Unfavourable determinations may be challenged on appeal and, since September 1999, may be reconsidered and revised where the claimant requests this within a specified time limit (one month). The available information is in the table.

  Benefits (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners he estimates will benefit from the minimum income guarantee uprating in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in the first year of its operation; and if he will make a statement. [107255]

  Mr. Rooker
  Based on the latest administrative data that the Department holds, it is estimated that over 2,000 pensioners in the constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham, and some 7,000 pensioners in the county of Shropshire will benefit from this April's increase to the minimum income guarantee.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  2. Pensioners are defined as where the claimant, and/or partner is aged 60 or over.

  3. Sample size 5 per cent.

  4. Figures for 1998 are allocated by matching the postcode against the 1998 version 1 of the Postcode Directory, and 1999 figures by matching the postcode against the 1999 version 1 of the Postcode Directory.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, August 1998 and August 1999.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of severely disabled children aged three and four who will benefit financially from the provisions of the Welfare Reform Bill in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in the first year of its operation; and if he will make a statement. [107254]

  Mr. Bayley
  This information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  In 2001–02 we estimate that approximately 7,000 severely disabled children aged three or four in Great Britain will become entitled to the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA). If the proportion of gainers in the areas requested were in line with the proportion of all DLA recipients in these areas, about 10 children would qualify in Shrewsbury and Atcham and about 50 in Shropshire.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many benefit recipients have been paid twice as a result of recent errors in the automatic credit transfer system; how much was overpaid; what was the cost of the steps taken to recover the overpayment; how much has so far been repaid; and if he will make a statement. [107636]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefit payments is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 31 January 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked Peter Mathison to respond to your recent question asking how many benefit recipients have been paid twice as a result of recent errors in the automatic credit transfer system; how much was overpaid, what was the cost of the steps
  552W
  taken to recover the overpayment; how much has so far been repaid; and if he will make a statement. As he is unavailable due to annual leave I am replying.
  A computer processing problem resulted in a batch of Income Support payments paid by Automated Credit Transfer being duplicated. 112,000 Income Support customers received duplicate payments amounting to £10.5m. The payments were made into customers' bank accounts on 18 January. The duplicate payments made represent a very small proportion of the total number of Income Support payments the Agency makes each year.
  Our aim is to protect the public purse and seek recovery when able to do so. Steps have been taken to account separately for the recovery of these duplicate payments and the Benefits Agency's Central Recovery Group (CRG) were asked to co-ordinate the recovery. Customers were notified of the problem by letter on 24 January and given details of how to repay the duplicate payment. Letter were issued to 109,663 customers. Letters were not issued where we had been informed the customer has since died or where the amount paid was less than £5.
  The Central Recovery Group has set up dedicated phone lines to receive phone calls from customers who needed to speak to somebody about how to pay the money back. Customers can also contact their local benefit offices for advise and guidance.
  Although customers have been asked to make repayment to the Central Recovery Group, customers may chose to make repayment at their local office. Although no specific information has yet been collected, Central Recovery Group estimate that in the last two days they have already received about 28,000 replies. The 3,000 opened today contained £157,000 in repayments. The vast majority of callers have also indicated a willingness to repay. This indicates a positive outlook for recovery from customers.
  No estimate is yet available as to the extra costs incurred in recovering the overpaid benefit.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 541W, on departmental research contracts, if he will place a copy of the standard research contract in use by his Department in the Library. [107096]

  Mr. Rooker
  A copy of the standard Department of Social Security research contract has been placed in the Library.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will issue guidance to local benefit offices concerning the manner in which winter fuel payments are to be processed. [107853]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 81W.

  New Deal (Lone Parents)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether single parents with a degree qualification can qualify for the New Deal for Lone Parents. [107462]

  Angela Eagle
  All lone parents on Income Support are eligible to join the voluntary New Deal for Lone Parents.
  553W
  Since October 1998, when the New Deal for Lone Parents was launched nationwide, over 104,000 lone parents have attended interviews, 89 per cent. of these have decided to participate and over 28,000 have obtained jobs.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 572W, on benefit payment methods, what assumptions about the number of people who will opt to have benefits paid directly into a bank account rather than at a post office underlay his forecast of annual savings; and if he will make a statement. [107786]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the right hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 333W.

  Fraud Inquiry
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost of the inquiry was into organised benefit fraud by John Scampion. [108041]

  Mr. Rooker
  Funding of £85,000 was allocated to the review of organised fraud. The final costs of this exercise are not yet known.

  Gardening Leave
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many officials in his Department are on gardening leave. [108055]

  Mr. Rooker
  The terms and conditions of the Department do not include a provision for gardening leave. We would interpret the term as applying to staff who have no current assignment and are in receipt of full pay and are not required to attend for work. The Department currently has no staff whose absence falls within this interpretation.

CABINET OFFICE

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to reduce the number of non-departmental public bodies. [106731]

  Mr. Stringer
  The number of non-departmental public bodies has fallen by 6 per cent. since 1997 and now stands at 1,057. This information is published in Public Bodies 1999, copies of which are available from the Libraries of the House. The Government will continue to ensure that the number of non-departmental public bodies is monitored and kept under control.

  Civil Service (Political Activities)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 394W, if she will review the operation of the Servants of the Crown (Parliamentary, European Parliamentary and Northern Ireland Assembly
  554W
  Candidature) Order 1987, to allow for an extension of the Civil Service grades who can take part in all political activities. [106324]

  Mr. Stringer
  Consideration is being given to a possible amendment to the Servants of the Crown (Parliamentary, European Parliamentary, National Assembly for Wales, New Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish Parliament Candidature) Order 1999 to allow Departments greater flexibility in the definition of the "politically free" group.

HEALTH

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the regulation of private cosmetic surgery. [106252]

  Ms Stuart
  We have received a number of representations about the need to regulate more effectively premises where cosmetic surgery and laser treatment for cosmetic purposes are provided.

  We recognise that greater assurance for the public is needed about the safety and quality of the treatment being provided in this area. We therefore intend to introduce improved regulation of independent healthcare services, including premises where cosmetic surgery is performed, medical treatment is provided under anaesthesia or sedation, and where certain laser treatment is provided. These measures are included in the provisions of our Care Standards Bill. Our aim is to achieve more effective regulation to assure the quality of private cosmetic surgery, the adequacy of information for patients and would-be patients, the safety of the technology and equipment used, including laser treatment, and the effectiveness of complaints procedures when things do go wrong. We are confident that this will provide the enhanced safeguards and assurance of standards in private cosmetic surgery.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to publish its guidance on the use of beta interferon in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. [106253]

  Mr. Denham
  The work programme for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was announced on 4 November 1999. The timing of the appraisal is a matter for NICE to determine subject to wider discussion with stakeholders. I understand the results of NICE's deliberations on beta interferon will be available in late summer this year.

  Ovarian Cancer
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support his Department provides for ovarian cancer research. [106255]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government spent approximately over £1 million in 1998–99 on directly commissioned research projects relating to ovarian cancer.
  555W
  The Department also supports research in the National Health Service funded by research councils and charities. It is estimated that over £1 million of this is supporting ovarian cancer research.

  The Medical Research Council has been working with a number of cancer charities to set up a major study of screening on ovarian cancer. An announcement will be made shortly.

  NHS Direct
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of NHS Direct in meeting patient needs. [106256]

  Ms Stuart
  NHS Direct has proved to be very effective in meeting patients' needs. Sheffield University's independent interim evaluation of the first three NHS Direct pilot sites found that overall 97 per cent. of callers surveyed were either satisfied or very satisfied with the service they received. Out of those callers triaged by a nurse, nurses advise two out of three callers to a more appropriate setting of care than the caller said they would otherwise have used.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact to date on access to health care of the NHS Direct service. [106263]

  Ms Stuart
  NHS Direct is improving access to health care by advising callers which part of the NHS to contact. NHS Direct nurses advise two out of three callers to use a more appropriate setting of care than the caller said they would otherwise have used. One in three callers are advised how to look after themselves at home. Over the holiday period, NHS Direct handled over 200,000 calls: if NHS Direct had not been available, many of these callers would have contacted other NHS services, including accident and emergency departments and the ambulance services at a time when these services were very hard pressed.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the programme to ensure that patients with cancer do not have to wait to see a specialist. [106257]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are ending long waits for outpatient appointments. By the end of 2000 we will have put the necessary arrangements in place to enable patients with suspected cancer referred urgently by their GP to be seen by a specialist within two weeks.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of vibration white finger treated by the NHS in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [106258]
  556W
  Mr. Denham
  The incidence of vibration white finger (VWF) treated by the National Health Service is not recorded. Hospital admissions for VWF will be included in those people having 'cervical sympathectomy', the surgical procedure to treat it. These figures were:

  1993: 391

  1994: 379

  1995: 467

  1996: 487

  1997: 301.

  Recent research by the Medical Research Council estimates that 242,000 adults in Britain suffer from cold-induced finger blanching as a result of exposure to hand-arm vibration at work.

  Flu Outbreak
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the impact of the recent flu outbreak on the NHS. [106259]

  Yvette Cooper
  The incidence of flu, along with other acute respiratory illness, has put very real pressure on NHS services this winter, but the NHS is dealing with these pressures. The peaks in demand are being managed better than previously, with NHS staff—in both primary care and the hospitals sector—working well to manage the current pressures.

  Waiting Times (Operations)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in waiting times for hospital operations in the last three months. [106260]

  Mr. Denham
  Waiting times fell in the last three months for which data are available. Since August 1999 the average length of time patients were waiting for inpatient treatment has fallen from about 13 weeks to about 12 weeks in November 1999.

  A and E Departments
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making in improving hospitals accident and emergency departments. [106261]

  Ms Stuart
  Last year, we announced a £115 million programme to modernise and upgrade all accident and emergency departments which needed it. Of the 244 schemes planned, over a quarter (27.5 per cent.) have now been completed. About half of the schemes will be finished by April, and some 80 per cent. by July.

  Lichfield Victoria and Hammerwich Hospitals
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future provision of services currently available at the Lichfield Victoria Hospital and the Hammerwich Hospital in South Staffordshire. [106262]

  Yvette Cooper
  The hon. Member will be aware that South Staffordshire Health Authority is currently undertaking a wide ranging strategic review of services. I understand that the Health Authority is still working-up proposals, and as such it would not be possible for me to
  557W
  comment at this time on the future provision of services at Lichfield Victoria Hospital and the Hammerwich Hospital.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making with the development of primary care groups. [106264]

  Mr. Denham
  481 Primary Care Groups began on 1 April 1999 and are making excellent progress in bringing GPs, nurses, health professionals and social services together to deliver better services for their local population. 68 Primary Care Groups have also made applications to gain Primary Care Trust status this year and I have recently announced the first 17 to start from 1 April 2000.

  Dementia
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop services for people suffering from dementia. [106265]

  Mr. Hutton
  Improving mental health services in the National Health Service is a priority for this Government. The Department also works closely with organisations such as the Alzheimer's Society, Dementia Relief Trust and the Dementia Services Development Centres who provide advice and support to users, their carers and those developing local services.

  The work for the National Service Framework for Older People covers mental health including dementia. We expect to be publishing the National Service Framework later this year.

  Nurses (Recruitment and Retention)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to increase the recruitment and retention of nurses. [106266]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to help the National Health Service recruit the extra nurses it needs to deliver modern and dependable care.

  Last month (January), we announced an above inflation pay award of 3.4 per cent. for all nurses, with additional increases for experienced staff nurses of 7.8 per cent.

  As a result of last year's national recruitment campaign, over 5,000 nurses are returning to the NHS, and applications for nursing degree courses are up by 24 per cent.

  I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we will be launching this year's national recruitment campaign on 28 February. The campaign will include high profile TV and press advertising, and will target those areas of the country with the most pressing vacancies.

  The Government are also making progress on modernising services and modernising employment practice in the NHS to retain nurses. Through our national nursing strategy, "Making a Difference", the NHS is developing flexible and family friendly working practices; extending and improving investment in lifelong learning and professional development, and tackling violence and racism in the workplace.
  558W

  General Practitioners
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that GPs receive continuing professional development. [106267]

  Mr. Denham
  Continuing professional development (CPD) in general practice is important. Learning must be lifelong and cannot cease at the end of formal training. To provide the best possible service to their patients general practitioners should keep up to date with advances in patient care and continually review and improve their knowledge, skills and abilities. We will be issuing a paper on CPD in primary care, building on the many examples of good work already being done by GPs and extending these principles to all primary care staff.

  Out-of-area Treatment
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the operation of the out-of-area treatment scheme. [106268]

  Mr. Denham
  Extra Contractual Referrals (ECRs) were part of the unfair "two tier" internal market, and were abolished on 31 March 1999. They have been replaced by new arrangements for commissioning services—long term service agreements, specialised service agreements and out-of-area treatments.

  Following the introduction of the new commissioning arrangements on 1 April 1999, the National Health Service Executive has received a small number of representations regarding the out-of-area treatment scheme. We are, of course, keeping the arrangements under review.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the target time set by his Department within which a trust should receive payment for treatments given under the out-of-area treatment scheme. [106272]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Out-of-area treatment (OAT) arrangements, each National Health Service trust has a main commissioner. The main commissioner health authority is funded for OATs through an annual non-recurrent adjustment to allocations. NHS trusts should be paid by their main commissioners in line with the profile agreed locally.

  NHS Spending
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what total spending in the NHS will be in the current financial year; and what estimate he has made of the level in(a) 2006 and (b) 2007. [106269]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1999–2000 total gross National Health Service expenditure in England is forecast to be £43,049 million.

  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 19 January 2000, Official Report, columns 835–42, if we continue to manage the economy properly we will be able to sustain increases in the National Health Service funding which will bring us up to the European average.
  559W

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the take-up of free eye tests for pensioners and the results of such tests. [106270]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since April 1999, when we extended eligibility for National Health Service sight tests to everyone aged 60 or over, some 50,000 more people have been undergoing these tests each week. We estimate that some five per cent. of those tested are referred for investigation of suspected eye disease.

  Health Spending
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what increase in UK health spending would be required to raise it to the European Union average. [106271]

  Mr. Denham
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 19 January 2000,Official Report, columns 835–42, if we continue to manage the economy properly we will be able to sustain increases in the National Health Service funding which will bring us up to the European average.

  Midwifery (North Essex)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide additional funds to the North Essex health authority to enable team midwifery groups to be provided throughout the authority's area. [106273]

  Yvette Cooper
  North Essex Health Authority is in the process of reviewing its maternity services strategy for the whole of its area, with key stakeholders and users. There will be no changes made to existing maternity services until this strategy has been agreed. Any proposed changes to existing provision will be the subject of a full and open consultation.

  The 2000–01 unified allocation for North Essex Health Authority is £544.95 million, representing a cash increase of £34.15 million (6.68 per cent). It is for health authorities, in partnership with NHS trusts, primary care groups, local authorities and local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health and modernising services. The significant additional resources available will help them in this.

  Head Lice
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS spends each year on drugs to treat head lice. [106274]

  Mr. Denham
  The net ingredient cost of prescription items dispensed in the community for the treatment of head lice in each of the past five years, for which information is available, was as follows:

  Net ingredient cost of prescription items for head lice treatments (England)

  Year

  £000

  1994

  3,107.3

  1995

  4,785.3

  1996

  7,538.4

  560W

  Net ingredient cost of prescription items for head lice treatments (England)

  Year

  £000

  1997

  8,165.9

  1998

  6,352.3

  Data are not collected centrally for treatments dispensed in hospital.

  Waiting Lists (Consultants)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of consultants to discuss targets for reducing waiting lists. [106275]

  Mr. Denham
  Ministers in the Department regularly visit the health service and talk to consultants and other professionals on a wide range of topics, including waiting lists.

  Southend and Thameside Community Care Trusts
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the merger of the Southend and Thameside Community Care Trusts. [106276]

  Mr. Denham
  Southend Community National Health Service Trust and Thameside Community NHS Trust will merge from 1 April 2000 following a period of statutory consultation which ended on 31 August 1999.

  The benefits of merger of the two trusts are significant. Equity, efficiency and access to services should all be improved. Elimination of organisational barriers will provide a platform from which clinical services can be developed. Thus best practice can more easily and quickly be implemented in respect of integration of mental health and other services in community settings. Management should be better placed to liaise effectively with stakeholders within and outside the NHS. The new structure will also improve local flexibility to make future changes easier, as primary care groups and Primary Care Trusts mature and take on additional roles. In addition, savings from reduced management costs can be reinvested in direct patient care.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in the immunisation programme using the new meningitis vaccine. [106277]

  Yvette Cooper
  The introduction of the new meningitis C vaccine is progressing very well. Immunisation for 15 to 17-year-olds is largely completed, babies have been receiving the vaccine since November and we are on target to offer the vaccine to everyone aged under 18 by the end of the year.

  NICE
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [106250]
  561W
  Mr. Denham
  NICE will secure a more rapid uptake of cost-effective innovations, eliminate the lottery of care, and help the NHS deliver the best possible patient care with the resources available. NICE's initial work programme was announced in November. Interim guidance on Relenza has already been issued. Appraisal guidance on hip implants, extraction of wisdom teeth, taxanes for breast and ovarian cancer, coronary artery stents, and new diagnostic techniques for cervical cancer will follow over the next three months or so. The first compilation of general practitioner referral guidelines will be published in April.

  Older Carers
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged over 65 years were acting as carers for relatives under the age of 50 in(a) 1998, (b) 1988 and (c) 1978; and what are the projected figures for 2008. [104509]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available for the years nor the age groups requested.

  The 1995 General Household Survey (GHS) indicates that there are around 1 million people in Great Britain who are aged 65 and over and acting as a carer. The number of carers aged over 65 who are caring for people of different age groups can not be estimated accurately, because of small sample sizes. However, the GHS found that less than 0.5 per cent. of the total population aged 16 or more, were aged 65 and over and caring for a relative aged under 65.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged over 65 years were acting as carers for relatives over the age of 70 years in(a) 1998, (b) 1988 and (c) 1978; and what is the projected figure for 2008. [104508]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available for the years nor the age groups requested.

  Centre

  0+

  0-

  A+

  A-

  B+

  B-

  AB+

  AB-

  Total

  Registered donors 1998–99

  Brentwood

  79,286

  18,973

  75,275

  17,347

  16,431

  3,564

  6,664

  1,517

  219,057

  North London

  70,775

  15,989

  61,033

  13,179

  16,384

  3,160

  6,165

  1,355

  188,040

  South Thames

  87,236

  21,485

  81,116

  18,486

  18,601

  4,065

  7,194

  1,601

  239,784

  London and South East

  237,297

  56,447

  217,424

  49,012

  51,416

  10,789

  20,023

  4,473

  646,881

  Birmingham

  59,258

  16,051

  53,751

  12,657

  11,389

  2,631

  5,440

  1,038

  162,215

  Bristol

  92,116

  23,898

  85,780

  20,245

  18,170

  4,242

  7,933

  1,651

  254,035

  Southampton

  42,318

  10,943

  40,675

  9,561

  8,321

  1,989

  3,862

  796

  118,465

  Midlands and South West

  193,692

  50,892

  180,206

  42,463

  37,880

  8,862

  17,235

  3,485

  534,715

  Sheffield

  54,430

  13,988

  51,871

  12,819

  10,561

  2,627

  5,046

  1,143

  152,485

  Leeds

  43,902

  10,727

  39,068

  9,383

  9,106

  2,066

  3,541

  817

  118,610

  Manchester

  108,620

  26,407

  89,763

  21,409

  21,035

  4,777

  7,348

  1,685

  281,044

  Newcastle

  42,854

  11,406

  35,037

  8,834

  8,484

  2,169

  3,443

  882

  113,109

  North

  249,806

  62,528

  215,739

  52,445

  49,186

  11,639

  19,378

  4,527

  665,248

  Donations collected 1998–99

  Brentwood

  104,786

  25,371

  98,291

  22,688

  21,212

  4,666

  8,101

  1,918

  287,033

  North London

  94,119

  22,019

  78,298

  17,211

  20,526

  4,073

  7,288

  1,602

  245,137

  South Thames

  117,518

  29,626

  106,718

  24,831

  23,940

  5,462

  8,188

  2,019

  318,302

  London and South East

  316,423

  77,017

  283,307

  64,730

  65,678

  14,200

  23,577

  5,540

  850,472

  562W
  The 1995 General Household Survey (GHS) indicates that there are around 1 million people in Great Britain who are aged 65 and over and acting as a carer. The number of carers aged over 65 who are caring for people of different age groups cannot be estimated accurately, because of small sample sizes. However, a rough estimate would indicate that around 500,000 people aged 65 and over were caring for relatives aged 75 and over.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a list of intensive care beds in each NHS hospital in England and Wales on(a) 31 March 1999 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available. [104774]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The information has been placed in the Library. Information for Wales is a matter for its Administration.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many blood donors there were in each NHS region broken down by blood type; and how much blood was donated in each of the last five years. [106932]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the number of donors, their blood types, and on the number of donations, is collected by National Blood Authority blood centre rather than by National Health Service region.

  The number of donors and their blood groups, and donations collected, are set out in the table for each blood centre in 1998–99, the last year for which figures are available. For each of the last five years, the donor and donation figures for England are given.

  The figures on the number of donors registered over the five year period are variable because the National Blood Authority records were reviewed and updated before transfer to a new national computer system in 1998, to remove duplicate and obsolete entries.
  563W

  Centre

  0+

  0-

  A+

  A-

  B+

  B-

  AB+

  AB-

  Total

  Birmingham

  96,479

  27,550

  85,754

  20,264

  17,660

  4,138

  4,831

  1,426

  258,102

  Bristol

  108,014

  29,862

  97,568

  23,717

  19,659

  4,811

  5,254

  1,534

  290,419

  Southampton

  54,255

  15,360

  49,584

  11,664

  9,927

  2,407

  2,816

  831

  146,844

  Midlands and South West

  258,748

  72,772

  232,905

  55,646

  47,247

  11,356

  12,901

  3,791

  695,365

  Sheffield

  88,863

  22,714

  81,682

  20,443

  17,002

  4,158

  4,566

  1,233

  240,661

  Leeds

  59,344

  14,667

  51,853

  12,640

  12,080

  2,751

  4,311

  1,003

  158,650

  Manchester

  116,788

  29,449

  95,874

  23,262

  22,152

  5,128

  6,981

  1,594

  301,227

  Newcastle

  57,598

  15,521

  47,033

  11,967

  10,757

  2,817

  3,605

  949

  150,247

  North

  322,594

  82,351

  276,442

  68,312

  61,991

  14,853

  19,463

  4,779

  850,785

  Registered/Collected—England

  Year

  Active donors

  1994–95

  2,221,883

  1995–96

  2,225,565

  1996–97

  1,906,637

  1997–98

  1,914,351

  1998–99

  1,846,844

  Donations

  1994–95

  2,255,102

  1995–96

  2,329.767

  1996–97

  2,355,551

  1997–98

  2,389,028

  1998–99

  2,396,622

  Cerebral Palsy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has spent on research into cerebral palsy in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [107060]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government fund health and medical research in a number of ways.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC)—which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the science and engineering base.

  It is the main agency through which the Government support research on the causes and treatment of disease.

  The Department funds research and development to support its work on policy development and evaluation in health and social care. The Department also manages the National Health Service research and development levy which is used to support research and development of relevance to the National Health Service in hospitals, general practice and other health care settings, and to fund the NHS research and development programme.

  During 1998–99 the MRC spent £58 million on neurosciences and mental health research.

  This research portfolio covers a wide range of areas in basic research that underpin the understanding of diseases and dysfunction of the brain, including cerebral palsy.

  The national NHS research and development programme has funded a number of projects on cerebral palsy at a total cost of £619,579. Expenditure for this work over the last five years is as follows.
  564W

  £

  1995–96

  40,314

  1996–97

  129,454

  1997–98

  129,454

  1998–99

  171,339

  1999–2000

  101,658

  Management of much of the research supported by the NHS research and development levy is devolved and details of expenditure at project level are not held centrally by the Department. For example, the Department provides support funds to allow work funded by others such as the Research Councils and charities to be conducted within the NHS. Local research projects may also be funded through NHS regional offices. The total spend on cerebral palsy research will therefore be greater than that shown for the national NHS research and development programme above.

  The Department also funds the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at Oxford, whose programme includes work on cerebral palsy.

  Project details of work directly funded by the Department or supported through the NHS research and development levy can be found on the National Research Register (NRR). This is available in the Library and most medical libraries on CD-ROM and on the Internet: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm. The NRR lists a considerable number of projects related to cerebral palsy.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent assessment he has made of the impact of private practice in the same NHS unit or specialty on the waiting list and waiting time for treatment; [107391]

  (2) what action he has taken in relation to Recommendation 15 of the Health Committee report, "Public Expenditure on Health Services: Waiting Lists" (Session 1990/91: page xxiv); and if he will make a statement. [107392]

  Ms Stuart
  We have made no assessment of the impact of private practice on waiting lists and times for treatment in the same National Health Service unit or specialty.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish, for each of the next 12 months, the week in which he expects to announce the latest(a) in-patient waiting list figures and (b) out-patient waiting list figures. [107301]
  565W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: The in-patient waiting list statistics for the end of December 1999 and out-patient waiting times statistics for the third quarter of 1999–2000 will be published during the week commencing 14 February 2000. Publication dates for later months will be published, as usual, one month prior in the Office for National Statistics' "Updates".

  NHS Consultants (Private Practice)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the average time spent on private practice by NHS consultants. [107390]

  Ms Stuart
  The vast majority of our consultants work hard for the National Health Service and more than fulfil their contractual commitments.

  We are currently negotiating a new modern contract for consultants with the Central Consultants and Specialists Committee of the British Medical Association. We want to see better, more robust job planning arrangements,

  Major capital schemes—approved since May 1997

  £ million

  PFI schemes

  NHSRO

  Approximate capital

  PFI schemes reached financial close with work started on site:

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  SE

  94

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  N&Y

  65

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  SE

  45

  Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust

  East

  144

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  N&Y

  61

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  Lond

  93

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  N&Y

  65

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  NW

  66

  Bromley Healthcare NHS Trust

  Lond

  118

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  Lond

  54

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  WM

  87

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  WM

  64

  South Durham Healthcare NHS Trust

  N&Y

  41

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  N&Y

  122

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  SW

  96

  Kings Healthcare NHS Trust

  Lond

  64

  Total PFI schemes reached financial close with work started on site (16)

  1,277

  PFI schemes approved but not yet started on site:

  Wave 1a schemes

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Lond

  274

  St. Georges Hospital NHS Trust

  Lond

  44

  Baits and The London NHS Trust

  Lond

  462

  Total London

  780

  2nd wave schemes prioritised

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust and Manchester Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  NW

  250

  Dudley Priority Hospitals NHS Trust

  WM

  68

  West Berkshire Priority Care NHS Trust

  SE

  29

  Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  N&Y

  124

  Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust and Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust

  WM

  181

  West Middlesex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Lond

  33

  Total 2nd wave schemes prioritised

  685

  Total April 1998 Announcement

  1,465

  3rd wave schemes prioritised1,2

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust

  N&Y

  125

  The Radcliffe Infirmary NHS Trust

  SE

  71

  Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

  Lond

  148

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  SE

  75

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Healthcare NHS Trust

  NW

  52

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS trust

  Trent

  177

  Total 3rd wave scheme prioritised

  648

  Total PFI

  3,390

  566W
  supported by regular appraisal, to ensure that consultants' undoubted energies are focused clearly on delivering key service goals and priorities, providing patients with the high quality care that they need and expect, increasing productivity where it is needed most and cutting waiting lists.

  Private Finance Initiative (Hospitals)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those hospitals planned to be built under the private finance initiative indicating how many projects have been completed. [107434]

  Mr. Denham
  A list of all 31 major private finance initiative schemes is in the table. It shows schemes that have reached financial close and work has started on site, and schemes that have been given the go-ahead and are working towards financial close. The first three major acute PFI schemes, at Carlisle, Dartford and Gravesham and South Buckinghamshire will become operational in 2000.
  567W

  Major capital schemes—approved since May 1997

  £ million

  PFI schemes

  NHSRO

  Approximate capital

  Publicly funded schemes:

  Publicly funded schemes with work started on site

  Rochdale Health Care NHS trust

  NW

  24

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital NHS Trust

  SE

  74

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Trent

  24

  Guys and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  Lond

  50

  Total

  172

  Publicly funded schemes approved but not started on site

  Royal Hull Hospitals NHS Trust

  N&Y

  20

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  SW

  25

  Total

  45

  Total Publicly Funded

  217

  Total major capital investment given go ahead

  3,607

  1 For schemes still in early stages of development, estimates are based on highest costed option

  2 Figures may not sum due to rounding

  Note:

  The capital values of PFI schemes are approximate and defined as:

  Total Capital Cost to the Private Sector includes the costs of land, construction, equipment and professional fees but excludes VAT, rolled up interest and financing costs such as bank arrangement fees, bank due diligence fees, banks' lawyers fees and third party equity costs. As PFI procures a service rather than the underlying asset, capital values shown are necessarily estimates.

  Summary:

  All schemes
  Since 1 May 1997, 37 major hospital developments, worth over £3.1 billion have been given the go ahead.

  PFI schemes
  31 major hospital developments worth over £2.9 billion have been given approval to proceed under the Private Finance Initiative since 1 May 1997, 16 of which, worth almost £1.3 billion have already signed final contracts and begun building. Of these 16, three are scheduled to become operational in 2000.

  Publicly funded schemes
  The go ahead has also been given to six publicly funded schemes worth almost £220 million, with work on site already started at four of these.

  Piped Oxygen
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received on the benefits of having piped oxygen in acute wards in terms of patient care and nursing staff productivity. [107417]

  Ms Stuart
  No central reports are available on the benefits of having piped oxygen in acute wards in terms of patient care and nursing staff productivity. Experience shows that piped oxygen is beneficial in terms of improved patient care, providing a safe, cost effective and productive service.

  NHS Hospitals (Training)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many doctors currently working in the private health sector were trained in NHS hospitals; [107432]

  (2) how many people in professions allied to medicine currently working in the private health sector were trained in NHS hospitals; [107429]

  (3) how many nurses currently working in the private health sector were trained in NHS hospitals. [107428]
  568W
  Ms Stuart
  Data on the source of health professionals qualifications working in the private sector are not collected centrally. However, the great majority of United Kingdom trained health professionals working in the private health sector will have received their professional education and training within or associated with the National Health Service.

  Bio-medical Scientists
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bio-medical scientists are employed by the West Sussex Health Authority; and what is the Authority's establishment for bio-medical scientists. [107874]

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

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): all pathology scientists within West Sussex Health Authority, as at 30 September 1998

  Total pathology scientists

  Whole-time equivalent

  5

  Numbers (headcount)

  5

  Notes:

  1. "Pathology Scientists" include Biomedical Scientists, Immunologists, Clinical Cytogenetics, Chemical Pathologists, Haematologists etc.

  2. "Pathology Scientists" can not be broken down in any more detail to reveal Biomedical Scientist numbers.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women with suspected breast cancer waited to see a consultant for(a) two, (b) three, (c) four, (d) five, (e) six, (f) seven and (g) eight weeks in the most recent period for which figures are available; and if he will

  569W
  provide this information in respect of the age groups (i) under 29, (ii) 30 to 49, (iii) 50 to 64, (iv) 65 to 74, (v) 75 to 84 and (vi) 85 years and over. [105067]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested. In the three months ending 30 September 1999, 95 per cent. of patients with suspected breast cancer were seen for their first outpatient appointment within two weeks of their GP deciding they should be referred urgently and the National Health Service trust receiving the referral within 24 hours.

  Community Hospital (Lymington)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce a decision on the proposed private finance initiative scheme for a new community hospital for Lymington. [107264]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: Negotiations between Southampton Community Health Services National Health Service Trust and its private sector partner on the proposed private finance initiative scheme for a new community hospital for Lymington are continuing. We hope these will be completed shortly, allowing an announcement to be made shortly after.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Country of Origin Labelling
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Government are taking to curb misleading country of origin labelling on food products. [108318]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Following consultation of the food industry and enforcement authorities I issued today revised guidance notes on origin labelling to ensure that consumers are not misled about the true origin of the food they buy. A copy of the guidance notes has been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Red Tape Review
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce his responses to the Red Tape Review reports on the Meat Industry, IACS and Inspections, and the Intervention System. [108319]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Further to my replies of 13 December 1999,Official Report, column 89W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), 21 December 1999, Official Report, columns 572–73W, welcoming the three reports prepared as key parts of the review of regulatory burdens on agriculture, I am today placing in the Library of the House action plans which set out the Government's responses to the 107 recommendations in the reports. We have accepted 98 of the 107 recommendations. We shall be giving six recommendations further consideration, and will do so as rapidly as possible. Of the 98 recommendations we have accepted, we shall be pursuing 23 in Brussels to seek changes in the basic legal provisions.
  570W

  Over-30-month Scheme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the criteria by which the Intervention Board awards slaughter contracts under the over-30-month scheme. [102918]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 16 December 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 25 January 2000, Official Report, column 183W.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the items in the National Assets Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 15 February 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104479]

  Mr. Morley
  Some £16,744,388 has accrued to my Department, its agencies and associated non-departmental public bodies from sales of surplus assets disposed of since 15 February 1999.

  A summary of individual assets and groups of assets sold or otherwise disposed of by my Department and its associated bodies since February 1999 is contained in the following tables. The table headings reflect the categories reported in the National Asset Register.

  Categories where no disposals have taken place have been omitted.

  More detailed information (such as types of computer, descriptions of individual vehicles) is held by the Department but would be expensive to compile.

  Since the National Asset Register was published in November 1997, a total of £29,374,183 has been realised from disposals of such assets.

  The Department remains committed to the early identification of surplus assets and their disposal on terms favourable to the public purse.

  1. Property
  The Ministry has disposed of the sites listed since 15 February 1999, and realised £14,450,100 to date. A further £1,850,000 is payable to MAFF in 2000–01 arising from these sales. Individual figures for each item are held by my Department but have not been reported here for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
  A number of surplus properties remain. Action is in hand to dispose of these at best value to the Department.

  1A. Freehold Property—HQ and Regional Offices
  Berkeley Towers, Nantwich Road, Crewe

  1B. Freehold Property—Laboratories
  Central Science Laboratory, London Road, Slough
  CSL National Bees Unit, Luddington, Stratford upon Avon (2 plots)

  1C. Freehold Property—Farms etc.
  Efford EHS, Lymington, Hants. (part)
  Marsh Cottages, Rosemaund, Preston Wynne, Hereford
  1 Marsh Cottages, Rosemaund, Preston Wynne, Hereford
  9 Great North Road, Chawston, BedsHurstborne Common, Andover, Hants.
  571W
  1D. Freehold Property—Buffer Depots
  Former RAF station, Strubby, Alford, Lincs.
  Gravel Pit, Hertford Road, Hoddesdon, Herts.
  Towy Avenue, Llandovery, Dyfed

  2B. Historic Leasehold Property—Laboratories
  Olantigh Road, Wye, Ashford, Kent

  3A. Long Leasehold Property—Laboratories
  CSL Colney Lane, Norwich.

  5A. Information Technology—Equipment (Servers, Pcs)

  Description

  Number disposed of

  Sales receipts (£)

  MAFF

  104

  0

  PSD

  69

  0

  MHS

  1—

  0

  CSL

  78

  0

  VMD

  1—

  0

  VLA

  3

  0

  CEFAS

  1—

  0

  FRCA

  1—

  0

  Total

  > 254

  0

  1 Where number of units are not stated, the information is available but due to changes in local accounting systems could only be retrieved at significant cost.

  Notes:

  As a consequence of technical obsolescence, IT disposals tend to have no resale value. The Department and its Agencies seek to maximise the use of existing technology where possible, and only dispose of IT equipment when it can ńo longer meet the Department's needs.

  The Department has incurred some additional expense to dispose safely of PCBs and Monitors but this cost is not readily distinguishable from other expenditure on waste disposal.

  5B. Information Technology—Main Systems
  Version 9.3.7 of the "ORACLE Financials" Resource Accounting and Management Information System has been superseded by version 10.7. The earlier version has been retained for accessing archived data. PSD upgraded their SUN Accounts system in March 1999. Although there was no cash benefit from the disposal of the old system and associated equipment, the Agency received a trade-in value of £20,000 against the cost of the upgrade.
  Some non-critical software systems were capitalised on MAFF and Agency Accounts where material external costs had been incurred. These had no residual value, were not Millennium compliant, and have been written off from the accounts.

  6. Office Equipment

  Description

  Numbers disposed of

  Sales receipts (£)

  MAFF

  25

  2,350

  PSD

  —

  —

  MHS

  —

  —

  CSL

  1

  0

  VMD

  —

  —

  VLA

  —

  —

  CEFAS

  —

  —

  FRCA

  —

  —

  Total

  26

  2,350

  7. Scientific and Laboratory Equipment

  Description

  Numbers disposed of

  Sales receipts (£)

  MAFF

  —

  —

  PSD

  —

  —

  MHS

  —

  —

  CSL

  62

  0

  572W

  7. Scientific and Laboratory Equipment

  Description

  Numbers disposed of

  Sales receipts (£)

  VMD

  —

  —

  VLA

  78

  14,668

  CEFAS

  —

  —

  FRCA

  —

  —

  Total

  140

  14,668

  8. Furniture and Fittings
  Small amounts of furniture and fittings have been disposed of when dilapidated, but with no resale value.

  9. Vehicles

  Description

  Numbers disposed of

  Sales receipts (£)

  MAFF

  49

  137,316

  PSD

  —

  —

  MHS

  7

  32,240

  CSL

  21

  64,720

  VMD

  —

  —

  VLA

  7

  7,015

  CEFAS

  18

  14,547

  FRCA

  6

  14,033

  Total

  108

  269,871

  12. Non-Departmental Public Bodies
  Covent Garden Market Authority
  No items have been sold since 15 February 1999, though plant and equipment with a book value of £3,069 was disposed of with no cash benefit.
  Total sales since 1997 = £2,359.

  Food from Britain
  No assets have been disposed of since 15 February 1999.
  Total sales since 1997 = £30,302

  Horticulture Research International
  No assets have been disposed of since 15 February 1999. There have been no sales receipts for registered assets since 1997.

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Sales of surplus assets since 15 February 1999:

  IT Equipment: £3,000

  Vehicles: £122,000

  Total Sales since 1997 = £474,000.

  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  The following items have been sold since 15 February 1999:

  Office equipment: £1,478

  IT Equipment: £251

  Vehicles: £950

  Disposals with no cash benefit—1 portacabin.

  Total sales since 1997 = £15,988.

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  The following items have been sold since 15 February 1999:

  Scientific and Laboratory Equipment: £1,170

  Vehicles: £10,900

  Total sales since 1997 = £24,326.

  West Devon Meats
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to compensate farmers who
  573W
  incur extra transport costs as a result of the withdrawal of the contract with West Devon Meats to slaughter cattle under the over thirty months scheme. [101912]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: There are no plans to provide such compensation. Neither was such compensation paid at the time of the previous tender. It is the responsibility of the producers to transport their Over Thirty Months Scheme (OTMS) animals from the farm to the point of slaughter. The Government's responsibility is to ensure that there is a sufficient number of access points into the scheme, and that they are well distributed having regard to the main production areas. The outcome of the tender for OTMS slaughtering services, together with the unchanged network of 170 markets registered to collect OTMS cattle (10 of which are in Devon), fully meet these requirements.

  EU Leader Plus Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom's share of the EU Leader Plus programme; which member states receive more funding under the programme than the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [105663]

  Mr. Morley
  The United Kingdom's share of the EU Leader Plus Community Initiative is 106 million euro out of 2,020 million euro for the period 2000–06. The Member States receiving more funding than the United Kingdom are Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal. The European Commission have said that allocations to Member States were based on allocations under previous programmes and objective criteria such as population in rural areas, utilised agricultural area and population density.

  Sugar
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in respect of ensuring that future arrangements provide a sufficient supply of imported raw sugar to maintain the basic level of cane refining. [105491]

  Ms Quin
  The UK attaches considerable importance to the maintenance of adequate raw sugar supplies to the cane refining industry, which produces about half of our sugar. We therefore need to keep this consideration firmly in mind in forthcoming discussions about the EU sugar regime, and preferential access for cane sugar.

  Pig Sector
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the investigations of his meat trader adviser in respect of the pig sector; and when his findings will be published. [106865]

  Ms Quin
  The meat trade adviser is in contact with all the major British retail and catering groups and has had several useful meetings with key industry organisations on the issue of misleading labelling of pigmeat products. Progress is being made and labels are being changed. Although not produced in a form which can readily be published, the meat trade adviser's findings are made known as he discusses his progress regularly with the National Pig Association and other industry bodies.
  574W
  New guidelines on less ambiguous country of origin labelling will shortly be issued to Trading Standards Officers by my Department's Food Labelling and Standards Division.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in establishing a state aid scheme for the pig sector in agreement with the EU. [105139]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The European Commission has made clear in correspondence and at meetings that it will not sanction any scheme which fails to meet the rules. The rules preclude the payment of operating aids, i.e. subsidies that are simply aimed at improving the producer's position in the market. However, we continue to consider possible ways forward in consultation with industry representatives.

  Regulation
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which interested organisations besides the NFU he has contacted concerning the level and costs of regulation affecting farming in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other member states in the last 12 months. [106868]

  Ms Quin
  The Department consults all interested organisations on regulatory proposals for which it is responsible as a matter of course. Further, a wide range of interested organisations responded to our open invitation to identify regulatory burdens on agriculture as part of the review launched in September 1999. The three Red Tape working groups we set up between them consulted over 300 organisations; the full lists of consultees are appended to their reports available in the Library of the House.

  Consultation with organisations in other Member States is a matter for national authorities. However, we maintain regular contact with Commissioner Fischler and European ministerial colleagues.

  New Forest Draghounds
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who has the authority to grant the New Forest Draghounds a licence to operate in the New Forest. [106993]

  Mr. Morley
  The Forestry Commission has authority to grant licences for activities on the Crown Lands of the New Forest.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many press releases have been published by his Department since 1995. [106991]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of press releases published by MAFF since 1995 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  540

  1996

  491

  1997

  467

  1998

  553

  1999

  571

  Rodenticides
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to monitor the incidence of(a) rodenticide levels in higher food-chain wildlife and (b) resistance in rats to rodenticides; and if he will make a statement. [106661]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]: The Wildlife Incidents Investigation Scheme collects reports of wildlife deaths that may have been caused by rodenticides or other pesticides. All incidents accepted into the Scheme are investigated and the pesticide involved, if any, identified. The results of investigations may be used in a review of the pesticide approval and in enforcement action. In 1998, 49 cases were found to involve anticoagulant rodenticides.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' latest English House Condition Survey, published on 5 January, showed generally low levels of rodent infestation. Separate work carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on levels of resistance to anticoagulant rodenticides in rats on farms showed that there is not a general problem.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also carries out research to identify issues affecting the development and spread of resistance and the risk to non-target wildlife species arising from the use of rodenticides.

  Departmental Employment
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people are employed by his Department; and what was the equivalent figure five years ago. [106989]

  Mr. Morley
  On 1 October 1994, there were 10,793 staff working in my Department and its agencies.

  On 1 October 1999 (the latest information available) there were 9,782 staff working in MAFF and its agencies undertaking broadly comparable functions. In addition, there are 1,482 staff working for the Meat Hygiene Service who undertake functions which were the responsibility of local authorities in 1994. These figures are expressed in Full Time Equivalent terms. (Total = 11,264 staff).

  Intervention Board
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he has received the PricewaterhouseCoopers' report which includes a review of the Agricultural Intervention Board; and if he will make a statement; [107044]

  (2) when he plans to announce his decision on the future of the Agricultural Intervention Board. [107045]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has received PricewaterhouseCoopers' report on CAP Scheme Administration in England.

  The report considers the current arrangements for administration of CAP schemes against the background of the Modernising Government agenda, and focuses in particular on the scope for improving service delivery to claimants and making best use of IT developments. It
  576W
  recommends that the CAP scheme payment functions of MAFF in England and of the Intervention Board in the UK should be merged to create a new CAP administration organisation supported by a single state of the art IT system.

  My right hon. Friend is now considering these recommendations. Any radical reorganisation of CAP administration will be considered in the context of the Spending Review 2000. Decisions on the future of the Intervention Board will be taken in conjunction with the devolved administrations, since the Board reports to Agriculture Ministers in all four parts of the United Kingdom.

  Fanning (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much Government funding was given to farmers in Shropshire in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999; and if he will make a statement. [107167]

  Ms Quin
  Total subsidies paid to farmers in Shropshire by MAFF during 1998 amounted to £43,588,045. These include national and EU funding. Farmers also benefit from expenditure on market support measures, although this is not paid directly to them.

  Figures for 1999 are not yet available.

  Pigmeat
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are introduced on imported pigmeat which is processed and sold in pre-packed form. [107107]

  Ms Quin
  All meat and meat products, including processed and pre-packed pigmeat, imported from third countries are subject to veterinary inspection at designated Border Inspection Posts. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments are subject to physical checks. These checks are to ensure that conditions of import have been complied with and that the products have remained in a satisfactory condition during transport.

  Meat and meat products originating in all EU member states, including the UK, are subject to strict hygiene rules laid down in EU law. Among other things, this sets out the licensing, structural and supervision requirements to be applied in all meat plants before they can be approved for trade with other member states. Member states to which meat and meat products may be dispatched are permitted to carry out random checks at destination but these are limited by virtue of the fact that there are no certification or pre-notification requirements for most consignments.

  Ensuring that all member states comply with their Community obligations in properly implementing and applying EU hygiene rules is the responsibility of the European Commission, whose Food and Veterinary Office carries out regular programmes of inspection visits to all member states. Their reports are considered by the Standing Veterinary Committee in Brussels, and, if necessary, the Commission will take infraction proceedings against member states whose arrangements are considered inadequate.
  577W

  Forestry
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what acreage of forestry land is under cultivation in the United Kingdom. [107292]

  Mr. Morley
  There are 2.66 million hectares of woodland in the United Kingdom.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the way in which his Department communicates with the Agricultural Section of the National Assembly for Wales, with regard to information emanating from the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [107230]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: This Department is committed to providing all the devolved administrations with full and comprehensive details, as early as possible, of all developments and initiatives within the framework of the European Union which may be relevant to them. The devolved administrations are also committed to informing this Department of any direct approaches they receive from the Commission on new policy initiatives. These arrangements are reflected in the draft bilateral Concordat between MAFF and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales. Similar working arrangements were in place between officials in MAFF and the Welsh Office Agriculture Department before devolution. If a need to revise the practices is identified and agreed, the Concordat can be amended at any time.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect on stocks of cod of the cut in the North Sea quota. [107476]

  Mr. Morley
  The total allowable catch (TAC) of 81,000 tonnes agreed for 2,000 takes account of scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) that the stock is currently outside safe biological limits and that fishing mortality should be reduced to prevent further decline in the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) in the short term. The ICES advice indicates that the maximum catch limit agreed provides a high probability that the SSB will increase to above the precautionary reference level of 150,000 tonnes over the next few years.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect on stocks of coley of the quota cuts of the last five years. [107475]

  Mr. Morley
  The table shows the total allowable catches (TACs) for North Sea and West of Scotland saithe (coley) over the last five years.

  Tonnes

  North Sea

  West of Scotland

  1996

  111,000

  13,000

  1997

  115,000

  12,000

  1998

  97,000

  10,900

  1999

  110,000

  7,500

  2000

  85,000

  7,000

  578W
  It can be seen that the North Sea TAC has moved up and down, while the West of Scotland TAC has steadily declined, reflecting scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea on the state of the stock. The reductions agreed for 2000 take account of advice from ICES that the combined saithe stock is outside safe biological limits and that fishing mortality should be reduced to prevent further decline in the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) in the short term. The reduced TACs will help ensure that the SSB increases to more sustainable levels over the medium term.

  Fisheries Aid
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact the cut in fisheries grant-in-aid in West Sussex will have on sea trout runs in the Western Rother, Arun and Adur rivers. [107873]

  Mr. Morley
  It is for the Environment Agency to determine its spending priorities for 2001–02 in the light of the planned £1.5 million reduction in Grant-in-Aid in England. It is not possible for me to predict how the cut is likely to affect sea trout runs in the West Sussex area.

TREASURY

  Official Visits
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his visit to Rome in October 1997 was an official visit; and what consequent declaration he made relating to gifts and hospitality to his Permanent Secretary. [107637]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: I travelled to Rome in October 1997—at no cost to public funds—both for a private visit and to meet the Italian Finance Minister, Mr. Carlo Ciampi. In line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code no declaration to the Permanent Secretary was necessary.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield from tapering away child benefit in the hands of the highest earner in a couple according to the thresholds and tapering mechanism envisaged for child tax credits. [103146]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have introduced child tax credits in the WFTC and will introduce a separate children's tax credit from April 2001. The two credits have very different withdrawal mechanisms and without a clearer guide as to which should be applied it is not possible to answer the question.

  VAT (Labour-intensive Industry)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans to apply the EU proposal to offer VAT relief to labour intensive industries in the UK with special reference to the equestrian industry. [107389]
  579W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The EC Directive which provides for an optional, experimental, reduced rate of VAT applies only to a narrow range of labour intensive services. The Chancellor has no plans for its application to the equestrian industry.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of lowering the working-hours requirement for receipt of the working families tax credit from 16 hours to 10 hours for parents who have at least one child aged under five years for(a) both parents and (b) one parent. [107404]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates for the cost of lowering the working hours requirement for receipt of the Working Families' Tax Credit from 16 hours to 10 hours for parents with at least one child aged under five years are not available.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with other EU countries on the problem of tobacco smuggling in Europe. [107497]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The problems of tax fraud and international criminality, including tobacco smuggling, are matters regularly included in discussions which I and other members of the Government have with counterparts in other EU member states. These are underpinned by frequent operational and other contacts between officials in both the UK and other member states, together with the Anti-Fraud Unit of the European Commission.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent reports he has received on the extent of(a) Mafia and (b) other criminal organisations' involvement in tobacco smuggling in Europe and on the centres of control and operation. [107499]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers receive regular reports on tax fraud activity affecting a variety of sectors including tobacco. Some of this information is in the form of confidential and operationally sensitive advice, some is contained in published documents. A recent document in the latter category is the 1998 European Commission "Annual Report on the Fight Against Fraud" published on 19 November 1999, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Income Tax Revenue
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax revenue was derived from income in excess of(a) £35,000, (b) £50,000, (c) £75,000, and (d) £100,000 in the last financial year. [107394]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The amounts of income tax liable from people with total incomes in excess of £35,000, £50,000, £75,000 and £100,000 in 1998–99 are £36.6 billion, £27.3 billion, £19.2 billion and £15.1 billion respectively.

  These estimates are based on the 1997–98 survey of personal incomes projected to 1998–99 consistent with November 1999 Pre-Budget Report assumptions.
  580W
  Mr. St.Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax revenue derived from(a) lower rate receipts, (b) basic rate receipts and (c) higher rate receipts in the last financial year. [107393]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 1998–99, total income tax liabilities are estimated to be around £89 billion before allowances given as tax deductions at a fixed rate (such as the married couples allowance) and £85.5 billion after these allowances. Lower rate, basic rate and higher rate liabilities, before the aforementioned allowances are estimated to be £22.8 billion, £41.0 billion and £25.3 billion respectively.

  These estimates are based on the 1997–98 survey of personal incomes projected to 1999–2000 consistent with November 1999 Pre-Budget Report assumptions.

  Dwellings (VAT)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the most recent 10 years for which figures are available(a) the numbers of dwellings upon which repairs were carried out occasioning a VAT payment, (b) the yield from such payments in each year and (c) the average value of the work carried out. [107754]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Statistics on dwellings on which repairs have been carried out and on the VAT relating to such repairs are not directly available.

  Based on data published in Housing and Construction Statistics 1988–98, VAT charged in 1998 in respect of repairs, maintenance and improvements carried out by contractors on private sector housing in Great Britain is estimated at £1.7 billion. It is not possible to identify repairs separately.

  Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which fees his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies collect; how much has been raised and will be raised from each of these fees from 1989–90 to 2004–05; and which of these fees count as negative expenditure. [107976]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 265W.

  VAT
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legal advice he has received on reducing VAT on repairs to historic buildings. [107926]

  Dawn Primarolo
  EC law does not permit a reduced rate of VAT for repairs to historic buildings. A recent Directive made provision for a short term experimental reduced rate for renovation and repairs of private housing, which could therefore cover some historic buildings.

  Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for each of the Treasury buildings in London, how many rooms are set aside for(a) ethnic minority religious use, (b) pregnant women and (c) smokers. [107529]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  (a) None.
  581W
  (b) Pregnant women have use of two rooms in the Parliament Street office and one room at Allington Towers.

  (c) Smoking is largely restricted to dedicated ventilated smoking room (four smoking rooms in Parliament and three smoking rooms at Allington Towers) and is not permitted in common areas, with the exception of an area of the Staff Restaurant.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 300W, on research contracts, if he will state the total expenditure on research let by his Department since May 1997 and list the titles of all research contracts let by his Department during 1999 and costing £20,000 or more, stating the value of each contract, and in each case whether the contract included (i) departmental veto over publication of the research
  582W
  results, (ii) departmental control over the date of publication of the research and (iii) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments; and if he will place a copy of the standard research contract currently in use by his Department in the Library. [107037]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 300W.

  Invest to Save
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have for a successor programme to Invest to Save. [108047]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The future of the Invest to Save Budget (ISB) will be considered in the 2000 Spending Review and decisions announced as part of the Government's spending plans for the period 2001–02 to 2003–04.

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

Prison Suicides
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many suicides by prisoners there have been in British prisons and penal institutions in each of the last three calendar years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, there were 288 self-inflicted deaths in the past three years in British prisons and other penal institutions. The figures for each year were: 85 in 1997; 96 in 1998; and 107 in 1999. Those figures include the three separate Prison Services for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while the Government obviously inherited a difficult situation in that context, those figures are extremely disturbing? Does he further agree that in a penal system geared to be effective, of which ultimately the greatest test of all is its success in rehabilitation, it is almost unthinkable that there should be any suicides in prison at all? One suicide in prison is one suicide too many. Will my noble friend say what specific action the Government are taking to put the situation right? Will he assure tae House that that will have priority second to none in the Government's desire for an effective penal policy?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend makes a telling and important contribution to the discussion on that subject. I agree with him about the seriousness of the issue: one death in our prison system is one death too many. It is not a victimless tragedy; it also affects the families. The Government are well aware of the issue. Last year's thematic review report from the inspector of prisons, Suicide is Everyone's Concern, expressed those feelings well. I might add that, in statistical terms, the suicide rate in our prison system mirrors almost exactly the suicide rate in the wider population.
The Prison Service is undertaking a number of measures to try to bring down the number of suicide tragedies in the prison system. Breathing and movement monitors are now being tested. There is extra scrutiny of prisoners considered to be at risk, and at-risk prisoners are assessed early in their incarceration within the system. We are getting to grips with the problem. Important steps and
68
improvements have been made. We shall continue to try to improve the quality of care of prisoners within the system.
Lord Laming: My Lords, will the Minister agree that sometimes tragic acts of suicide are associated with abuse of prisoners by other prisoners, either physically or sexually? Will he further agree that there is a need to ensure that prison staff are alert to such dangers?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords. the noble Lord makes an important point. There is no doubt that abuse at an earlier age may be a contributory factor. There are also other apparent contributory factors to what are often extremely tragic and sorry stories: drug abuse, drug dependency, alcohol dependency and other such problems come with the territory. The sad truth is that there is a high concentration of suicide deaths among younger males within the prison population.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, of course every suicide in prison is a tragedy, but may we also have some understanding of the difficult job that prison officers and prison governors do in looking after what are by definition some of the most difficult people in our society, as the Minister has just indicated?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we would all wish to pay tribute to the prison officers and other staff within the Prison Service, who give fantastic support and service to those incarcerated within our prisons. It is to their incredible credit that they undertake many hours of training, in particular, to try to identify those who are vulnerable and at risk within the prison system. The number of deaths that they prevent as a result of their understanding of the problems that prisoners face is incalculable.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that deaths in police custody—not in prisons—fell by 30 per cent in the first eight months of 1999, following a rise of 41 per cent during the previous three years? Does he accept that what is required is to identify at-risk inmates at the point of detention; provision of closed-circuit television in specific cells; and improved training for prison officers in the care of vulnerable people? As a first step, does he further accept that the unacceptably high prison population does not allow that to happen?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot accept the noble Lord's final point. As I have explained, the staff are well trained. They deal with difficult cases and difficult individuals. They are expert in understanding self-harm and how such things come about. We are confident that the improvements outlined as a result of the thematic review completed last year will continue. With regard to deaths in police custody, I confirm that there has been a welcome decline in the statistics in that part of the service, which is rather different from

69
deaths in prison whose explanation is more complex. Deaths in custody in police cells and otherwise have a different cause.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, given the fact that bullying by other prisoners is often a major cause of suicide and that bullying is best controlled by adequate staffing levels, will the Minister indicate whether there is a correlation between the rate of suicide and reduced staffing levels?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware of a correlation. The numbers are actually so small in themselves that it would be difficult to draw an inference between the two factors highlighted by the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is it beyond the wit of man to limit the access of prisoners to the means of committing suicide?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a useful point. Steps have been taken within the Prison Service to improve the design of cells and also to try to limit the ways in which prisoners may be able to use prison furniture to assist them in taking their own lives.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is it true that some of these suicides follow episodes of sexual or physical abuse by other prisoners? If so, are procedures in place to alert staff to such sexual or physical abuse?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it may well be the case that that is a contributory factor. The causes of suicide are complex and multifaceted, as academic researchers since Durkheim in the early part of the century have realised. Staff are trained to try to identify those prisoners within the prison system who are most at risk. We should be grateful for the quality of that training because it probably prevents many more deaths.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, do records enable the Minister to distinguish between suicides or self-inflicted deaths in establishments run for people who are immigration Act detainees rather than prisoners? Does the noble Lord accept that there is a particularly high risk in places of that kind because many of the inmates will not be able to speak English and therefore it will be more difficult for the staff to identify those who are at risk?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord's final point is important and it is one of which staff in detention centres and prisons will have to be peculiarly mindful. The numbers are small and so it would be hard to draw any inference from the nature of the establishment in which people are secured. I am
70
happy to go away and research the precise figures, but my recollection is that the numbers of suicides in immigration control centres are very small indeed.

Youth Unemployment
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wathasked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the reduction since May 1997 in the number of young people who are neither in employment nor in training or education; and whether they expect that this number will be further reduced during the next two years.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, at 9 per cent of the population, the number of 16 to 18 year-olds who are not in employment, education or training has remained stable since 1997. Over the same period, the number of unemployed 18 to 24 year-olds has fallen by a quarter and long-term youth unemployment has more than halved. Helping young people who are at risk of social exclusion is a priority of the Government, who are introducing measures to raise educational standards, to provide better services to support young people, and to encourage them to remain in learning.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which suggests that inroads are being made into this most serious and socially corrosive employment problem. However, will my noble friend assure the House that, despite all the many and worthy calls for priority with regard to government resources, this issue will continue to be a priority in order to provide prospects and hope for young people?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think I can provide the reassurance that my noble friend seeks. The Government are committed to making this issue a major priority. These figures relate to young people who are not doing anything. They are not at school; they are not in further education; they are not in any form of work-based training; nor are they in any form of full-time or part-time education. It is a terrible waste. We have to crack this long-standing problem. We are determined to do so and we are putting forward a comprehensive package in order to reach these young people.
Lord Tope: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the findings of the Children's Society report entitled Still Running that some 16 and 17 year-olds who are forced to leave home by their parents are unable to obtain severe hardship payments of income support because they are unable or unwilling to contact their parents to obtain the necessary documents to verify their identity? Do the Government have any plans to alleviate that problem?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are aware of the Children's Society report and, indeed, were aware that some young people in this situation face problems in getting not just the financial help but also the advice and support that they may need. The Government are tackling this issue and are putting together a comprehensive integrated service that will support such young people. However, the Government believe that they should be in education and training. The Careers Service therefore has a crucial role to play not just in providing them with advice about education and training, but also in helping them to get the financial support that they may need if they qualify for hardship JSA.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that recently published figures for Scotland show that 31 per cent of young people on New Deal programmes have disappeared without trace, 15 per cent have moved on to other benefits and 22 per cent have left for reasons other than a full-time job? What are the comparable figures for England?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness specific comparable figures in such detail, but I should be very happy to write to her. What I can say is that the New Deal has been a resounding success in providing job opportunities for more than 125,000 young people.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, since in many parts of Britain, as my noble friend will know, unemployment among disabled people seeking work is up to six times higher than for other people, does she have any figures for the number of young people with disabilities who are still neither in employment nor in training or education?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, once again I cannot give the precise statistics for the number of disabled young people in that category, but I am happy to write to my noble friend. The Government have done a number of different things to improve opportunities for disabled young people, including making available allowances for those who have disabilities and who are full-time students.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what effort is being made to match these young people with areas of work where there is still great need? The noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned disabled people. There are many disabled people who want someone to come and care for them, or even merely to be a presence with them in their own home. Now that there is a basic minimum wage, there is no suggestion that this would be an underpaid occupation. What effort is being made to match the requirements in the health service for many more care assistants with these young people, who would be well suited to train and proceed with these activities?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are concerned about skill shortages in general, wherever they may be. The task force has been asked to advise the Government on ways in which vacancies can be filled in areas where there are shortages, both regionally and in particular occupations. I entirely accept the noble Baroness's comment about the importance of ensuring that people with disabilities who need either full-time or part-time care should be given proper support. Many young women in particular are interested in doing this work, and training programmes in this area are being extended.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, recognising the importance of further education in alleviating these difficulties and helping to reduce youth unemployment, I ask my noble friend whether he can confirm that there has been an increase in the number of students in further education.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, there has been a very substantial increase. The Government have a commitment to a further 700,000 students in further education, and there has been a 15 per cent increase in the numbers entering further education over the past four years. Moreover, the Government are also making it easier for 14 to 16 year-olds in full-time schooling to spend some time out of school in work-related training in FE colleges, which we believe will help to motivate some of the more disaffected young people.

Wales: EU Objective One
2.51 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether progress is satisfactory towards implementing the programme for the European Union Objective One area of Wales.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, progress to date is in accordance with the timetable set out in the European Structural Funds Regulations which apply to all member states.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. However, is she fully aware of the crisis that is looming in Wales as a result of the scathing response that the Welsh cabinet has received from the European Commission to its plans for spending Objective One money and the continuing uncertainty with regard to the availability of match funding from the Treasury in order to access the European funds? Can the noble Baroness do anything to dispel the gloom?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to dispel the gloom of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. With regard to the application to the Commission, I can assure the noble Lord that the reports and rumours that he has heard

73
are merely part of the normal negotiations. All member states submit a plan and a proposal, followed by a period of months during which discussion takes place at official level to flesh out those plans to meet the Commission's requirement. We are fully confident, because the European Commission agreed last November, that the Welsh plans fully meet the admissibility criteria.
I am also able to set the noble Lord's mind at rest with regard to funding. Given that the Government secured for West Wales and the Valleys a total amount last year of 1.79 billion euros, and that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor negotiated through the night in Berlin to obtain that amount, I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no problem at all in the area of necessary funds to meet the part that it is appropriate to meet with government funding and public sector funding.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the negotiations concluded by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor should not be underestimated? They achieved what the previous government either did not attempt or failed to achieve. Secondly, will she agree that the Prime Minister's statement that he would not let Wales down is very reassuring?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords. Some of the press reports about alleged problems in funding may be related to an issue that will be resolved in Ceredigion on Thursday.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the principle of additionality requires that structural funds are not to be used merely to replace national funds, and that the £35 million of match funding announced by Mr Alun Michael, the First Secretary, had already been announced as part of the 1998–99 Supplementary Estimates of the Treasury to meet pressures in roads programmes, the family health service and the schools inspectorate, and had nothing to do with European money? Will the Government undertake to grant matching funds which are additional to the existing Welsh Assembly budget?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government and the Welsh Assembly are fully confident that, for the first year, funds are available in the budget stream in the normal way. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, will remember, within the funds available to the Welsh Office there was always the necessary money to meet particular needs identified with regard to European funds, etc. However, noble Lords should also be aware that representations are being made by the Assembly and the Secretary of State to the Treasury as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review in
74
order that the case can be fully considered in the light of the overwhelming success of the Government and the large amount of money involved.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind that for every £2 that the United Kingdom sends to—
Noble Lords: Cranborne!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, given that the United Kingdom is a net contributor to the European budget rather than a net recipient, will the noble Baroness explain the benefit to Wales in value-for-money terms of routeing our own money through Brussels rather than giving it direct?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it depends on whether the value to the country as a whole, including Wales, of membership of the European Union is considered to be a benefit. Within the CBI, for example, and other groups there are large numbers of people who believe that the benefits far outweigh any of the disadvantages identified by the noble Viscount and possibly the noble Lord who sought to speak before him. Given that money is available, I cannot believe that anyone in the Principality would choose not to take advantage of it. I believe that the majority of people in this country support membership of the European Union.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, with regard to the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will the noble Baroness agree that Germany—a larger net contributor to European Union funds than the UK— also has to provide match funding for every grant that it receives under this heading? In the larger context, will the noble Baroness draw the attention of her colleagues in government to the importance of this matter? Increasingly in Wales, eyes are cast across the Irish Sea to the prosperity of the Republic of Ireland. This matter is crucial as regards the relationship between the National Assembly and the Government at Westminster. If real match funding, as opposed to artificially dressed-up match funding, is not available, that will merely play into the hands of separatists—of whom I am not one.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that at every stage the money that is available as a result of the success of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will meet the criteria set down by the Commission in terms of the appropriate matching of funds, whether public or private.

Victoria History of the Counties of England
3 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the completion of the Victoria History of the Counties of England, and for increasing its accessibility to the public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government recognise that the Victoria History of the Counties of England is an extremely valuable resource for English archaeologists and historians. Local authorities are the main sponsors of the Victoria County Histories (VCH), although it is for each local authority to decide on the extent to which it chooses to provide sponsorship. Although the Government have no direct role in funding the VCH, the Heritage Lottery Fund has powers to provide assistance for the compilation and publication of comprehensive works of reference relating to an important aspect of the history, natural history or landscape of the UK which are of public benefit. I understand that the VCH is discussing with the Heritage Lottery Fund ways in which the VCH may be developed and made more accessible to the public.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. As noble Lords will be aware, the VCH is a project of great scholarship which is of interest to bath academics and historians and members of the public who are keen to learn more about their own locality. The project is only half completed. Does my noble friend agree that, as the VCH was started in 1897 to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, it would be highly appropriate if a commitment were made to complete it by 2002 to mark the Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth? Does my noble friend also agree that a commitment should be made not only to complete the remaining 230 volumes but to make them available on CD-ROM and the Internet? Will my noble friend join me in expressing the hope that the Heritage Lottery Fund will take as generous an attitude as possible when it considers this application for funding?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as to my noble friend's last point, it is not for the Government to intervene in the decisions of the Heritage Lottery Fund, much though some of us may want to do so on occasions. The target that my noble friend sets is an admirable one and may serve to concentrate the minds of many who have the VCH at heart. My noble friend makes a most valuable point about public access. I understand that the submission now before the Heritage Lottery Fund includes improved public access and information and communications technology, without which the VCH would be of service only to the academic community.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord is familiar with that other great series
76
of volumes The County Inventories of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments for England. Can the Minister give an assurance that the reorganisation and disappearance as a separate entity of the Royal Commission will not lead to the demise of that very important and valuable series of publications?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can give that assurance. It is included in the remit of the new body.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the immense amount of work which is being done on the rewriting of the VCH for County Durham? Durham is probably the first to do it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and I are pleased to be patrons of the trust. Is my noble friend further aware that a substantial sum has been raised by the trust's own efforts? Should not that be recognised by the grants that are being made by the appropriate bodies? Any help that the Government can provide in this respect will be greatly appreciated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the application of the Institute for Historical Research on behalf of the VCH that is now before the Heritage Lottery Fund is half for Durham and half for Oxfordshire. Local sponsorship of the work in Durham is much appreciated. I understand that the proposal for the pilot project to open up the VCH (so to speak) is to concentrate on Darlington, but clearly the demand is for other parts of Durham and the country as well.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, although I accept that the Government's influence over National Lottery funds may be limited, does the Minister agree that often they have been disbursed to causes less worthy than the one now being considered? Does the noble Lord agree that the VCH is unique in Europe? I understand that only the Black Forest in Germany has the same details of local history. Will the Minister use whatever influence he has to persuade the Heritage Lottery Fund to give money to the VCH rather than some other causes, as I am sure that the Government have some influence? A good deal of money is available and I am sure that the VCH deserves it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the contributions of noble Lords in the past few minutes have said more than I could ever say. The support for VCH has been unanimous from all quarters of the House, and I know that the Heritage Lottery Fund will take account of what has been said this afternoon.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, will my noble friend accept my apology for the fact that in the previous century I had some responsibility for the VCH for Cheshire and its delays? Will the Minister further note that the recent publication The Roads of Chester, which explains the unique two-tier system of main

77
streets which foreshadowed the now ubiquitous shopping mall, is a fine example of how VCH and other material can be made accessible and enjoyable to the general public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know for what my noble friend has to apologise, but it sounds as if he has made a further contribution to convince the Heritage Lottery Fund that this is a worthwhile cause.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am sure that the House joins me in wishing good luck to VCH as a very worthy recipient of lottery funds. Can the Minister give the House good news on other funding and assure noble Lords that more lottery money from the Millennium Commission will not be given to shore up the finances of the Millennium Dome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is concerned with the Victoria County Histories. I have been very glad to extend it to the range of options open to the Heritage Lottery Fund. However, I believe that the noble Baroness seeks to widen the scope of the Question further than is proper.

Cheques (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law of Scotland in relation to the effect of the presentation of cheques for payment. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Viscount Younger of Leckie.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate, 2nd February
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Cumberlege set down for tomorrow shall be limited to five hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 87:
Before Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
LOCAL AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE: RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNCTIONS
(" .—(1) This section makes provision about the way in which, under executive arrangements, a local authority executive which takes the form specified in either section 10(2) or (3) or (4) above is to be responsible for its functions.
(2) The decisions, proceedings, reports and documents of the executive shall be subject to the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.
(3) No function may be discharged by or on behalf of the executive unless an officer appointed by the head of paid service of the authority is present to record the decision, those present taking the decision and to record any advice given or relevant background papers.
(4) No decision which would result in expenditure may be taken unless it is consistent with a scheme of delegation approved by the authority.
(5) All records about decisions of the executive shall be reported to the next meeting of the Council.").
The noble Lord said: It will become a fact of life that a local authority that chooses to run its affairs through executive arrangements will discover, certainly initially and perhaps always subsequently, that the executive of the authority is clearly under the public eye. It must create great public interest. In future, if the executive chooses to adopt executive arrangements that will be the body or group of people who undertake most of the actions on behalf of the particular local authority concerned. That being so, it is inevitable that one would wish to see the highest standards of probity, openness, and security of the public interest by that body. The interests of the staff of the authority need also to be protected. If the executive were to behave in the least way in an improper fashion, that would not help the staff's good reputation.
I believed it necessary, therefore, to table Amendment No. 87. I am pleased that government Amendment No. 151 is grouped with it. While that amendment does not cover the same points as Amendment No. 87, it is directed towards the same intentions. The subject is further confused. In order to find out what is to happen one has to refer to draft regulations. I emphasise that those are in draft form and not regulations. Therefore the issue is not straightforward.
I am pleased to find—it occurs from time to time and is always a pleasure—that the principles which persuaded me to table the amendment are those which the Government accept and agree with. I hope that I may be permitted a slightly tart comment: that it would have been better if neither the Minister nor I had had to put forward an amendment on the subject. The provision could have been in the original Bill.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks on the government amendment. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I had expected the Minister to leap in to defend the Government's position by speaking to his amendment. He indicates that he gives way.
Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 which stand in my name are grouped with Amendment No. 87. I suspect that the real debate needs to be on government Amendment No. 151, which stands more than a sporting chance or appearing in the final version of the Bill rather than the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Therefore, I shall comment on that amendment first.
We welcome a government amendment on access to meetings and provision of information. However, I confess that I would wish the Government's new clause to go somewhat further. Chapter 13 of the guidance on accountable decision making is passionate in its advocacy of transparency and accountability—and who could argue with that? It also comments that the traditional access to information provisions require material to be available only three days before the date of the relevant meeting. The draft guidance describes the desirability of wide consultation before decisions are made. Again, I do not quarrel with that. I am concerned, however, that in most cases it will be voluntary good practice rather than a statutory right for citizens or other members of the authority.
I am particularly concerned about the provision in paragraph (a) of the proposed new clause which provides for there to be regulations about,
"access of the public to meetings of executives or committees … (including provision enabling such meetings to take place in private)".
The obvious implication is that executives can choose to meet in private and that there will not be prior access to information but that decisions will be provided to be published as soon as practicable after the meeting. We see that language from the Government. There has been much talk about recognising that an executive will at times choose to meet in private. The truth is that one can never avoid off-the-record discussions between members of an executive or any group which chooses to talk privately beforehand. We on these Benches feel strongly that the Bill should go as far as possible in a direction other than that of enshrining private meetings as part of a formal process. Information must be made publicly available at a stage when an input can be made by members of the public, interest groups and other councillors.
My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood spoke at an earlier stage about the importance of councillors who are not part of the executive or administration making their contribution to the processes of local authority. She spoke powerfully—and may choose to do so again today—about the importance of information being made available to back benchers. Many of us have sought to avoid using that term because it seems a little pejorative although that is not the intention. Back benchers, in particular those of the party running the local authority, need their
80
opportunity to make a constructive input. Today may not be the day to choose the term "a critical friend of the administration" but that is the role of many back benchers. That is how they like to view it. We welcome such a provision and hope to strengthen the Bill in order to contribute to the development of scrutiny, enhance the role of non-executive members, public participation and consultation and real freedom of information, and bring about the improved ethics and probity that we all seek.
The two amendments in the group would strengthen the requirements on access to information and decision-making. The first would maintain current levels of openness by applying the 1972 Act. Although there would be no restriction on members of the executive holding discussions in private, the amendment recognises that formal decision-making should be in public. The second amendment provides for agendas and papers to be published in advance, and for there to be advance notice of decisions. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of his amendment.
Lord Whitty: I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if she thought that I would speak before her. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I heard debate on the other two amendments and therefore could place my amendment in context. I shall speak to that amendment and pick up some of the points raised.
The Government's starting point is that to be transparent and accountable a council's decision-making arrangements need to satisfy a number of fundamental principles. The first is that a council's policy development must be inclusive and involve the key stakeholders, and so forth. Secondly, the community needs to be able to make its input into the decision making. Thirdly, and most importantly in this context, local people need to know who are the decision takers, what those decision takers plan to do, what they have done, and why they have done it. Amendment No. 151 meets those criteria.
The right approach when judging whether decision-making arrangements are transparent and accountable is to look at how they meet those principles in practice. Although there has been some formality of openness in the past, it has not in all cases met the principles of transparency and accountability. Traditional arrangements do not meet them. Committee meetings are in public, but frequently that is not where decisions are made. Local people can be present but that does not mean they know who is the real decision taker.
Under the present system, papers must be presented to a committee three days in advance, but that is no substitute for the proper involvement of local people. Minutes are made available after the meeting but there is no way of scrutinising them and getting behind the formal decisions. Access to papers and minutes rarely helps to identify the real issues.
The present structure can embrace committees that do a good job of meeting transparency and accountability and go beyond the minimum in

81
providing information to the public and interest groups. The new executive arrangements will provide the clarity, transparency and accountability that we all want and are set out in Chapter 13 of the draft guidance. They include an inclusive process of formulating the policy framework and budget; publicly known and identified individuals who are personally responsible for implementing the details of that framework and budget; accurate recording of decisions and reasons; timely publication of those reasons and of the background and factual papers available to decision makers; and the powerful overview and scrutiny committees—which will meet in public and discuss and make recommendations on policies, holding each executive member to account for that which he or she has done or is planning to do.
Those arrangements will open the door to a wider form of democracy and a greater degree of information for the public. The executive will make clear from the outset what it plans to do, who on the executive will take particular decisions and how it is intended to involve others in those decisions. There will be dialogue between members of the executive and the relevant overview and scrutiny committees. The public and local people, through those committees, will have a guarantee of knowing the executive's plans, what it is doing, and what it has done and why.
Amendment No. 151, together with the guidance, allows those arrangements to be implemented. Coupled with Clause 15 on the role of overview and scrutiny committees, the amendment should lead to proper transparency and accountability. The amendment, taken together with the draft guidance, meets those objectives but the three Opposition amendments would not. They are closer to replicating the access to information regime that applies to the current committee system, which misses the point. An executive is not the same as a small committee but comprises several people who, individually and personally, have responsibility for delivering aspects of the council's agreed policies.
An executive will of course discuss many issues but final responsibility for a decision will often rest with an individual, particularly where there is a directly elected mayor but also in other models of executive structure. The individual will be responsible to the overview and scrutiny committees in terms of what was available before making a decision, why the decision was made and the decision itself. Such decisions may frequently be made in their final form by the executive in private but the background, responsibility and precise form of decisions will be subject to public scrutiny. Amendment No. 151 covers that objective in a way that the other amendments do not fully address.
82
Although there is some overlap of what is desired by members of both Opposition Front Benches, their amendments address something more akin to the present situation than the new structure, so I hope that they will not press their amendments.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I agree with my noble friend that the new structures and the distinction between executive responsibility, scrutiny and overview are more radical than the Opposition amendments. My noble friend's approach offers a more substantial way forward.
There is a need for a considerable degree of openness and transparency in decision-making and accountability. My noble friend's way forward is a new regulatory-making power to deal with access of information, rather than put those principles in the Bill. The Government may take the view that provisions requiring detailed amendments to existing legislation are best be dealt with by regulation. However, there is a case for ensuring that enhanced accountability is enshrined in the Bill, not left to regulations that could be changed or overturned in future, with a return to what some might regard as the bad old days of local government.
The key principles of the new access to information regime should be in the Bill. Chapter 13 of the guidelines points the way, so I hope that my noble friend will consider the merits of my suggestion when he responds.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The Minister said the other day that he was unabashed at the way that the Government are handling the Bill. That frees me to say one or two things that I would otherwise hate to say, as I would resile sharply from the slightest risk of saying something that would upset the Minister. However, as he declared himself totally unabashed, I presume that his feelings are well anaesthetised by now and that he has given up any nonsense about having regard for what is said in Parliament. I understand that he has that habit of mind from the Government of whom he is a member, who find it much easier to ride roughshod over Parliament than pay undue regard to the foolish assembly that Parliament is in their eyes.
There are 51 pages of amendments—almost all of them government amendments—to a 51-page Bill. It is quite a feat to have rewritten the Bill to that extent. The Minister ought to have at least a teaspoonful of gall before he gets away with that. I should like to ask a question. Why was this amendment not part of the original Bill? It could have been thought of before. Furthermore, when the noble Lord says that it will introduce a wider degree of democracy, I pause and wonder how he can make such comments when this seems to me to be a most undemocratic procedure. As I read the whole of Amendment No. 151, it states that the Secretary of State will have power to make regulations. Those regulations will not be effectively reviewed by Parliament and it is a nonsense to pretend that they will be.

83
Perhaps I may make one further point. Subsection (1)(e) of the new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 151 states that:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—…
(e) for or in connection with the creation of offences in respect of any rights or requirements created or imposed by the regulations".
I do not think that the Government should make light of creating offences. When the Minister replies to the debate, will he tell the Committee what kind of offences, committed by whom, the Government have in mind in this particular provision?
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: One reason why I feel that Amendment No. 129 is especially important returns to the point of why we are here today to consider this new Local Government Bill; namely, because both the Government and most Members of the Committee wish to tie the interests of the public more closely to what takes place in local government. However, without Amendment No. 129, it is hard to imagine that in the future the public will feel any more interested in local government than they do now, before this Bill is passed.
While it is all very well to say that, after the event the scrutiny and policy committees will be open to the public and the press, what both the public and the press—who form the main connection between the council and the public—are mainly interested in are the big decisions and all the attendant background papers and proceedings that surround those decisions. That enables the press and the public to understand how such decisions are made. Anything that disconnects the public and the press from the very heart of the decision-making process, which, as we have often been told, will be based in the executive, will weaken one of the fundamental intentions behind this legislation. The Government have stated that they want to see local government become more open to the public and to encourage the public to become more interested in the workings of local government.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, made an important point. We are dealing here with x, y or z district council, county council or perhaps unitary authority, not with "South Wessex plc". This is not the equivalent of a corporate board making decisions in quite the way that I believe the Government would like to happen. We risk losing an important element of democracy and direct accountability here, which counts for more than the accountability of a company as between its directors and its shareholders.
Will the Minister tell the Committee whether I am right in thinking that, with the provisions the Government are proposing, a member of the public will have no right to be informed of the background or of any other matters to be taken into account in any
84
major decision to be taken by the executive unless statutory provision has been made for consultation on that particular item?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: First, I should like to add my support to the comments made by my noble friend. A county council often needs to take planning decisions which may involve a wide range of issues and the extensive granting of permissions. In the past—I suspect that this will be so in the future also—there has been suspicion over exactly how such decisions were taken because of the size of the private interests with which the council was dealing. It is extremely important that there is no opportunity for anyone to be able to say, "Oh, they took that decision in secret. We do not really know what took place while that decision was taken", on, for example, the granting of a licence for waste disposal.
Secondly, I am worried that even the members of an authority may not understand the implications of such a decision and how that decision came about. At this point perhaps I may ask the Minister to confirm something for me. I am ashamed to say that I have now lost touch with whether, under this new legislation, members will retain their right to attend every meeting of a local authority.
Lord Whitty: I regret the confusion because I thought that the Committee would hear one more intervention.
First, I should like to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that the point on which I was unabashed was that, having taken into account the views of local government and the Joint Committee and having examined in more detail how these arrangements will work, the Government were prepared to bring forward a significant number of amendments. I have pointed out that that is not particularly unusual at an early stage in the progress of a Bill. However, in light of the new procedures for scrutiny and consultation, a number of amendments are likely to emerge as a result of that pre-legislative period. I am unabashed about that.
However, that is not to say that in the course of our debates on these and other amendments I may feel that perhaps we need to change our minds if a good case is made by a Member of the Committee. For that reason, I do not think that the noble Lord is correct to say that this is an example of the Government disparaging the role of Parliament in either House. It is most certainly not my wish or intention to do any such thing. I trust that the manner in which I conduct the proceedings on this Bill in the Chamber, and other Bills, indicates that the Government take note of all concerns raised.
As regards the specific point made by the noble Lord on new Clause 151(1)(e), this has been partly touched on in the draft regulations. Those draft regulations are available to Members of the Committee as the first House to consider the Bill; they are probably available earlier than many local government legislative initiatives have been. The offences referred to would be offences which an executive would commit if it failed to make a record of a decision or if the relevant officer

85
failed to publish that decision and the reasons for it along with the relevant factual evidence and background. That must be done in line with the guidance that will be provided. It will ensure that the public have better access to the reasons why decisions are made. To that extent, I believe this provision is an enhancement rather than a reduction of democracy.
We are bringing in measures that will require all the relevant information to be made available, along with a basic and fundamental structure that will enable scrutiny committees to interrogate and comment on the decisions of the executive in a way that the present confused situation does not. Currently, back-bench members of executive committees do not have such rights because they are party to the decisions.
Therefore, the issue of where responsibility lies is given greater clarity. I had believed that Amendment No. 151 made clear that it is intended to provide that degree of clarity. However, I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Woolmer both raised the question of whether we could identify more clearly where the responsibility lies, perhaps bringing in guidance on the face of the Bill. Although I may be reluctant to go too far down that road, I understand the basic point in terms of identification of accountability. I accept that we should look at the issue again in that light and, having considered those points, I hope that I shall not offend noble Lords if we bring forward a relatively straightforward amendment which I hope will meet the main concerns.
With regard to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and others on her Benches, it seems to me that if we make available in the guidance and under the aegis of this new clause all the background material to the press and to the public, we shall enhance the quality of debate and therefore, it is hoped, the degree of seriousness with which the public in general regard local government.
We must also avoid the presumption that at present the press is able to find out the background material on decisions under the present committee structure of local councils. That is far from the truth. We all know that in practice decisions are made in the vital exchange of information and that the balance of argument is faced up to in areas which are not open to the public and certainly not open to the press. That would make meetings slightly more open and significantly more detailed, while at the same time retaining the right of the executive to organise its own affairs in the way it deems most appropriate. One will know who makes a decision, which individual is responsible and what meeting of the executive was responsible at that level.
Therefore, I believe that some of the fears expressed that the new structure of meetings will reduce the openness and availability of information, as compared to the present situation, are seriously misplaced. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for example, referred to planning decisions. Planning committees will not be affected in the same way as other decisions under this
86
arrangement. It is certainly true that in cases of final executive decision, that decision will not be available before the formal decision and the immediate background papers are made available. However, those decisions do not come out of the ether. They will already have been subject to considerable discussion in the community and in the council. Subsequently they will be subject, and in many cases prospectively subject, to the role of the overview and scrutiny committees in probing that information.
Therefore, I believe that we shall have a more robust system of openness and accountability than we have now and that the anxieties that have been expressed are misplaced. I hope that the House will recognise the Government's intentions, if no more, in putting forward the amendments in this form and providing as background the guidance which will be triggered by the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: I am amazed at the type of "patsy" council which the Minister brings to mind when he talks about how councils apparently behaved in the past. It is not a structure or way of behaviour that I recognise councils as having been guilty of in general; that is, not providing material or having it published.
My reason for rising is to press a little further on proposed paragraph (1)(e) in Amendment No. 151. As I understand the Minister's response, offences will be created. Offences are criminal matters. Is it right for the noble Lord to create a criminal offence if matters are not put into the public arena? Secondly, it has always been the case that councillors who are advised properly and who have taken proper advice from their officers are considered to have behaved properly and in light of the law. I wonder whether that is to change under the new system.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I must apologise. I misused the word "planning". I was responding to the debate and thinking on my feet rather than reading from a prepared intervention. I was trying to find a word for the major and expensive decisions which unitary authorities and county councils in particular have to make. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I do not believe that he responded to my point on the suspicion that arises when those major, expensive decisions—the implementation of a budget in large chunks involving deals particularly with the private sector—which are perfectly legitimate and right under the rules which govern behaviour of local authorities today, are taken in private. There is already enough suspicion about what goes on behind closed doors without adding to it. That is the point that I was trying to make.
Lord Smith of Leigh: I remind the Committee that I have an interest in terms of being a local councillor. I know that many noble Lords who have spoken in the debate also share that interest—at least in the past if not at present. In view of what has been said in this debate, I have some difficulty in recognizing

87
the local government that I experienced. I believe that we must recognise the form, substance and reality of what goes on in formal committees, where decisions are often made outside. How many times have committees made decisions on the basis of debating issues and finding solutions? More than likely, they accept recommendations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, commented on the present regulations. They have not generated the interest in local government decisions which we are trying to address in this Bill. The fact that access to information exists in its present form has not created a climate in which people show an interest in local government.
However, although we are creating new structures, in a sense the formal requirements of a public authority remain the same. Decisions are bound to be made in private if there are commercial sensitivities, particularly when dealing with more than one private contractor. Beyond that, accountability is achieved partly through access to information, perhaps in the press, and partly through the scrutiny processes of the council. As the Minister said, this is greatly enhanced by the Bill and, in addition, there are the normal safeguards which exist at the moment; namely, the monitoring officer and the audit arrangements. Those will still be in place to make sure that decisions are made in a proper manner.
I believe that all of us who have been involved in political activity where decision-making has taken place know that a certain amount will take place in private. Some matters involve certain sensitivities— sometimes commercial, sometimes in relation to individuals and staffing responsibilities, but often political. Those decisions will begin to be made privately, however formally the decisions need to be recorded. I believe that the Government have recognised the reality of that situation and have included provisions in the Bill to make it more accountable, more open than it is at present, and to provide the opportunity for greater scrutiny through the overview and scrutiny committees which can look at the way that decisions are made.
I believe that it is right that executive decisions should be made public. Normally, I believe that reasons should be given if executives want to meet in private, but we should recognise that those decisions are bound to arise. I believe that the changes in the nature of local government envisaged in the Bill require a change in the way we access information and the way that information is presented to the public. I believe that the Government have brought that about in Amendment No. 151.
Lord Whitty: I apologise for intervening once more. I believe that my noble friend Lord Smith placed this issue in the broader context of the effects of the change, compared to the present situation. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I was not necessarily criticising the current practice of many local authorities. However, the point is that the system does not in any sense guarantee availability or accountability of either information or clarity of
88
responsibility under the present system. That system is intended to ensure that there is greater clarity and tighter minimum requirements on the provision of information. I believe that it achieves that.
As regards offences, under the present system offences already exist in relation to denying access to information and flouting the information regime which is required under existing local government legislation. This provision merely transposes that into the new regime. Some of that is spelled out—for example, the role of the monitoring office—in the guidance. So we are not creating a precedent. It has been the case for some time.
Perhaps I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I recognise that major decisions will be taken on which one would expect there to be some public engagement. Those decisions should require the availability of some public information prior to the final decision being made. In terms of the major decisions to which she referred, that will inevitably the case. It will be the case also that the major role of the scrutiny and overview committee will be ongoing to assess the run-up to the executive reaching such major decisions. Therefore, it will not merely be a post facto look at how the executive has arrived at its decisions or an inquest into previous decisions. There will be ongoing assessment and monitoring of the way in which the executive is doing its job.
That is quite a novel concept in relation to local government. It is relatively new in relation to Westminster. But it is not unknown in constitutional arrangements elsewhere around the world and I believe that it is a major step forward for local government.
The issues relating to the budget or any alterations to it will be made in full council in any event. Therefore, we are not talking about the creation of new funds or new streams of funds, although. as my noble friend Lord Smith said, there will be occasions when the decisions on how those funds are dealt with, particularly in relation to public/private partnerships, must be reached in private and then explained because of commercial confidentiality or personal involvement.
Therefore, I reiterate that to an extent this regime builds on the best of the old system but it does that in a way which recognises the new structure. It provides greater and often earlier access to information. It provides also greater power both to the overview and scrutiny committees than accrues at present to backbench councillors and to the press and the public as a whole. Therefore, through those measures I believe that we are enhancing democracy and accountability.
Lord Dixon-Smith: It was perhaps inevitable that this group of amendments would provoke debate because if a council elects to change to executive arrangements, that is a radical change in the way in which business has traditionally been carried out by local government in this country. It is right that the consequences of that should be looked at in some detail. I am grateful to all Members of the Committee

89
who have contributed to the debate. It seems superfluous to pick up all the points which have been raised when the Minister, with his usual ability, has summed up what has been said by so many who contributed.
But we should just remember that the motivation behind the Bill is greater efficiency rather than greater democracy. The question then is how the need for democracy and greater transparency is welded on to that. That was the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, was driving. That is what is in the back of the minds of everybody who has spoken in this debate.
The idea that local communities are intensely and passionately involved in the minutiae of many of the matters with which local authorities must deal so that they discuss them over supper when both husband and wife are at home—at least, if it is a traditional household and one must be careful how one says these things—is unreal. Equally unreal is the idea that we shall see policy development in public. If you do not have some idea of what your policy is and what the consequences of what you are saying will be before you start saying it in public, you are a very unwise politician indeed. I do not believe that the Minister has ever suffered from that failure, at least not since I have known him. We need to be aware of those realities.
We all need to study what the Minister has said. He has said that he will look at the question of information availability to the public. I am grateful to him for that. But we may well need to return to points of detail on this matter at a later stage in the Bill. But for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Responsibility for executive functions in case of s. 10(2) executive]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 6, leave out lines 23 to 30 and insert—
("(1) Subject to any provision made under section (Discharge area committees), (Discharge of functions of and by another local authority) or (Joint exercise of functions), any functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of a mayor and cabinet executive are to be discharged in accordance with this section.
(2) The elected mayor—

(a) may discharge any of those functions, or

(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions—").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the large number of other amendments which appear within this group. I assure the Committee that in this case most of the amendments are consequential on the main point.
The amendments deal with the ways in which executive functions can be delegated, both within the executive and to officers. They amend Clauses 12 to 14 and introduce a new clause after Clause 14. To inform the debate, we have published a consultative draft of guidance, chapters 7 to 10 of which deal with those issues in detail. The amendments are necessary to tidy up Clauses 12 to 14 dealing with executive functions.
Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 91 to 99 amend Clause 12, which deals with the way in which a mayor and cabinet form of executive may delegate functions. Amendment No. 88 is consequential on the new clauses on area committees, joint committees and delegation to authorities.
Amendments Nos. 89 and 91 to 99 are minor and consequential drafting amendments.
Amendments Nos. 100, 101, and 103 to 116 amend Clause 13 which deals with ways in which the leader and cabinet form of executive may delegate functions. Subsection (1) in Amendment No. 100 is consequential on the new clauses on area committees, joint committees and delegation to another authority, which we shall debate shortly, and is necessary to enable delegation of executive functions in that way. I am wrong to say that we shall debate those matters shortly. They were dealt with at the end of our proceedings last Tuesday.
The rest of Amendment No. 100 clarifies the provisions which were previously in subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 13. The new subsections (2) and (3) enable the council to specify in the executive arrangements the scheme for delegation of executive functions.
The new subsection (4) enables the executive leader to determine such delegations where they are not specified in the executive arrangements. Those may be described as—although I do not particularly like the description—the so-called "weak" and "strong" leader arrangements, although it is possible for there to be executive arrangements where some of the functions are allocated by the authority and others by the leader.
Amendment No. 112 allows the leader, where he determines the delegations, to prevent any person or body to whom he has delegated a function from further delegating that function. That is similar to the provisions in Clause 12 relating to the mayor and delegation.
The next group contains further consequential amendments which deal with mayoral form. Amendments Nos. 117, 119 and 120 amend Clause 14, which deals with ways in which the mayor and council manager form of executive may delegate functions. These minor and consequential drafting amendments arise from the new clauses on area committees.
Amendment No. 121 introduces a new clause to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations on how functions can be delegated in any new form of executive defined in regulations under Clause 10(5). This new enabling power has been included to reduce the need to rely on the powers in the Bill to make incidental, consequential, transitional and supplemental provisions if further forms of executive are defined using the power in Clause 10.
I hope that the amendments will be uncontroversial and spell out the implications for the various forms of executive functional amendments previously carried. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendments Nos. 90, 102 and 118 tabled in my name are all directed to the same purpose; that is, to make it possible for an authority using executive arrangements none the less still to work through area committees. I am happy to say that that will now be the situation so I need say no more upon it except that this is yet another group of amendments that it would have been nice not to have tabled. With that. there is nothing more to say.
Baroness Hamwee: I should like to ask an entirely straight question concerning Amendment No. 117. Can the Minister confirm that my reading of the amendment, or at any rate the clause as it will be amended, is correct; namely, that where the executive arrangement is elected mayor plus council manager, the council manager but not the mayor will be in a position to discharge functions? I understand that from reading the end of the amendment together with the rest of the clause. To put it another way, I refer to the position of the elected mayor in that form of executive arrangement. I shall be glad to have clarification.
Lord Smith of Leigh: I agree with my noble friend the Minister as regards the unsatisfactory terminology used in Chapter 9 of the draft regulations; that is, "strong- and "weak leader". Perhaps I may suggest "autocratic" and "democratic" as alternatives.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: As the Minister stated, last week we debated very late in the evening the area committee function and joint working relations. However, I must raise concerns to put them on the record regarding this model of working. I refer to the fact that in the guidance, as currently written, there is the still the problem that area committees are not permitted to discharge the overview and scrutiny function unless they are politically balanced. As I pointed out last time, if an area committee has been elected by the population of that area, it is not therefore in the gift of the council as to whether or not it is politically balanced. It is therefore impossible for the area committee to fulfil that requirement.
This is obviously a detailed issue, and one which the Minister was unable to answer last week. However, I hope he will be able to address it in a satisfactory way so that, should the mayor or council manager choose to delegate the scrutiny function to the area committee, an impossible demand is not made in the guidance that area committees cannot fulfil that function because they are not politically balanced.
Lord Whitty: In response to my noble friend Lord Smith perhaps I may say that I hesitate to find a better form of words than those used in the guidance. However, I should put on record that the alternative terminology he proposed perhaps gives the wrong impression of at least one form of structure which we propose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised a question on Amendment No. 117 concerning the respective roles of the council manager and the mayor.
92
The noble Baroness is correct in her interpretation. If she requires further detail, I shall no doubt be able to provide it in writing.
In response to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, we have partially debated that issue and I am in the process of writing to her. The position is that the overview and scrutiny committees at their council level can have a valuable role in helping councillors to represent their constituents. The area committees can advise such overview and scrutiny committees. I recall attempting to explain this issue previously. It is not that individual area committees would have to be politically balanced different from that which we had been left with by the electorate, but that the overall scrutiny function would have to he politically balanced.
It would probably be better for the noble Baroness to await my letter on this subject. However, there is a distinction. There is no intention to override the political judgment of those covered by the area committees. This concerns the role they can then fulfil. I hope that that clarifies the position.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("single").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 91 to 99:
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("executive").
Page 6, line 41, leave out ("executive").
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("single").
Page 6, line 43. leave out ("the single") and insert ("that").
Page 7, line 1, leave out ("executive").
Page 7, line 6, leave out ("single").
Page 7, line 6, leave out second ("executive").
Page 7. line 7, leave out ("single").
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("single").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Responsibility for executive functions in case of s. 10(3) executive]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment Nos. 100 and 101:
Page 7, leave out lines 10 to 19 and insert—
(".—(1) Subject to any provision made under section (Discharge of functions by area committees), (Discharge of functions of and by another local authority) or (Joint exercise of functions), any functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of a leader and cabinet executive are to be discharged in accordance with this section.
(2) The executive arrangements may make provision with respect to the allocation of any functions which are the responsibility of the executive among the following persons—

(a) the executive,

(b) any members of the executive,

(c) any committees of the executive, and

(d) any officers of the authority.

93
(3) If the executive arrangements make such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2), any person to whom a function is allocated in accordance with that provision may discharge the function.
(4) If or to the extent that the functions which are the responsibility of the executive are not allocated in accordance with such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2), the executive leader—

(a) may discharge any of those functions, or

(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions—").

Page 7, line 21, leave out ("single").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 103 to 116:
Page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
Page 7, line 30, leave out ("executive").
Page 7, line 30, leave out (", or are required to be,").
Page 7, line 35, leave out ("executive").
Page 7, line 35, leave out (", or are required to be,").
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("single").
Page 7, line 37, leave out ("the single") and insert ("that").
Page 7, line 39, leave out ("executive").
Page 7, line 39, leave out (", or are required to be,").
Page 7, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Where the executive leader makes any arrangements under subsection (4)(b)(i), (ii), or (iii), he may direct, at that or any subsequent time, that subsection (5), (6) or (7) (as the case may be) is not to apply to any of the functions which are the subject of those arrangements or is not to apply to any of those functions in such cases or circumstances as he may direct.").
Page 7, line 44, leave out ("single").
Page 7, line 45, leave out ("single").
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("single").
Page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
("( ) The reference in subsection (2)(b) to the members of the executive includes a reference to the executive leader, and subsection (6) in its application for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) is to be construed accordingly.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Responsibility for executive functions in case of s. 10(4) executive]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 8, leave out lines 5 to 12 and insert—
("(1) Subject to any provision made under section (Discharge of functions by area committees), (Discharge of functions of and by another local authority) or (Joint exercise of functions), the functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of a mayor and council manager executive are to be discharged in accordance with this section.
(2) The executive—

(a) may discharge any of those functions, or

(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions—").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 119 and 120:

Page 8, line 15, leave out ("executive").

Page 8, line 20, leave out ("executive").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 121:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: S. 10(5) EXECUTIVE
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to the ways in which any functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of an executive which takes a form prescribed in regulations under section 10(5) are to be discharged.
(2) The provision which may be made by regulations under this section includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 12, 13 or 14.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).
(4) Any provision made by regulations under this section is subject to any provision made under section (Discharge of functions by area committees), (Discharge of functions of and by another local authority) or (Joint exercise of functions).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 122:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY AREA COMMITTEES
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling an executive of a local authority, or a committee or specified member of such an executive, to arrange for the discharge of any functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of the executive by an area committee of that authority.
(2) Regulations under this section may impose limitations or restrictions on the arrangements which may be made by virtue of the regulations (including limitations or restrictions on the functions which may be the subject of such arrangements).
(3) In this section—
"area committee", in relation to a local authority, means a committee of the authority which has functions in respect of part of the area of the authority and which satisfies such other conditions as may be specified,
"specified" means specified in regulations under this section.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 123 and 124, as amendments to Amendment No. 122, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 122 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 125:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF AND BY ANOTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY
("—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling an executive of a local authority (within the meaning of this Part), or a committee or specified member of such an executive, to arrange for the discharge of any functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of the executive—

(a) by another local authority (within the meaning of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972), or

(b) by an executive of another local authority (within the meaning of this Part) or a committee or specified member of such an executive.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling a local authority (within the meaning of section 101 of that Act) to arrange for the discharge of

95
any of their functions by an executive of another local authority (within the meaning of this Part) or a committee or specified member of such an executive.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the functions of a local authority, in a case where the authority is operating executive arrangements, is a reference to the functions which, under those arrangements, are not the responsibility of the authority's executive.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) or (2) may include provision—

(a) requiring, in the case of arrangements for the discharge of any functions by an executive of a local authority or a committee or member of such an executive, the approval of the authority to such arrangements,

(b) which, in the case of arrangements for the discharge of any functions by a local authority, enables any of those functions to be delegated.

(c) which, in the case of arrangements for the discharge of any functions by an executive of a local authority or a committee or member of such an executive, enables any of those functions to be delegated.

(5) The provision which may be made under subsection (4)(b) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 101(2) to (4) of the Local Government Act 1972.
(6) The provision which may be made under subsection (4)(c) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 12(3) to (6), 13(5) to (9) or 14(3) and (4).
(7) Nothing in subsection (4), (5) or (6) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1) or (2)
(8) In this section "specified" means specified in regulations under this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 126:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
JOINT EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with permitting arrangements under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 where any of the functions which are the subject of the arrangements are the responsibility of an executive of a local authority under executive arrangements.
(2) The provision which may he made under subsection (1) includes provision—

(a) as to the circumstances in which the executive, or a committee a- specified member of the executive, is to be a party to the arrangements in place of the authority,

(b) as to the circumstances in which—

(i) the authority, and

(ii) the executive or a committee or specified member of the executive, are both to be parties to the arrangements,

(c) as to the circumstances in which any functions of the local authority under section 102(1)(b), (2) or (3) of the Local Government Act 1972, so far as they relate to any joint committee falling within section 101(5)(a) of that Act, are instead to be exercised by the executive or a committee or specified member of the executive,

(d) I as to the circumstances in which any functions of the local authority under section 102(1)(b), (2) or (3) of that Act, so far as they relate to any such joint committee, are to be exercised by the authority,

(e) as to the circumstances in which appointments to any such joint committee by the executive, or a committee or specified member of the executive, need not be made in accordance with the political balance requirements,

96

(f) as to the persons (including officers of the authority) who may be appointed to any such joint committee by the executive or a specified member of the executive.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).
(4) In this section "specified" means specified in regulations under this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 127 to 130 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Overview and scrutiny committees]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 8, line 24, after ("appointment") insert ( by the authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 131, I shall speak also to the other government amendments in this group. All of these amendments deal with the issue of overview and scrutiny committees.
We tabled this series of amendments to reinforce what we see as the crucial role of the committees. Under the new arrangements the executive will make the majority of day-to-day decisions. As I said, that decision-making process must meet our aims of being more efficient, transparent and accountable. We therefore need to ensure that, unlike the existing system, it is opened up to clear and proper scrutiny and that councillors outside the executive, and other stakeholders, are given a strong role in policy development alongside the executive. These amendments to enhance the position of the overview and scrutiny committees are designed to do just that.
Amendments Nos. 133 to 135 clarify the remit of overview and scrutiny committees. They make it clear that every function which is the responsibility of the executive must be capable of being reviewed and scrutinised by at least one committee. They also make it clear that they can examine not only decisions, but also all actions taken by the executive in connection with the discharge of its functions. That delivers our policy of ensuring that all executive actions are open to challenge and public accountability and meet some of the anxieties expressed in the earlier debate.
Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 further clarify the power of overview and scrutiny committees in respect of their key roles in policy development and review of all council functions. They are an expansion of Clauses 15(1)(a) and (b)(i) in the Bill.
Amendment No. 140 ensures that an overview and scrutiny committee, where it wishes to challenge an executive decision, has the power to have the decision reconsidered before implementation. Exactly how such a "call-in" mechanism might work in an individual authority will be largely a matter for local choice. But we wish to ensure that such a power exists. The amendment would allow the committee to ask. the relevant part of the executive to reconsider the matter, or to refer the matter to full council for debate to see whether it thinks the matter needs consideration. The power is proposed as a direct response to the Joint Committee's recommendations.
Amendment No. 140 also ensures that an overview and scrutiny committee cannot discharge any other function on behalf of the council. That is to ensure a proper division between the discharge of executive duties and discharge of scrutiny duties. The committees are there to look at how council functions are being discharged. Such an arrangement would be blurred if it was itself carrying out some of those functions.
Amendment No. 145 deals with people who are not members of the authority being co-opted on to overview and scrutiny committees. It also deals, in new subsection (2D), with the rules which govern the way in which such committees operate. For such committees to be effective, it is important that they involve representatives of the local community as appropriate. The amendment would allow them to co-opt non-councillors. However, it also makes it clear that, with one important exception, those co-opted members will not be able to vote on such committees. That is in line with the general existing rules.
The important exception relates to church and parent-governor representatives. They will have the right to be co-opted on to overview and scrutiny committees which deal with education matters. That is dealt with in part by the amendment of the right reverend Prelate. At present such representatives sit on education committees by virtue of the provisions of the Education Act 1996. The Government recognise the valuable role that they have played in education and want to see those contributions continue. The amendment therefore enshrines on the face of this Bill their rights to scrutinise and review education matters.
Subsection (2D) applies also to overview and scrutiny committees and sub-committees the access to information regime that currently applies to the committee system. It also ensures that such committees reflect the overall political balance of the council. Ensuring that all parties on the council are represented in proportion on each committee will make overview and scrutiny suitably non-partisan and, as far as possible, non-adversarial.
I hope that the Committee will recognise that the amendments are designed to achieve exactly the objective referred to in the earlier debate of effective scrutiny of executive decisions of the council under the new structures. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I can ask the Minister a short question for clarification. Do the responsibilities for executive functions under Clause 12 in any way govern or relate to the exercise of the powers of a local authority under Clause 2(1)(b)? The Minister will remember that we had a discussion on this in two contexts on two amendments earlier. It may be that I am ignorant, which I am, of the interstice of local government administration, but I merely seek clarification.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: This is a difficult group of amendments to handle. A number of different points are raised by a number of the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, indicated that he will be happy for me to speak next, perhaps because my Amendment No. 140A is an amendment to the Minster's amendment to which he has already spoken.
The noble Lord pre-empted the point by explaining lines 9 and 10 by saying that, if the overview and scrutiny committees were to extend their roles beyond the functions set out on the face of the Bill, there would be a blurring of the position. Our objection to the proposed new subsection is that, to provide that the functions of an overview and scrutiny committee may be only those which Parliament—for which read "the Government"—decides that it may have, seems to us to be yet another inappropriate constraint on the proper flexibility of local government. It is yet another centralising provision.
Amendment No. 140A would provide that an overview and scrutiny committee could discharge functions imposed or permitted by the authority itself. That would not detract from its principal functions as set out in the clause and the clause as amended. We feel—I have no doubt it will be a theme which runs through the rest of today's debate—that the Government are losing valuable opportunities for the input of those people who will be members of the overview and scrutiny committees in such a rigid demarcation.
I want to comment on Amendment No. 146. However, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, should speak to it first. Perhaps I may come back into the debate later if I feel that there are still points I should like to make.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I tabled four amendments in this group, each important in its way.
Amendment No. 139 would permit an overview and scrutiny committee,
"to advise the executive [of a local authority] on the future discharge of its executive functions".
It is difficult to make a clear distinction between policy, executive and overview. A real problem exists in this regard and the Government, in trying to make clear distinctions, are in danger of creating a system where smooth operation will not happen.
There is also the problem that members of the authority who are not serving on the executive must have a real job to do. It is perfectly true that some functions will not be handled by the executive; those will still remain for ordinary members.
Then there are the overview and scrutiny committees, of which there may be one or more and in respect of which we have tabled further amendments. There will also be a standards committee. So there are other matters to be considered. However, the question is whether those committees will attract people of ability and vision. If one wishes to serve one's

99
community, a considerable amount of trouble and inconvenience is involved in standing for election, even though it may only be for a local authority.
Unless it is felt that there is a worthwhile job to do at the end of the day, good people will not stand for election. It is a very sad fact that, in general, politics today attracts few people of real ability because they can do so much better in the outside world. Indeed, for youngish people, family interests and the interests of one's children inevitably come before what we would regard as the obvious and wider interests of the community at large. That is a sad fact of life. So we must also bear that thought in mind.
Amendment No. 146 requires officers serving the oversight and scrutiny committees to be responsible to the council, and slates that they should clearly be seen not to serve the executive. I believe that that distinction will prove to be very important for the integrity of the whole new system. However, it is not straightforward and easy. In the case of some of the very small rural authorities, I suspect that staff numbers of qualified people, especially in the chief executive's department—I am sorry; I have to be careful how I use that word now—will in fact be small. We may well find difficulties in building Chinese walls of the sort that I think everyone agrees are desirable.
Amendment No. 148 would make it possible for the head of the paid service or the monitoring officer to summon a meeting of an oversight and scrutiny committee, whenever he felt that it was necessary. The Minister talked about the need for openness, clarity and clear responsibility. For this system to be open, clear and transparent, I believe that that particular facility should be available.
Amendment No. 149 deals with the matter of education and refers in particular to members in a "non-voting capacity" in relation to religion. I thought it worth tabling the amendment in what I would call a "non-traditional" form by inviting consideration that there should be at least one person representing each of the main religious faiths within the area. In the past, some religious faiths have not been involved in education committees. However, there are communities that are not well served in this respect. I commend Amendment No. 149 as producing a thought that I hope the Minister will consider with some sympathy.
All of these amendments are, in their own right, somewhat serious amendments. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I shall speak to Amendments No. 150 and 152, which are tabled in my name. I must apologise to Members of the Committee because when the discussion on this group of amendments began I was still sitting in a taxi-cab in Trafalgar Square, getting ever more anxious that I should not be here before the end of the debate.
I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, his fellow Ministers and officials at the department for listening to the concerns expressed on behalf of the Churches, both in this Chamber and elsewhere. As
100
long ago as November 1998, my predecessor as chair of the Church of England Board of Education, the then Bishop of Ripon, wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister to express the concern of the Churches about the loss of their voice and vote on local government committees dealing with education. The assurances then given by the Deputy Prime Minister and repeated in this Chamber and elsewhere by his fellow Ministers, as well as in the draft Bill and White Paper, were not given full effect when this Bill was first considered in your Lordships' House. I have therefore tabled the two amendments.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford spoke on Second Reading. My amendments would not have quite the same effect of making up what the Churches and parent-governor representatives lose by the abolition of education committees, but I believe that they go as far as can reasonably be expected in the present climate.
I now turn to the detail of my proposed amendments. I shall deal, first, with Amendment No. 152 because that is the more substantial of the two. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause would have the effect of requiring a local authority with responsibility for education to establish one overview and scrutiny committee solely to oversee and scrutinise the work of education. I believe that there is great concern that this should be so; indeed, if I may say so, it is wider than the Churches' interest.
Education is the largest and, arguably, the most significant aspect of any local authority's work when it has that responsibility. This is not just a result of the high profile given to education under the present Government; it arises largely because of its cost. Half of a county council's expenditure is usually spent on education and related services. But the local education authority and its elected councillors do not bear their responsibilities for this service alone. There are significant partnerships within which they work in the field of education. The Churches are major players here, providing one in three schools across the country. Indeed, it is claimed that 50 per cent of primary school children in Lancashire attend an Anglican, Roman Catholic or Methodist-sponsored school.
In our view this partnership is of vital importance to the future of education in each local authority. The amendment means that the Church and parent-governor representatives would be members of a committee, with suitably defined responsibility, in which their voice and vote would take effect. The department's draft guidance, giving effect to the Bill when enacted, suggests that any local authority would wish to have more than one overview and scrutiny committee. That may be so, but my amendment would put that guidance, as it affects education, on to the face of the Bill.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause relates to the power of the overview and scrutiny committee. If it has no teeth—I believe that this is the point the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was making—it cannot bite. So my amendment is designed to give it teeth; in other

101
words, to give it effect. Under the new arrangements, back-bench councillors might be glad of a few teeth themselves. So would the Church and parent-governor representatives, although I am not terribly pleased with the analogy that I have just used. They would be able to prevent the local authority executive implementing a decision that the committee had questioned without it going to a meeting of a full council and that council giving its approval. I hope that this delaying power over the executive will appeal to Members of the Committee.
Amendment No. 150, which proposes to insert an extra subsection in Clause 15, is also concerned with giving the committee some power. For that reason I refer to it now. There was a clear intention in the White Paper attached to the draft Bill to give any member of any overview and scrutiny committee the power to require an item within the range of the committee's responsibility to be included on an agenda. I do not believe that this amendment is in any way controversial. I hope that the Government will see it as being entirely helpful to their intentions.
Perhaps I may now revert to Amendment No. 152 and subsections (4), (5) and (6). The amendment clarifies who has the duty of nominating the Church representatives on these committees. In our view, Amendment No. 145, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not drafted in the light of the most recent education legislation, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which provided for the designation of schools of a religious character and therefore removes the necessity for the slightly elliptic reference in the Minister's amendment. Moreover some religious schools are not voluntary but foundation schools. My amendment refers directly to these as distinct from Church of England and Roman Catholic schools. As the Committee will be aware, they include not only Methodist and Jewish schools, which we have had for a long time, but also a small number of Muslim, Sikh and Seventh Day Adventist schools. They too should be represented on the appropriate scrutiny committee. Subsection (7) of the proposed new clause contains a direct reference to parent governors' representatives. I note the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which has the same effect. I hope very much that the Minister will look sympathetically on the two amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support both amendments of the right reverend Prelate. I ask the Minister to what extent, if any, these amendments, if carried into the Bill, would affect the exercise of absolute discretion under Clause 2(1)(b).
Baroness Hanham: I speak to Amendment No. 142 which stands in my name. This small amendment would enable members of the executive to sit on scrutiny committees rather than be totally excluded from them. One of my many worries is that this whole system of executive and scrutiny is adversarial. It has already been suggested that the executive and the
102
scrutiny bodies will be at each others' throats. I can see that it would not be plausible for an executive member who has a responsibility for what is being done on a scrutiny committee to sit on that scrutiny committee, but I can see no reason why an executive member who does not bear full responsibility for an area should not be able to sit on another scrutiny committee. Indeed, he or she may provide extremely valuable input. My amendment seeks to ensure that where there is more than one scrutiny committee, executive members can be part of them.
Lord King of West Bromwich: As a new Member of the Chamber I do not have extensive expertise in relation to many issues which come before it. However, as regards the particular matter of this Bill, I have current experience as the leader of a major metropolitan authority, Sandwell, and I feel able to support government Amendment No. 140 and associated amendments.
Nowhere in the Local Government Bill has there been so much misrepresentation as on the issue of delegation to executive members of councils and the "call in" power of scrutiny committees. Let us be clear what the current committee structure does. First, chairs of committees already have delegated power. Secondly, non-elected officers also have considerable delegation. Currently, many day-to-day decisions are made in keeping with the manifesto policy of a controlling political group which cannot be reversed.
Obviously any chair worth his or her salt will take contentious matters to his or her political group, but therein lies another problem. Group decisions are private, made behind closed doors and binding on all members of that group. In many cases to claim that they are debated in full committee or even full council is, to say the least, a charade and certainly offers no transparency for the electorate. At best, debates are academic; at worst, they constitute play acting.
No council can operate without delegated powers, most of which currently lie with non-elected officers, not elected members. The new executive arrangements will allow elected members to be much more involved in delegated decision-making. I suggest that that is a step in favour of democracy, not against it. Coupled with the executive is the scrutiny role which, for the first time, gives council members the right to examine and challenge decision-making without a party whip. That is refreshing transparency.
Obviously, it is not workable for every dot and comma of every decision to be called in. Such power would render a local authority unable to function. It is right and proper for scrutiny committees to ensure that council policy is being followed and best value achieved. Provided that delegation is carried out within the policy of the council and within financial and other standing orders, it streamlines local government fit for the 21st century. There may be occasional abuses but any officer or member can be dealt with by the con trolling group or the standards committee.

103
It is right to limit the power of "call in" as such a power could be used to wreck the policies upon which a controlling group had been elected. The Government's intentions are both right and sensible. I believe that they should be supported by the Committee.
Lord Tope: I return to the amendments spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I have considerable sympathy as regards the position in which he and his colleagues find themselves. I congratulate them on the ingenuity with which they have tackled a situation which is fundamentally flawed. If I recall correctly, the right reverend Prelate commented that the Bill appeared not to recognize— or appeared not to be up-to-date with—what is happening as regards the reforms to school government. I speak more usually in this Chamber on education matters but I spend most of my life outside it working in local government. It has long been clear to me that Ministers and officials in the DETR and the DfEE have little knowledge, or certainly little understanding, of what each other is doing. The dilemma we are discussing illustrates that better than any other.
It is not much more than a year ago that we debated what is now the School Standards and Framework Act, Section 9 of which requires that representatives of parent governors be appointed to education committees. At that time the DETR took measures— which we now have before us—which effectively get rid of education committees. Today we are discussing how to deal with the consequences of that. I recall the predecessor of the right reverend Prelate—as the latter said—raising the issue as long ago as 1998. It was obvious that the problem would arise. This matter exposes a fundamental flaw in the Government's determination to make a total division between executive and scrutiny responsibilities.
Church representatives on education committees, teacher representatives on education committees, and now parent governor representatives on education committees, wish to sit on the body which is taking the executive decisions. I spent many happy hours working on the then school standards Bill and I realised that it was the Government's intention that parent governors should sit on the decision-making committees. However, that is not possible under the executive/scrutiny split. Therefore, the Church and others are now trying to find what are much less satisfactory ways of dealing with that inherent and fundamental difficulty.
As I said, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues on finding a means to address the difficulty. I am totally sympathetic to the intentions of that amendment. I have a slight concern that subsection (2) of the proposed new clause refers to there being an overview and scrutiny committee responsible,
"solely in respect of the authority's functions as a local education authority".
104
I understand that. That should certainly be its principal purpose. The intention is to replicate as far as possible the previous role of an education committee, except as regards executive decision-making powers. Such an overview and scrutiny committee could very well have—and, in my view, should have— responsibility for matters connected with learning for life which are not strictly those of a local education authority. Obvious examples are libraries and heritage. They are not necessarily strictly matters for a local education authority as such, but they may quite often be appropriate within that committee.
That, in a sense, is a detail. The principle is right. If the Government believe—as they were telling us during the School Standards and Framework Bill— that the Churches should continue with the role that for many years they have had on education committees and that parent governor representatives should now have a similar role on decision-making bodies, that is what should be. In recognising what is, rather than what should be, the right reverend Prelate, in effect, seeks to give them almost a decision-making power after the event. That is much less satisfactory; but if that is the way we have to deal with it, so be it.
It is regrettable because it places such people in an essentially negative role rather than a positive one. In my experience, Church representatives on education committees overwhelmingly have taken a positive and constructive role. In effect, by this amendment we are being forced to give them a negative role of either trying to stop or to at least delay something happening. That could make a fundamental difference to the relationship between the education authority and the Churches. It is an irresolvable difficulty if the Government are determined—as they are—to go ahead with a total split between executive and scrutiny.
So those are our concerns. As I said, I have great sympathy with the position in which both the Churches and parent governors now find themselves. The amendment is one way of trying to deal with that problem—a problem which, in my view, we should not have.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly, I express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Tope—who has vast experience of local government, whereas I have none—for the reasons he gave and for the difficulty he expressed about the division of functions. I wholeheartedly endorse, again, his support for the amendments of the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may add a few words on the question of support for overview and scrutiny committees, speaking in particular to Amendment No. 146, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The noble Lord is a little unambitious in seeking to provide that each overview and scrutiny committee shall have "an officer". I would go further than that in terms of numbers, but I support him on the point of principle.
Because the point has been made to me, I know that I am not alone in my concern about the conflict of interests that officers may suffer. I will speak to the

105
difficult position in which officers may find themselves and the need to involve them fully in the process when we come to later amendments, but there is an obvious problem in an individual advising both the executive and the committee and scrutinising the decisions of the executive.
The question has been posed to me—I cannot give an answer to it; I hope the Minister will be able to do so—as to who is to decide at a scrutiny and overview committee which officer will answer the questions. Are the members or the officers to decide that issue? There may be a different answer if we are talking about senior or junior officers. A point has been made to me that deciding which officers at which level of seniority should answer could lead the discussion to take a different route. It has also been put to me that the load, particularly on senior officers, is changing dramatically as a result of this new arrangement. This observation comes from some experience of an authority where a similar provision for a separate scrutiny arrangement is being used.
At a traditional committee meeting, very often a junior officer will speak on a relatively minor matter. At a scrutiny committee it may be expected that a senior officer will cover an awful lot of ground on matters within a single department. I am not suggesting that senior officers should shrug off responsibility; and, in saying that junior officers often deal with minor matters, I am not suggesting that they have done so in the past under the traditional arrangements. But there are practical difficulties which are almost so great as to outweigh claims about transparency. The load on the officers involved in the process may be very difficult. They are human beings who are now having to serve a number of masters— including their own professionalism—and they may have to spend an awful lot of time, to put it in the vernacular, "mugging up" on detail before turning up at a scrutiny committee; or they may be in a position I am not alone in your Lordships' House in having been in such a position—of simply having to "busk it" and work it out on the night.
I do not believe that adequate consideration has been given to how in the real world, with real people filling these posts, this split will work.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: At least in this House we never "busk it" and work it out on the night.
A wide range of issues has been raised in the debate. In one sense the key issue—we do not have a meeting of minds here—is that, in one way or another, noble Lords are seeking to dilute the clear distinction between the executive function and the scrutiny function. We have been very careful not to do that and to clarify that distinction as far as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, tackled this up front in that she proposes that we should delete the clause which excludes executive members from scrutiny committees. That would be a retrograde step in relation to what we seek to do. It could lead to
106
some very strange situations. Although the noble Baroness may feel we are drawing too tight a line— as other noble Lords also suggest—we believe that, unless we draw a clear line between the role of the executive and the role of the scrutiny committee, this new system will not work. I therefore have to resist Amendment No. 142, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness. That will also affect some of my answers to other questions.
Turning to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I believe that his concerns have been addressed by other government amendments. It is clear in the Bill that the role of the overview and scrutiny committee is not only to scrutinise decisions "post factum", after they have been made, but to contribute to the making of those decisions and to provide an ongoing scrutiny of the executive on future policy and development. The face of the Bill should make that clear; the guidance should make that clear; and we have tabled further amendments to make that clear today, particularly Amendment No. 137. That amendment states that the committee is to,
"make reports or recommendations … with respect to the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the executive".
It is quite clear that that refers not only to a review of decisions but to recommendations on how a function should be discharged in the future and how it is being discharged currently.
I also do not support Amendment No. 140A, which is an amendment to my Amendment No. 140. As I made clear when speaking to that amendment, it would be inappropriate to allow overview and scrutiny committees to discharge other functions. The functions of planning and licensing, which are not covered by the executive function, need to be carried out by bodies which have an executive and decision-taking role. The overview and scrutiny committees are intended to hold the executive to account for what it has done and what it plans to do. The purpose of Amendment No. 140 is to ensure that separation. I do not believe that it should be blurred by giving the overview and scrutiny committees some executive powers, which is what the proposal implies.
I hope that I understood the first intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on what is covered by the scrutiny of executive functions. However, I was not sure whether he was referring to Clause 2(1)(b), relating to the best value provisions, which are clearly an executive function and therefore overseen by the overview and scrutiny committees, or to Clause 21(1)(b) relating to the functions which the executive may undertake but is not mandatorily required to undertake.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the Minister, because this is a very important point. I was referring to Clause 2(1)(b), which we discussed with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Lord Whitty: In that case, the noble Lord is referring to the best value and well-being provisions. They are

107
an executive function and under these provisions are therefore overseen by the overview and scrutiny committees.
As regards staff support for the overview and scrutiny committees, addressed by Amendment No. 146, I have some sympathy with Members of the Committee and councillors up and down the land who are grappling with the issue. Clearly, substantial adjustments must, be made to the way in which councils structure themselves and the roles particularly of senior officers. It is important that the overview and scrutiny committees have support and are able to question other officers of the authority.
However, we do not wish to make a mandatory requirement that there should clearly be separate officer support. We believe that it is a matter for local choice, which will identify the split and which level of officer is responsible for the different forms of answering and support for the committees. While we recommend councils to follow the course of designating a clear support officer, we recognise that that may not be feasible in all cases, particularly in relation to small districts. Therefore, we are not going down the mandatory road. We recognise the point which the amendment attempts to address, and trust that the guidance will be sufficient to meet it.
As regards the final subsection of Amendment No. 146—that is, the requests from members of overview and scrutiny committees for papers—we do not regard it as necessary. Under the proposed arrangements, there will be a duty on the executive to make publicly available the same papers as are required under current law.
Amendment No. 148 deals with the role of the overview and scrutiny committee in relation to the monitoring officer. There is a partial misunderstanding. A monitoring officer is the proper person to deal with claims of impropriety or maladministration. Under the 1989 Act, he or she is under a duty to make a report to the authority. The overview and scrutiny committee is not the right forum for officers to bring concerns. These committees are there to overview policy and carry it out, not to look at the legality or otherwise of such decisions. Officers should therefore not refer to those committees except as part of a more general concern. If it is a specific matter of propriety, that is for the standards committees and boards. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment addresses the appropriate committee or resolves the problem accordingly.
I turn to Amendment No. 150 tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. This is a helpful amendment which is in line with the recommendations we have set out in guidance. I therefore accept the principle lying behind it. We share his concern to ensure that Church representatives and all those represented on overview and scrutiny committees can have their concerns placed on the agenda, thereby forcing the executive to respond directly to any concerns they may have. With the leave
108
of the Committee and the right reverend Prelate, I should like to take away the amendment to see whether we can reflect that position in the drafting.
Amendment No. 152 rightly looks to enshrine the important role of Church representatives. I join those who pay tribute to the previous and future roles of Church representatives on education committees; they have been key players. We have every intention that they should continue to play a key role and I had hoped that our Amendment No. 145 would satisfy concerns. However, the right reverend Prelate and others have said that that is not the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, intervened to make a cross-reference to the education provisions. If there is a mismatch between the two, I must in part stand responsible. As the noble Lord will recall, I was once an education spokesperson and therefore ought to be an example of joined-up government. However, I recall that during the course of the debate someone— perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tope—foresaw the change of circumstances in which the Church representatives on education committees would be transformed by the new government proposals, and my current department clarified the position. If there remains a difficulty between the two, we must consider it and amend legislation accordingly to meet the concern. If the right reverend Prelate accepts that assurance, I shall take the amendment away and examine it.
Amendment No. 149 also relates to religious representation. It would enshrine on the face of the Bill the role of Church and parent governors. We wish to go slightly further than the amendment implies, in that they would have voting rights on the committee. That would continue the voting rights which they have on education committees under the current system. These rights are statutory for representatives from the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which clearly provide the vast majority of denominational schools under our system. The right reverend Prelate and others referred to other denominations, as does the amendment, and councils may be directed by the Secretary of State to include representatives of other religious groups where they provide maintained schools in the area.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 149 refers to people serving on overview and scrutiny committees from the,
"main religious faiths within an area".
Many communities with a large number of non-Christian faith religions do not have their own schools but are served through normal maintained schools and sometimes Church schools which are not otherwise normally represented. I hope that the Minister will consider that point, so far he has missed it.
Lord Whitty: I am not sure that I have missed it as much as taken a different view. The statutory provisions, and to some extent the discretionary provisions, closely relate to the engagement of those who provide schools in the education provision for the

109
local authority area. That is why for the most part we are talking about Church of England and Roman Catholic schools.
There are now schools maintained by other faiths and denominations. Representatives of religions which do not have a maintained school in the area are in a wider category. There is nothing under the provisions in the Bill to stop co-option of such representatives on to the overview and scrutiny committee, but the voting rights accrue to those who have maintained schools within the system. We should probably wish to maintain that distinction, although I am happy to look again at aspects of it.
I oppose Amendment No. 166, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Appointments to the overview and scrutiny committees will have to reflect the overall balance of the council. Therefore, the appointment of individuals to sit on committees is a matter for the party group on the council. The appointment of councillors outside the executive should be affected by that system, which should remain in place. Party groups will be best placed to decide where their resources may be most effectively deployed in terms of which member they wish to put on the appropriate overview and scrutiny committee. It is possible, as indeed it is under the present system, that all councillors may wish to sit on one particular committee. Such a decision would have to be left to the party groups. We should bear in mind also that the overview and scrutiny committee is only one of the councillors' roles outside the executive. There are planning committees, licensing committees, and so forth.
I oppose also Amendment No. 167. I agree that it is important that the members of the overview and scrutiny committees are able to discuss any action by the executive. We have tabled amendments to Clause 15 to clarify that matter, particularly Amendment No. 140. It would be up to local choice exactly how a mechanism would work in a particular local authority. Our draft guidance puts forward various suggestions as to how that mechanism should work, but we do not need to go into further detail on the face of the Bill.
We made it clear in guidance that any member of the committee should be able to have his concerns on the agenda so as to ensure that the executive may be properly held to account and that individual councillors may raise concerns. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that what lies behind his amendment is not necessary on the face of the Bill. I am sorry that that is quite a wide-ranging response to the debate. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister. I return briefly to the question of officer support for the overview and scrutiny committee. The Minister says that it is a matter for each local authority to determine how to deploy its resources. Will he accept that it is
110
indeed a question of resources and that many local authorities will take the view that in order to do the job properly, they actually need more officer resource because there will be different jobs to be done in supporting the executive and in supporting the overview and scrutiny committees? If he accepts that, will he accept the corollary that it is a question of financial resources as well? In respect of funding local authorities—in particular, the decisions made centrally about the constraints on expenditure and so on—will the Minister tell the Committee how the Government propose to deal with that difficult issue?
Lord Whitty: I recognise that a number of local authorities consider that in order to carry out the new system effectively they need additional staff. I should dispute that that was necessarily the general rule. Local authorities will need to look at their total functions within the new regime and within a best value climate. Therefore, I should not draw any overall conclusion as to numbers of staff. It is important that we all recognise, first, that this administration have in general provided substantial additional resources to local authorities; but, secondly, they have also left it to them to decide how best to deploy their resources. We have moved, and intend to move further, towards providing overall central government support to local government. Its representatives will then themselves decide on their priorities and staffing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 132 to 135:
Page 8, line 24, leave out ("ordinary").
Page 8, line 25, at end insert——
("(1A) Executive arrangements by a local authority must ensure that their overview and scrutiny committee has power (or their overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)—").
Page 8, line 26, after ("to") insert ("review or").
Page 8, line 26, after ("scrutinise") insert ("decisions made. or other action taken, in connection with").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 8, line 26, after ("scrutinise") insert ("decisions made or which may be made or other action taken or which may be taken in connection with").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 141. Amendment No. 136, which provides that an overview and scrutiny committee may look at decisions which may be made or actions which may be taken in the future, seeks to continue the debate about the role of the executive and the scrutiny committees. We believe that it would be a great pity if they were constrained from offering advice and making policy proposals.
Clause 15, if the government amendments are taken into account, is largely, although I accept not entirely, about decisions made and action taken. The new government provision allows a call-in if a decision has not yet been implemented. The Select Committee of the House of Lords and of another place—of which a number of your Lordships were members—which

111
examined the distant relative of the Bill last summer, took evidence from a number of people, including academics. As well as oral evidence, written evidence was submitted to us. Among that evidence was a memorandum from Professor John Stewart. He described the potential of an overview and scrutiny committee well. I shall quote fairly extensively from one paragraph of his memorandum. He said:
"It is important to recognise that while non-executive councillors scrutinise the executive and hold it to account, they also can have an important role in supporting the executive. Certainly councillors from the same party as the executive will see themselves as having such a role and such support will be required. The executive will need support from other councillors, because it faces the danger or overload if it is to take over executive responsibilities, form committees, develop policies, propose strategies. provide community leadership and be involved in partnerships. That is, being recognised in some of the transitional arrangements with the appointment of deputies, support groups of councillors and councillors as advisers…It is recognised that the executive may seek advice from an overview and scrutiny committee, but it is seen as advice from a separate body. The executive is likely to wish to work with council members in developing policy. Thus it might set up a group of councillors led by a cabinet member to develop policy in a particular area. An individual councillor could be invited to advise the cabinet on a particular topic. The executive might wish other councillors to sit upon cabinet committees".
I could quote far more extensively from the evidence given to the Joint Select Committee, but I tabled the amendment simply to make clear again our concern that the role of the overview and scrutiny committee should not be so constrained as to not take advantage of what it might achieve.
Amendment No. 141 seeks to extend the power of the committee to require the executive to refer to it decisions which the executive is about to make. I have described that as being either specific decisions or regarding an area of functions. I am concerned that the Bill will not give the real opportunity that should be given to the new committees to stop decisions being made. It will be all too possible for executives so to organise their affairs that they will not give the chance for the proper scrutiny which we all hope the new committees will achieve. In other words, they will implement decisions before they can ever be questioned. That is not how a good executive should behave as it would rapidly lose the confidence held in it. The role of legislation is not just to set out a framework but to set out some minimum standards. However, the Government appear not to wish to incorporate such a provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: To some extent we are the victims of how the amendments have been grouped. I accept some of what the noble Baroness says but feel that the amendments in the previous group go as far as I am prepared to go. I hope the noble Baroness will recognise that I have gone some considerable way towards meeting the concerns which she expressed.
In relation to Amendment No. 136, which seeks to amend Clause 15(1)(a), we have just agreed to Amendment No. 135, which deals with this issue. Overview and scrutiny committees have two broad roles: to scrutinise the decisions as such and to take an overview of broad policy issues and give advice to the
112
executive and the full council on how they are carrying out their functions. Amendment No. 135 deals with the first of those roles. The wording which the noble Baroness seeks to add goes into the second of the two roles—the overview of future policy. We have made it clear that overview and scrutiny committees will have the power and responsibility to look at matters which the executive is considering in future.
Our next amendment, Amendment No. 137, to which we shall come shortly, makes clear the wide-ranging role that overview and scrutiny committees will have to make reports or recommendations on any matters which are before the executive. In addition, the guidance which we have published makes it clear that in order to ensure good and effective decision-making the executive should itself be involving the overview and scrutiny committees in these decisions at a much earlier stage. I therefore think that the combination of the amendment which we have just agreed and the one we will move shortly meets the noble Baroness's concerns.
Amendment No. 141 seeks to allow overview and scrutiny committees to be able to require the executive to refer proposed decisions to them before they are taken. We believe that Amendment No. 140, to which we shall come shortly and to which I have already spoken, will achieve a similar effect and therefore the noble Baroness's amendment is unnecessary. Our amendment gives overview and scrutiny committees the power to ask the executive to reconsider a decision which has been made but not implemented. I believe that that power and the other powers in the two earlier amendments have broadly the same effect as that which is set out in the noble Baroness's amendment, in that the executive can review decisions before they have an effect, the overview and scrutiny committee can oversee the activities of the executive prior to the making of a decision and it can review decisions and the policy as a whole. I therefore think that the point is already covered by the various amendments which we have put forward and by the guidance which in draft form has been before the Committee. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to pursue the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: As has already been said today, guidance is guidance and legislation is something more than that. I was aware of Amendment No. 140. Yes, indeed, we are the victims of groupings, as we always are when dealing with complicated Bills. My amendment raised perhaps rather broader points. I understand that it is not practicable to allow an overview and scrutiny committee to require the review of a decision which has been implemented as well as made. I do not expect it to have the power to undo what has become history. What I am concerned about is getting the balance right. I want to give a broad hint to an overview and scrutiny committee that it might make sure that it gets in ahead of the game and reviews the decisions which are about to be taken and implemented.
I shall not pursue the matter now. I t would probably be easier to review some of these points when we have the Bill as amended following the Committee stage.

113
However, I remain a little concerned about whether the Government have gone far enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 137 and 138:
Page 8, line 26, leave out ("the executive functions, and") and insert ("any functions which are the responsibility of the executive,

( ) to make reports or recommendations to the authority or the executive with respect to the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the executive.

( ) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive,

( ) to make reports or recommendations to the authority or the executive with respect to the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive,").—

Page 8, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("on") in line 31.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 8, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The power of an overview and scrutiny committee under subsection (1A)(a) to review or scrutinise a decision made but not implemented includes power

(a) to recommend that the decision be reconsidered by the person who made it, or

(b) to arrange for its function under subsection (1A)(a), so far as it relates to the decision, to be exercised by the authority.

( ) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority may not discharge any functions other than its functions under this section.
( ) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority—

(a) may appoint one or more sub-committees, and

(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by any such sub-committee.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 140A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 140, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 140 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Not more than one-fifth of the members of an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee of such a committee may be members of the authority's executive.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 147A. To an extent we are again the victims of groupings. The amendment covers similar ground to that covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Nevertheless, as I have the opportunity, I shall once again make the point that we are not happy with the proposed complete divide between the executive and the overview and scrutiny functions. Amendment No. 143 suggests that, rather than having a complete demarcation between the
114
two, a limit should be written into the Bill. Amendment No. 143 provides that up to one-fifth of the members of an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee may be members of the authority's executive. I accept that that fraction was plucked out of the air. It is not a large fraction.
In suggesting a limit, I make the point again that we believe that some overlap would be valuable. To have no overlap at all risks losing flexibility, future effective changes in the role of individual councillors, individual development—by that I mean the development of the experience of individual councillors—and cross-fertilisation between different parts of the local authority.
Amendment No. 147 refers to the question of the chairing of the committee and seeks to obtain assurances from the Government that guidance, which is the subject of the clause, will include chairing in its provisions for operation. I raise this issue because the comment has been made to me from a number of quarters that the what I might call more old-fashioned authorities may well put in place as chair of the new executive and scrutiny committee a member who regards himself or herself as a member of the controlling group who may merely continue the current unsatisfactory practices which the Bill seeks to remove. I refer to a lack of openness and to a too cosy set-up. I am concerned that if the chair is a member of the majority party, where the chair sees the primary loyalty as being to a party rather than to the public service, the existing position will simply be reinforced.
The amendment does not state that the chair must be a member of another party. After all, in some authorities there is only one party. It does not seek to provide that there should be no such committee if that is the case. Government guidance would be valuable in giving the public and the opposition material to use when arguing against any such proposal from the majority group, which, as I say, may simply reinforce current bad practices and not move forward under the new agenda set by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am afraid that this is just a further move to dilute the general clarity of distinction that we want to achieve through the Bill between the scrutiny role and that of the executive. The position is not altered by the fact that the amendment provides for a maximum number. A size restriction does not detract from the fundamental principle; namely, that we do not consider it sensible for an executive member to be allowed to sit on a committee that is charged with scrutinising that executive. I therefore cannot accept Amendment No. 143.
Amendment No. 147A would be slightly altered by government Amendment No. 147, which, so far as concerns the regulation-making power, would delete the reference which it amends. As we have not reached that amendment in terms of ordinal progression, it is slightly difficult for the noble Baroness to take that on board when referring to the amendment in this group. If the noble Baroness is, broadly speaking, happy with Amendment No. 147, Amendment No. 147A cannot stand.

115
I should point out also that the question of chairing, covered by the amendment, is, par excellence, a matter for the local council. It should not be regulated or heavily defined in guidance. Therefore, even if the noble Baroness were able to reformulate the amendment, taking account of the fact that, as I hope, the Committee is about to accept Amendment No. 147, it would not be appropriate to pursue it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps the Minister will clarify a point regarding Amendment No. 143. If executive members have portfolios that go wider than the traditional committee line, as many people are interested in developing—so that, for instance, an executive member has a portfolio for social inclusion work—may that person be a member of a scrutiny or overview committee dealing with some of the functions included in that portfolio?. My noble friend spoke about cross-fertilisation. The Government's model is too rigid. It envisages that executive members will have exactly the same lines of definition for their portfolios as the scrutiny overview committee. I thought that the Bill envisaged a more flexible possibility.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness confuses the issue somewhat. Under the Bill, a councillor could not sit on any scrutiny committee overseeing an executive function for which that councillor was responsible. That applies across the board, with a clear distinction between the executive as a whole and the scrutiny committees as a whole. The definition of "portfolio" is not a relevant issue. A councillor cannot be both an executive member and scrutinise that executive function. That needs to be clear.
We wish to have broader portfolios and more innovative structures that will lead to more joined-up local government. We also want to see some interaction. The clear separation of membership does not represent a barrier to interaction. There will be continuous interaction between the executives as a whole and the overview and scrutiny committees as a whole. The noble Baroness referred, for example, to the memorandum submitted by John Stewart. That kind of interaction will take place, and will do so on a broader range of policy strategy than has been the case with the compartmentalised committee structures in many traditional local authorities. We shall not achieve those objectives by relaxing the general distinction between the executive and the scrutiny functions.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sad that the Minister did not seek to answer the substance of my comments on the second of the two amendments in this group. I am among the first to support the idea of local authorities organising their own affairs. I chose my wording as delicately as I could in referring to some old-fashioned authorities. However, there is genuine concern that the new mechanisms should not simply reinforce old bad habits. We may well return to the point at the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 8, line 33, after ("authority") insert (", or a sub-committee of such a committee,").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 144 and 145. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 8, line 34, at end insert—
("(2A) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority, or any sub-committee of such a committee, may include persons who are not members of the authority, but (subject to subsection (2C)) any such persons are not entitled to vote at any meeting of such a committee or sub-committee on any question which falls to be decided at that meeting.
(2B) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority, or a sub-committee of such a committee, which has functions in relation to any education function which is the responsibility of the executive must include persons appointed—

(a) to represent parent governors at maintained schools in the authority's area, and

(b) to represent persons who appoint foundation governors for voluntary schools in the authority's area.

(2C) Any person appointed to an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee by virtue of subsection (2B) is to be entitled to vote at any meeting of the committee or sub-committee on any question which relates to any education function mentioned in that subsection and which falls to be decided at the meeting.
(2D) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority, or a sub-committee of such a committee, is to he treated—

(a) as a committee or sub-committee of a principal council for the purposes of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents of certain authorities, committees and sub-committees), and

(b) as a body to which section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (duty to allocate seats to political groups) applies.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): If Amendment No. 147 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 147A.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 8, line 41, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
("( ) In this section—
"foundation governor" and "voluntary school" have the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996,
"maintained school" and "parent governor" have the same meaning as in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 148 to 150 not moved.]
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 151:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
ACCESS TO MEETINGS AND INFORMATION ETC
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) with respect to the access of the public to meetings of executives or committees of executives (including provision enabling such meetings to take place in private),

(b) for or in connection with requiring written records to be kept of decisions made, or other action taken, by executives, or members or committees of executives, in connection with the discharge of functions which are the responsibility of executives,

(c) for or in connection with requiring written records falling within paragraph (b) to include reasons,

(d) for or in connection with requiring written records falling within paragraph (b) to be made available to the public,

(e) for or in connection with the creation of offences in respect of any rights or requirements created or imposed by the regulations.

(2) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn The Lord Bishop of Blackburn had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 152:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY
(" .—(1) This section applies to a local authority which is a local education authority.
(2) Each local authority to which this section applies shall have a single overview and scrutiny committee (referred to in this section as the relevant committee) appointed for the purposes described in section 15(1) solely in respect of the authority's functions as a local education authority.
(3) A relevant committee may require that any decision of the authority's executive shall not be implemented, or that implementation of it shall not continue, until it has been approved at a meeting of all the councillors of the authority at which a report of the relevant committee on the decision in question was considered.
(4) Where any maintained school in the authority's area is a Church of England school, the relevant committee shall include at least one full voting member nominated by the Diocesan Board of Education for a diocese of the Church of England which includes all or part of the authority's area.
(5) Where any maintained school in the authority's area is a Roman Catholic school, the relevant committee shall include at least one full voting member nominated by the bishop of a Roman Catholic diocese which includes all or part of the authority's area.
(6) The Secretary of State may issue directions to local authorities for the purposes of securing as members of a relevant committee representatives of those who appoint foundation governors for schools designated under section 69 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as having a religious character but which are not Church of England schools or Roman Catholic schools.
(7) Regulations may require the relevant committee for each authority to include one or more persons elected, in accordance with regulations, as representatives of parent governors at maintained schools in the authority's area.
(8) Expressions used in this section shall. unless the context otherwise requires, be construed in accordance with the Education Acts.").
The right reverend Prelate said: In the light of the Minister's earlier reply I shall not move the amendment at this stage.
[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Executive arrangements: further provision]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 44, line 6, leave out ("under which the executive takes the form specified in section 10(2)") and insert ("which provide for a mayor and cabinet executive").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may move Amendments Nos. 153 to 162 en bloc.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does my noble friend intend to move these amendments? If so, will he stand up rather than speak from a sedentary position?
Lord Whitty: I shall oblige my noble friend. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 153 to 165 with Amendment No. 59. I intend to move Amendments Nos. 154 to 165 en bloc. I beg to move Amendment No. 153.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 154 to 165:
Page 44, line 11, leave out ("as his deputy").
Page 44, line 11, at end insert ("to be the deputy mayor of the executive").
Page 44, line 11, at end insert—
("(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), the deputy mayor of the executive, unless he ceases to be a member of the authority, is to hold office until the end of the term of office of the elected mayor.
(5) The elected mayor may. if he thinks fit, remove the deputy mayor of the executive from office.
(6) Where a vacancy occurs in the office of deputy mayor of the executive, the elected mayor must appoint another person in his place.
(7) If for any reason the elected mayor is unable to act or the office of elected mayor is vacant, the deputy mayor of the executive must act in his place.
(8) If for any reason—

(a) the elected mayor is unable to act or the office of elected mayor is vacant, and

(b) the deputy mayor of the executive is unable to act or the office of deputy mayor of the executive is vacant,

the executive must act in the elected mayor's place or must arrange for a member of the executive or the authority to act in his place.").
Page 44, line 14, leave out ("under which the executive takes the form specified in section 10(3)") and insert ("which provide for a leader and cabinet executive").
Page 44, line 23, leave out ("under which the executive takes the form specified in section 10(4)") and insert ("which provide for a mayor and council manager executive").
Page 44, line 25, leave out ("as his deputy").
Page 44, line 25, leave out ("who is neither") and insert ("to be the deputy mayor of the executive.
(2A) The deputy mayor of the executive may not be—").
Page 44, line 26, after ("vice-chairman") insert ("of the authority").

119
Page 44, line 27, at end insert—
("(2B) Subject to sub-paragraph (2C), the deputy mayor of the executive, unless he ceases to be a member of the authority, is to hold office until the end of the term of office of the elected mayor.
(2C) The elected mayor may, if he thinks lit, remove the deputy mayor of the executive from office.
(2D) Where a vacancy occurs in the office of deputy mayor of the executive, the elected mayor must appoint another person in his place.
(2E) If for any reason the elected mayor is unable to act or the office of elected mayor is vacant, the deputy mayor of the executive must act in his place.
(2F) If for any reason—

(a) the elected mayor is unable to act or the office of elected mayor is vacant, and

(b) the deputy mayor of the executive is unable to act or the office of deputy mayor of the executive is vacant,

the council manager must act in the elected mayor's place.").
Page 44, line 28, at beginning insert ("Subject to subparagraph (3A),").
Page 44, line 31, at end insert—
("(3A) The council manager is entitled to attend, and speak at, meetings of an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee of the authority only if invited or required to do so by the committee or sub-committee.").
Page 45, line 8, at end insert—
("5.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with the appointment of a person (an "assistant") to provide assistance to an elected mayor.
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may include provision with respect to the terms and conditions of appointment of an assistant.
(3) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) affects the generality of the power under sub-paragraph (1).
(4) In this paragraph "specified" means specified in regulations under this paragraph.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 17 [Absence of requirement for political balance]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hamwee: I should like to put one short question on Clause 17. The clause provides that it is not necessary 1.o have political balance on a local authority executive or a committee thereof. If so, can an elected mayor choose to be supported by a cabinet in effect that bears no resemblance to the political balance of the elected council? I make a point against my own party. It is not unknown for some Liberal Democrats not to get on with party colleagues as well as they might. I daresay that that is replicated in all parties. It is possible that there is a Liberal Democrat majority on a council and a Liberal Democrat mayor but that individual finds greater identity of view, or fewer difficulties of personality, with members of another party. Therefore, the administration may not reflect the council as elected. I believe that that is correct but I should be glad to have the Minister's view. It would take a fairly daft leader to do that on the basis of the leader and cabinet model, but such has
120
been known. One can imagine the mayhem if an elected leader chose an executive from a minority party.
Lord Whitty: The understanding of the noble Baroness is correct. In those circumstances, the Act will not lay down the requirement that there be political balance, or that the leader must necessarily draw his or her executive from either a politically balanced council or his or her own party. I do not know what deep anxieties within the Liberal Democrat Party are reflected by the possibility of any alternative. Perhaps I should not inquire in case the question is returned to me. The principle behind the clause is that in these circumstances there should be flexibility and the composition of the executive is not politically defined.
Clause 17 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Proposals]:
[Amendments Nos. 168 to 170 not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 9, line 13, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) ensure they deliver both value for money and quality standards of service").
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief in moving Amendment No. 171. I am sure that the Committee does not want me to rehearse the points I made at Second Reading. I regard certain parts of this Bill as a continuation of the process of centralisation. For many years there has been an increase in central control over local government. Clause 18 accentuates the power of central government even to determine the structures to be used by local authorities. There are more than 400 local authorities in this country where populations range from 30,000 to over 1 million. Yet each local authority will be required to submit to the Secretary of State proposals to manage its business. Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, indicated his concern, shared by many of us, about ensuring that good, capable people put themselves forward to be elected as members of local authorities. I believe that requirements of this kind will deter such people if they believe that local government is becoming more and more an agent of central government.
Central government has established through the best value initiative a powerful method to evaluate performance, and I applaud the excellent work that has been done under it. A methodology has been established whereby it is possible to judge performance against both value for money and quality of service delivered. A number of interesting developments are taking place, including joint reviews of local authorities, to look not so much at the process but the impact of local government achievements. Surely, it is that about which we should be concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We on these Benches have some sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. In

121
particular, of all the matters that a local authority may be required to do when it draws up proposals for the operation of executive arrangements, Clause 18(1)(b) is perhaps one of the least important. It might have said that the matter should be debated by the full council, or that the council should ensure that the arrangements fulfilled what one would like to see as the principal purposes under Clause 2(1) and those things that the council should be doing, which the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, also seeks to achieve. However, to write onto the face of the Bill that one of the important duties of the council is to send a copy of the proposals to the Secretary of State is a centralist sentiment. I do not believe that that is the central issue to be addressed once the local authority has drawn up its proposals. Clause 18(3) provides that,
"a local authority must take reasonable steps to consult local government electors, and other interested parties".
I would have thought that that was far more important than informing the Secretary of State.
If the object of the Secretary of State seeing the proposals is to ensure that, for example, the executive's balance of functions is about right in order to fulfil the purposes outlined in Clause 2, it is reasonable to have the views of the local population as to the fulfilment of that function. I do not believe that the local electorate would have an enormous interest in whether or not the executive arrangements were of one kind or another until it had seen them in operation for a period. But I understand the point to which the noble Lord is moving with his amendment. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why it is of particular importance that this matter is on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 171 replaces a requirement on authorities to send their proposals to the Secretary of State with a requirement that authorities should deliver value for money and quality standards of service. The Government have no problem with the localist sentiment behind the amendment of the noble Lord, nor with the laudable objectives of value for money and quality standards of service which the amendment proposes. We support the view that that requirement should be placed on authorities. The Government are keen to see a great diversity of practice emerge under this Bill and best value legislation is already in place. As the noble Lord said, some striking examples of good practice are emerging.
However, we would be concerned about striking from the Bill the requirement on an authority to send to the Secretary of State a copy of its proposals. This is not an approval mechanism. It is in place so that Government can have a picture of what is occurring and the progress being made. We want to see efficient, transparent and accountable local government and we believe that it will be delivered through the establishment of new executive arrangements with a separate accountable executive. We therefore naturally want to be able to monitor what is going on
122
and a simple duty on local authorities to send copies of their proposals to the Secretary of State seems an eminently sensible way to proceed.
The Bill includes the power, therefore, in Clause 23 to require a referendum in circumstances to be prescribed in regulations. A draft of those is at page 141 of the package of draft guidance and regulations made available recently to the House. The circumstances expressed in general terms include where the timetable for implementation of proposals is very protracted, where reasonable steps have not been taken to consult openly in developing those proposals, and where the authority does not implement in line with the stated timetable in those proposals. Such a power is necessary to ensure that the actions taken locally reflect what local people want—here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer—and that those wishes are put in place. I can reassure the noble Baroness that there is nothing sinister in this. The power to intervene is a fall-back power to deal with situations of inertia or abuse. But the power cannot operate if authorities are not required to send to the Government a copy of their proposals.
The Government cannot accept this amendment as drafted, therefore, but would be happy to consider how provision on the basis of the noble Lord's amendment might be included in the Bill in addition to the current wording of Clause 18(1). On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her support. If I may say so, she expressed the issue somewhat better than me, and I am grateful.
I am grateful to the Minister for that constructive and helpful reply on the basis of which I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 9, line 17, leave out (" 11(1)(b)") and insert ("11(2)(b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 9, line 18, leave out ("subject of the executive arrangements") and insert ("responsibility of the executive").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 9, line 21, at end insert ("and representatives of officers of the local authority").
The noble Baroness said: Grouped with Amendment No. 173A is a number of amendments. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to the first amendment in the group but speak to my amendments to the Minister's amendment only after he has spoken to his amendment. The grouped

123
amendments are Amendments Nos. 173 to 176, 178, 179 to 182, 186, 187, 189, 195 to 198, 243, 252, 253 and 370.
Amendment No. 173A proposes that representatives of officers of the local authority shall be included in those who are consulted when a local authority draws up its proposals with respect to executive arrangements. Clause 18(3) provides, quite properly, that a local authority must take reasonable steps to consult local government electors and other interested persons. The Minister may tell me that officers of the authority come within that latter category. However, I believe that they have not only a specific interest but a contribution to make because of their experience.
I spoke earlier of the difficulties that I foresee for officers. There may be considerable tensions for officers who seek to serve effectively and impartially the administration, members of the opposition, an executive and members of an overview and scrutiny committee. The officer structure required for the proposals deserves careful consideration. Officers should be in a position formally to comment on them.
Other noble Lords in different parts of the country will be aware that, increasingly, chief executives and senior managers tend to leave a local authority following a change in political control. We were not accustomed to that 10 or 15 years ago. It illustrates the difficulties that follow from the close relationship that senior officers have with the senior members of an authority.
Officers will have responsibilities to deal with the probing of the overview and scrutiny committee. They must be clear about the separation of responsibilities and accountabilities between the staff serving the executive and those serving the overview and scrutiny committee. Consideration must be given to the support provided to the latter through background papers, framing questions and progress chasing; and consideration of the extent to which a member of an overview and scrutiny committee should be assisted, or briefed, in challenging the decisions made by an executive member. Where do loyalties lie?
Those difficulties could impact adversely on the member-officer relationship. If there is an overemphasis on informality, back benchers may feel excluded. If relatively junior officers—they may not have a great deal of experience of dealing with elected members—are not helped to develop their political awareness, they could fail to provide the support which members may require. One can anticipate the frustration of members and the difficulties of officers.
I take my comments from a paper by an academic on concerns that might arise and could describe them at greater length. I shall not do so tonight but return to the thrust of the amendment. It should be recognised that officers have a place in the consultation leading to the decision on executive arrangements and, the converse, on the overview and scrutiny arrangements they serve. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Clause 21(5) provides for the possibility of changing from an elected mayor type of
124
executive to another type. I recall passionate debates between the Minister and my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon about a recall of the London mayor, but this is not quite that situation. If there were a referendum on changing from an elected mayor, it would be a vote of no confidence in either the mayor or the executive serving with the mayor. We are on delicate ground, to say the least.
Say that such a referendum, which would presumably be the result of an appeal to the Minister, produced a negative result and the authority were required to change its executive arrangements. As that would in effect be a vote of no confidence by the people who put the elected mayor in place, the Bill could produce an awkward situation. If such a thing happened, the mayor would remain until the end of his term of office—which might be two years away or more. That would not be satisfactory, so our Amendment No. 195 would require an elected mayor, after such a referendum, to retire after the council's next annual meeting—which seems a reasonable way of proceeding in the circumstances. Amendment No. 243 flows automatically.
Any local authority that found itself in the situation that I have described would have considerable difficulty understanding why the system that it had voted against had to continue so long. I hope that the Minister will look at that matter with care. The Bill is not satisfactorily drafted and if the Minister thinks about it seriously, he would not regard it as completely satisfactory either.
Lord Whitty: Amendments Nos. 174 to 176 provide for the Secretary of State to give directions on certain aspects of the preparation and content of proposals drawn up by local authorities. They will allow us to be more specific about the key elements included and permit the Secretary of State to specify the level of detail that the executive arrangements should include. That is necessary to ensure that authorities adopt constitutions that genuinely reflect the views of local people on how future relationships should be structured.
Amendment No. 178 provides that when an authority sends proposals to the Secretary of State, they should be accompanied by an account of how the consultation had been conducted in drawing up the proposals and the outcome of the consultations. The Secretary of State, in noting proposals, would need to be assured that adequate consultation had taken place with the electorate.
Amendment No. 173A from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, deals with consultation with council officers. We expect local authorities to engage in proper consultation with their officers and the trade unions representing them. That is good practice, particularly when faced with significant changes in the way the council conducts its business. It is important that councils involve their employees, particularly senior employees, in reaching decisions as a matter of general involvement of their staff. We have detailed guidance suggesting that they do just that. Clause 18 will ensure that consultation is with

125
those who will be governed by the local authority in future. Council employees are in a different category, unless they also happen to be electors in the authority's area. We do not believe that we should statutorily lay down an equivalent industrial relations duty to the constitutional duty to consult local electors on how the new structure should be introduced. By the time the proposals are put to the electorate, it is unlikely that they will be a surprise to council officers—who should already have been involved.
Amendment No. 178 provides a new power for the Secretary of State to specify a deadline by which all authorities or authorities of a particular type must submit proposals. I hope that that reserve power will be used infrequently or not at all, but it is necessary to emphasise that we require all authorities to assess which executive structures they wish to recommend to their electorate and to consult them. We will use that power only if a significant number of authorities do not work actively to observe the timetable.
Amendment No. 179 inserts a new clause after Clause 18. There is nothing mysterious about that new clause, which simply plugs a small gap in the Bill so that authorities that propose a form of executive that does not require a referendum cannot delay its implementation beyond the originally proposed timetable. It provides a more useful definition of "executive" for which a referendum is required. Amendments Nos. 180, 181, 182 and 187 are minor.
We have brought forward substantive Amendments Nos. 182 and 187 in particular as a direct response to the recommendation of the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, which considered a draft of the legislation. That committee recommended more clarity for local authorities and the local electorate about the options available following a referendum defeat. The amendments provide that clarity and will require a local authority proposing a form of executive for which a referendum is required to produce an outline fallback position before sending the main proposals to the Secretary of State before the referendum. Outline fallback proposals should give a clear indication of the arrangements that the local authority proposes to introduce and the timetable, subject to consultation. Similar provisions have been included for referendums following, for example, a petition or direction under Clause 23 in the draft Local Government (Petitions and Referendums) Regulations which we have made available to the Committee.
Amendment No. 197 also deals with fall-back provisions. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State to specify arrangements for the discharge of functions which do not involve an executive, but which the Secretary of State thinks are likely to ensure that decisions are taken in an efficient and accountable manner. These arrangements must be—as has been remarked upon earlier in Committee—significantly different from current arrangements. They must be significantly different because they must not be precisely the same as those considered at earlier stages.
126
That will ensure that a council could not continue with the traditional committee structure, but provides a wider range of options to councils in the event that, having gone through the assessment of the structures provided by the Bill, the electorate rejects proposals for an elected mayor in a referendum.
Perhaps I may make one point absolutely clear in this context. Alternative arrangements under this clause will be available only as fall-back arrangements. Local authorities will not be able to adopt those alternatives as proposals they positively put to a referendum. Moreover, it is the view of the Government that it is unlikely that arrangements without a separate executive can significantly enhance the efficiency, transparency and accountability which form the objectives of the Bill. We therefore believe that there are unlikely to be many—if any— circumstances where it would be right to provide for alternative arrangements under this new clause. However, we wish to cover this eventuality in order not to exclude possible innovative structures in the event of the preferred option being rejected in a referendum.
If an authority adopts alternative arrangements following a referendum defeat, then the new clause in Amendment No. 198 provides for the adoption and operation of those fall-back arrangements. This new clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling local authorities to alter the alternative arrangements they have in place or to move from them to executive arrangements.
For those authorities operating executive arrangements, Amendment No. 196 introduces a new clause in place of the original Clause 21. That clause deals with changing or moving to different executive arrangements. This substitute clause does away with the rather complex provisions of the original clause and provides instead for a regulation-making power. That will enable the Secretary of State to make comprehensive regulations.
Amendment No. 252 makes a minor amendment to the power to make regulations regarding the conduct of referendums. Amendment No. 253 makes another minor amendment to this power so that it is clear that the regulations can provide for publicity material about what would happen if a referendum is lost.
That concludes my rundown of government amendments. Because the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has already moved his substantive amendments, it would be courteous for me to reply to him at this stage, although there may be points that other noble Lords wish to raise in the debate. I am afraid that I must oppose both amendments. The Government do not believe, as would be required by Amendment No. 195, that it is right for a council which is in the process of operating arrangements with an elected mayor to be able to alter to a form of executive arrangements without an elected mayor before the end of the term of office for the mayor.
The noble Lord advanced arguments as to why that should be allowable or possibly mandatory, but in all other circumstances, except in those cases where— without wishing to go over old ground—other

127
administrations have terminated the existence of authorities, it has normally been the case that the current term of office would remain in place until any change to the status of the authority came into effect. It would therefore be expected that when a mayor was elected, that mayor would be elected in the belief that he or she would serve a full term of office. Even though alternative proposals may have been advanced within that term of office, it is reasonable for both the authority and the electorate to presume that the term of office of the mayor would be concluded. For that reason, we would not wish to see new arrangements being brought into force before the end of that term. I shall not be able to accept the amendments of the noble Lord and I hope that he will not press them.
I may need to return to certain other points, but I hope that noble Lords will take into account what I have said.
6 p.m.
Lord Harrison: In rising to contribute to the debate introduced by Amendment No. 173, perhaps I may take this opportunity to declare an interest. For almost a decade I was a member of Cheshire County Council. I can well remember that when I first joined the council I was told about the good old clays when all the business on council day was concluded by lunchtime and everyone then went off for a jolly good meal. However, in my years as a member, the reverse took place. Great efficiency was shown by the introduction of an early lunch, but not much in the way of accountability or transparency. That was because there seemed to be a proliferation of county council committees of one kind or another in which we dealt in hesitation, deviation and repetition of the council's business. While we certainly had accountability and transparency, I am not sure that we were always guided by efficiency. Indeed I learnt well the longueurs of local government during those nine years, longueurs that I know will never be repeated in this House.
I support very much the Government's approach in saying that no change is not an option in the Bill. The proposed change of creating a divide by introducing an executive and having that mirrored by scrutiny committees has been attacked from all sides. However, perhaps I may put one reflection to the Committee. The notion that the role of a scrutineer is in some way demeaning is, I believe, wrong. After all, is not the larger purpose of much of the work of your Lordships' House in the way of scrutiny? None of us feels demeaned by performing that duty.
I am pleased that the Bill states decisively that no change is not an option and that when that happens there should be a speedy application of the new constitutions in local government. Later amendments moved by my noble friend give effect to that. May and June 2002 are the dates given for when the changes should happen. That will also be around the time that the euro —the single currency—will appear in notes and coins. That in itself will have—although I shall whisper this—implications for local government.
128
Amendments Nos. 174 and 176 specify more precisely the areas for consultation when the proposals are developed. That is right and proper. I listened carefully to the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on officers and in other areas on consultation. I believe that the heart of the noble Baroness is in the right place on this issue, but as regards officers—anyone who has had experience of local government will know this—it is absolutely essential that relationships between members and officers are of the best in terms of sharing information on the various ways forward. The idea of needing legislation to enable this to happen would serve only to cover a deficiency because such close co-operation and contact should already be in place.
I believe that some of the other amendments which are to be moved, including those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are covered by some of the amendments tabled by the Minister, are superfluous or suggest a second referendum in terms of consultation, which I am not sure is a purposeful way forward.
I move to the question of the referendum being binding. As it is a point which may not otherwise arise, I should like to make it. It is important to state that any referendum result is binding on the local authority. There is no greater way to induce cynicism among the electorate than to fail to move forward and oblige the result of a referendum to be put in place.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister about fall-back. I am pleased to see that the government amendments to Clause 19 clearly set out the options available to councils after a referendum defeat. The Government's response to the Joint Committee and the draft guidance each mention that the fall-back position needs approval by the Secretary of State. However, I cannot find any such provision in the government amendments, and I ask my noble friend to comment.
Finally, I believe that it is right to make clearer to the public what we suggest in terms of fall-back. In a sense, the first-line proposals, complemented by the fall-back position as sketched in outline, offer choice to the electorate in knowing that there is a fall-back position. Secondly, although we talk in terms of an outline fallback position, the amendments suggested by the Minister impose on the authority a clear indication of what is proposed and also the timetable. Those are all appropriate amendments to the Bill. In conclusion, fall-back is not an excuse for local authorities to "fall out" of the responsibility which they bear to a modern electorate.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister commented on my Amendments Nos. 173A and 178A, describing them as some kind of industrial relations duty. I did not propose the amendments in that sense but simply sought to make the point that I believe that officers will have a real contribution to make to the likely operational success of whatever proposals are put before an electorate. Of course, the best authorities may well have been closely involved in the proposals. However, we are seeking to provide not only for the best authorities.

129
I turn to the other amendments in my name. Amendment No. 182A asks: what if? Clause 18 requires proposals to be drawn up to a timetable. Clause 20 requires the resolution of a local authority to operate executive arrangements. Amendment No. 182A asks: what if there is no such resolution; for example, because control of the authority has changed or some members have changed their minds?
Amendment No. 183 asks (at least, between the lines) how in the real world a local authority can consult on alternative proposals for its preferred version at the same time as the referendum. If a local authority were to vote in a referendum against the proposals, it would appear that one was picking one arrangement. However, it may be that the electorate likes neither the proposal nor the fall-back arrangement which is on offer. I confess that I have some difficulty in envisaging how such a referendum, as currently proposed by the Government, would operate.
Amendment No. 198 pursues the point further by proposing that a local authority may not implement detailed fall-back arrangements until it has held a referendum on those arrangements. As I said, that those arrangements were known in outline at the time of a referendum on whether or not there should be a mayor does not seem to me to amount to approval of the fall-back arrangements.
I turn to the amendments which I have tabled to the Minister's Amendment No. 196. Amendment No. 196A is consequential to Amendment No. 196C. Amendment No. 196B seeks to leave out subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause which requires the consent of an elected mayor to the operation of different arrangements. I question whether it is appropriate to require a referendum to create the post of mayor and then put the individual who is elected in a kind of self-perpetuating position; that is, whoever is in post as mayor must give consent to the introduction of different arrangements. Amendment No. 196C, which aims to add another provision at the end of the clause, would permit a move to non-executive arrangements. I know the Minister's answer to that point.
I turn to Amendment No. 198A. The Minister's Amendment No. 198 provides at subsection (3) that a local authority which passes a resolution to operate alternative arrangements subsequently may not cease to operate those arrangements. I propose the amendment because I want to ask: why not?
Lord Whitty: I shall endeavour to answer those points. First, in response to my noble friend Lord Harrison, I agree completely with what he said. However, I must point out, as does my noble friend Lord McIntosh from the Dispatch Box, that my agreement with my noble friend Lord Harrison does not imply any change in the Government's position to the euro.
With regard to the more relevant aspects of his contribution, I agree absolutely about the reference to referendums being binding. The legislation should be
130
clear that they are binding and that point is currently covered in a combination of the Bill and the guidance. Clause 19 deals with the point. I believe that it provides the right balance. However, if there is any doubt, we shall look at the matter again.
In relation to the question which my noble friend raised on the fall-back position and clearance of that with the Secretary of State, clearly it is important that we identify at what point the Secretary of State approves. My noble friend is quite right. I am glad that he has drawn our attention to that point and to the slight inconsistency which exists between the guidance and the White Paper and the submission to the Joint Committee. We are still considering what is the best process for the prior approval of the outline fall-back proposals which are not otherwise provided for. However, we are clear that the fall-back proposals must not include the status quo. That applies also to a number of the amendments to my amendments, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is addressing. I assure my noble friend Lord Harrison that we shall return to the matter if we feel we need to at a later stage, making sure that we clarify what is the Secretary of State's role in those circumstances.
I shall now deal with the noble Baroness's amendments to my amendments. She has proposed Amendment No. 188 which appears to seek a requirement for a second referendum before an authority can implement detailed fall-back proposals. That is likely to increase rather than decrease the uncertainty. The Joint Committee asked us to try to increase the certainty in that regard. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that the government amendments are agreed to because they make clearer what is being put to the electorate.
Amendments Nos. 182A, 196A and 196B seek seriously to modify the principle that the status quo cannot be maintained. Amendment No. 182A seeks to provide a way for the local authority to get round the fact that the status quo is not an option. It would allow local authorities to implement their proposals by not passing a resolution under Clause 20 and they would not therefore be required to alter to an executive-based structure. Clause 19 makes it clear that in all circumstances a referendum would be binding and if the referendum supported the proposals for an executive arrangement, the authority must implement that. If not, it must implement the fall-back. All of that would require change.
Amendments Nos. 196A and 196C seek to allow the Secretary of State to allow local authorities to abandon executive arrangements in favour of some other arrangements. Again, I presume that that includes the status quo or something like it. The Government believe that the executive arrangements are the best way to ensure the objectives of the Bill. Therefore, we do not believe it is right that a council which has adopted executive arrangements—which if they involve an elected mayor would have been approved by a referendum—should be able to abandon those arrangements and implement arrangements which do not provide for a separate

131
executive. Therefore, we do not believe that that fallback provision should be provided in the terms of the amendment.
Amendment No. 198A in the name of the noble Baroness seeks to allow the Secretary of State to enable local authorities to abandon alternative arrangements in favour of some other arrangements, again reintroducing the possibility of the status quo. For our part, that is not an option. That is why we have proposed that an authority operating alternative arrangements should be able to cease operating those arrangements only if it implements other executive arrangements in their place.
Amendment No. 196B seeks to prevent regulations which require the consent of the elected mayor if all executive arrangements which involve an elected mayor can be changed. I offer two reassurances in that regard. First, the Government do not propose that the mayor's consent would be required to change executive arrangements which relate only to overview and scrutiny arrangements. Secondly, we do not propose that the mayor's consent should be required to change from an executive arrangement involving an elected mayor to some other arrangement. That would have to be the subject of a referendum and the mayor should not and would not be allowed to veto the will of the people expressed through a referendum.
But we believe that it is not right for the council to be able to change the executive arrangements without the mayor's consent; for example, by deciding that some functions over which it has a choice and which are not mandatorily required to be the function of the executive by the Bill would no longer be executive functions. In that case, the mayor would have been elected to deliver a programme which might include those functions and if the council took them away from him, it would be able to undermine that programme. That would be undemocratic in a sense and, therefore, we should not wish to provide explicitly for that situation.
I hope that the Committee have followed my concerns about the amendments to the amendments even if they have forgotten what the original government amendment was intended to achieve.
As regards the first substantive amendment, I want to make it clear that when I referred to industrial relations duties in terms of consultation with staff I was in no way disparaging that. Industrial relations duties are of the very highest order. But they are not duties which should be provided in the constitutional section of this Bill which deals with the responsibilities of the council to its electorate.
With that explanation of the Government's view, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: Of course, I accept what the Minister said about relationships with staff.
This debate has left me with a very big question mark about what alternatives are on offer when a referendum is called. I shall certainly want to reflect on that because it seems to me that the Bill which the Government are promoting is so narrow in its prescriptions that the
132
referendum may be pretty much a sham because there will be so little flexibility and option on which the electorate can express a view.
Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 173A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 174 to 176:
Page 9, line 21, at end insert (", and
(b) must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State").
Page 9, line 23, at beginning insert ("such").
Page 9, line 23, leave out from ("arrangements") to end of line 26 and insert ("as the Secretary of State may direct").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 177 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) A copy of proposals under this section which is sent to the Secretary of State must be accompanied by a statement which describes—

(a) the steps which the authority took to consult local government electors, and other interested persons, in the authority's area, and

(b) the outcome of that consultation and the extent to which that outcome is reflected in the proposals.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order specify a date by which every local authority, or every local authority falling within any description of authority specified in the order, must comply with this section.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 178A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 178, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 178 agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 179:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—

PROPOSALS NOT REQUIRING REFERENDUM
(".—(1) Where a local authority's proposals under section 18 do not involve a form of executive for which a referendum is required, the authority must implement the proposals in accordance with the timetable included in the proposals.
(2) Any reference in this Part to a form of executive for which a referendum is required is a reference to—

(a) a mayor and cabinet executive,

(b) a mayor and council manager executive, or

(c) a form of executive prescribed in regulations under section 10(5) which is expressed in those regulations to be a form of executive for which a referendum is required.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Referendum in case of proposals involving elected mayor]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 180 and 181:
Page 9, line 32, leave out ("an") and insert ("a form of").
Page 9, line 33, leave out ("which includes an elected mayor") and insert ("for which a referendum is required").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert (", and
(b) must draw up and send to the Secretary of State an outline of the fall-back proposals (referred to in this section as outline fall-back proposals) that they intend to implement if the proposals under section 18 are rejected in a referendum.
(1A) Fall-back proposals are proposals—

(a) for the operation of executive arrangements which do not involve a form of executive for which a referendum is required, or

(b) for the operation of alternative arrangements (within the meaning of section (Alternative arrangements)).

(1B) In drawing up outline fall-back proposals, a local authority must take reasonable steps to consult local government electors, and other interested persons, in the authority's area.
(1C) Outline fall-back proposals must include a timetable with respect to the implementation of detailed fall-back proposals which are based on the outline fall-back proposals in the event that the proposals under section 18 are rejected in a referendum.
(1D) A local authority must send a copy of their outline fallback proposals to the Secretary of State at the same time that a copy of the proposals under section 18 is sent to him.
(1E) A local authority may not hold a referendum under this section before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which a copy of the proposals under section 18 is sent to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 182A and 183, as amendments to Amendment No. 182, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 182 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) The result of a referendum held under this section shall not be binding on the authority unless more than 40 per cent. of the electorate vote in favour of the change.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 184, 192, 193 and 250 seek to address what should be an extremely important constitutional point; namely, the point at which a vote by an electorate should have the power to force change.
We can all recall that in the Scottish referendum there was a clear answer which nobody had any problems with. It was not the highest of polls, but it was at least reasonable. However, I would suggest that the Welsh referendum, which produced a much narrower result, was less than satisfactory. It resulted in about 25 per cent of the electorate, or thereabouts, having the power to impose their will on the other 75 per cent. One might think that that is not appropriate.
The Bill contains the power for referendums to be held in local authority areas to change the constitutional arrangements within such areas. At Second Reading I asked what would happen on a 12 per cent poll if 7 per cent voted one way and only 5 per cent voted the other; should that really be sufficient to force a change as dramatic as would happen under the Bill as it stands?
It is worse than that. Let us suppose that only 12 electors voted—seven one way and five the other. One may say that that is ridiculous; it is not. That is what we are permitting. That result would be mandatory on the authority. I wonder about that.
The matter is also dealt with in draft regulations which we did not have when the amendments were tabled. However, they state nothing about voting or the number of votes required to validate a decision by a community. This is perhaps a new departure. However, the regular use of referendums is a new departure in our system. In new Labour we have a new government with many new ideas, and referendums seem to be attractive. They have been used and abused by others in the past. I am not so certain of the matter.
The other place speaks of itself with pride as being the democratic chamber. It is usually elected on a not unreasonable national turn-out. Sometimes it has been as high as 80 per cent. In some constituencies the figure is much lower. On the basis of such turn-out the other place regards itself as having democratic legitimacy.
As the noble Baronesses, Lady Farrington and Lady Hamwee will recognise, in the past it has been the wont of the other place to criticise local government. It has been said that with only a 30 per cent poll, sometimes more sometimes less depending on who and where you are, local government has lacked democratic legitimacy. I wonder about that in the context of what we are doing. That has been a constant theme from national governments for the whole of my career since I entered local government. It seems to me that it does not mean that a local authority is invalid in any way simply because it has a low turn-out at the poll. It could be, and, indeed, in law I believe it would be, taken as being the case. It might be argued that because 70 per cent of the electorate did not vote they were satisfied with what was happening and could not be bothered to turn out; I do not know. When I go down that particular road, I am in danger of destroying my own argument.
The difficulty we face is that there is no guidance or precision in the matter. I wondered whether the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Bill might come to our aid. I regret that it does not. Clause 95 states:
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, this Part applies to any referendum held throughout … (a) the United Kingdom; (b) one or more of England. Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland; or (c) any region in England specified in Schedule Ito the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998."
There is no help for us there. We therefore fall back on regulations. I thought as a reasonable shot that, if we are seeking to get a community to commit itself to changing the way things are done, it might be not unreasonable to go for a good general election turnout figure and put in a floor at 40 per cent. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 184, 192, 193 and 250. They state that, for a referendum to be mandatory upon the authority, half of a good general election turnout should vote in favour. Some may think that that is unreasonably ambitious; I do not.
I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply. If he is prepared to make concessions which go a considerable way in the direction I have indicated, I

135
may finish up a happy man. However, from the pleasant smile I see on his face I suspect that he is not intending to move as far as I would want him to. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: Amendments Nos. 220 and 235 stand in my name and are there to support my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith in his argument about referendums. I have taken a rather more jaundiced view of turn-out than he has, particularly in relation to local government. However, that does not undermine the argument he has put forward. I am happy to acknowledge his argument that it should be 40 per cent of a general elect ion turn-out rather than 40 per cent of a local government turn-out.
Through various pieces of legislation which the Government propose, we are desperately trying to engender in the electorate enormous enthusiasm for taking part in elections. Perhaps it is cynicism on my part but, for a number of reasons, I do not believe that the electorate will want to come rushing out to take part in referendums. The most salient is that it is extraordinarily difficult to get across to people's consciousness a one-issue matter, such as this. People like local government when it works and do not like it when it does not. For anything in between they are usually happy to stay at home. I do not believe there is anything in the Bill or in what has happened in the past that will shake that up.
However, if we are putting to them a one-issue matter, it is broader than an election manifesto which covers an enormous number of matters and is just a party vote. To ask for a specific answer is quite different to what has happened before. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith stated, it is only reasonable for there to be a threshold which underwrites the fact that the local people want what is proposed and are prepared to turn out and vote for it. They are not content to sit at home and let somebody else do it; they are so enthused and excited about the prospect put before them that they will leave their firesides and the television and come out and vote.
Lord Filkin: I understand, to an extent, why noble Lords suggest that there should be a threshold but we must be extremely cautious about going down that route. An obvious first point is that if there were such threshold turnouts before there was legitimacy, there would not be many local authorities with a mandate to govern in their areas.
Secondly, without labouring the point, many local authorities are resistant to the idea of new forms of political structure. Noble Lords are aware of that from previous discussions. However, the consequence of such a threshold, particularly when we know there is a problem with local democracy and local participation, would be severely to reduce the likelihood of change. That is what is worrying about this proposal. It is in danger of being seen as a covert resistance and defence of the status quo.
We know that there is a problem with local democracy; that the public are not enormously excited about it. Therefore the idea that the public may be the
136
resurrection mechanism in that regard is potentially flawed. For 25 per cent of the electorate to turn out in such a referendum would be impressive and be a strong vote of interest by them. In fact, it would be a substantially greater vote of interest than that demonstrated in some local authority elections.
In the summer the Joint Committee considered this matter and did not recommend a threshold for the turn-out. The Government's guidance proposed in the constitution also makes clear that local authorities should attempt to maximise turn-out in terms of their arrangements and the days on which they hold such referendums. There is no good case made to have a threshold. Nevertheless, let us hope that high turnouts ensue.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am still comparatively new to the ways of this Chamber but had not realised, until I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that it was customary to speak both for and against an amendment one was moving.
If the noble Lord's argument was, as I understand it to be, that a low turn-out in a local government election demonstrates that the population of that area is broadly satisfied with the performance of that local authority—I believe that is what he was implying and that that is the situation with which he is familiar in Essex—then surely the same principle applies to a referendum on this sort of matter. I suspect that if the fears and terrors outlined about this possible proposal were as great as some have suggested, people 'would come out and vote in this referendum. But if they do not feel it matters a great deal or they are broadly happy with what is going on, I suspect that they may not. In that case, imposing an arbitrary limit suggests, as my noble friend Lord Filkin said, that it is a covert means of imposing something about which Members of the Committee opposite are not happy.
I turn briefly to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. She conjured up an image of people being enthused on matters which come before them in a referendum. I wish people were enthusiastic about matters of local government; that they could become excited about how their local councils organise themselves—we all hold that optimistic hope. But to state that people must be positively enthused as a minimum requirement before there can be change is unrealistic.
This Bill puts forward a number of hurdles before an elected mayor can be introduced. It is said that there must be a referendum. That is not something which will be lightly entered into by a local authority. Nor is it something that one can automatically assume will go one way or another. I suspect that in any area there will be a comparatively vigorous debate on the subject. It may not enthuse the majority of electors, but those interested will be engaged in that debate.
The amendment also suggests a significant threshold as a requirement for a referendum. But to introduce an arbitrary hurdle which must be passed before a new system can be introduced is unnecessary. I suspect, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Filkin,

137
that this amendment is really concerned with a distrust of the system first put forward by some Members of the Committee opposite.
Baroness Hamwee: The notion that a low turn-out equates with broad satisfaction left me wondering about my 20 years in local government when, in every election in which I stood, more than 60 per cent of my ward turned out. I had thought that that was some sort of indication of satisfaction; perhaps I should review that view. I hear from behind me that they must have hated me!
Sadly, I agree about the lack of realism in this amendment. It does not talk about a turn-out; it talks about,
"40 per cent. of the electorate".
By definition therefore the turn-out would have to be at least a little higher than that. I take the point that it is not necessarily the end of the argument to say that we are not accustomed to imposing thresholds for any form of election to be valid. But the point cannot be answered in that way.
The referendum must stand or fall on its own merits. On these Benches we are concerned about the proposals for elected mayors as put forward in the model that the Government are promoting, but we accept that it should be the decision of the local community. To require a given level of the electorate to vote undermines that approach. After all, electors have the right not to vote, sometimes to make a point. Some Members of the Committee may have heard me tell this story before, but it is relevant here; I refer to an occasion in my borough where a spoilt ballot paper was seen to have written up the side of it, inevitably in green ink, "They think I am voting, but I am not".
6.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: Irrespective of the last unnamed constituent of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, clearly her ward is the epitome of democratic participation in that 60 per cent is, regrettably, higher than almost any area of local authority experience in recent years. We are debating this amendment against the background of low turn-outs in local authority elections for a number of years, and falling.
I hope that the kind of glee and enthusiasm conjured up by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will eventually result from these changes in the way in which we are operating local authorities. We can hardly expect it to be there in advance. The kind of thresholds discussed here—whether or not my more conspiracy-theorist colleagues are correct that they are intended as a way of preserving the status quo—would regrettably tend to have that effect were it not for the fact that other provisions prevent local authorities from maintaining the status quo.
138
This is an important issue and one that the Government considered carefully. As my noble friend Lord Filkin said, the Joint Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, also considered it carefully. However, broadly for the reasons I outlined and on grounds of practicality, it did not consider it sensible to require a threshold. To be credible, in one sense it would have to be fairly low in relation to actual achieved local authority election turn-outs, but to have a broader political authority it would have to be too high to be achieved. Therefore on grounds of practicality that approach was rejected.
Grounds of presentation and politics are also involved in this issue. When a situation provides that one can obtain victory in a referendum but that that victory can be snatched away by the fact that the turnout provision has not been met, the political consequences may be dire. Members of the Committee will recall an earlier referendum in Scotland in the 1970s. The effect of that was detrimental both to the politics of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It has taken 20 years to put that right.
That is a considerably worse consequence than a consequence which has too low a turn-out and too low a majority. After all, a majority of one is recognised as legitimate. Hopefully, we will achieve a majority substantially greater than that in the new forms of government, but a majority of anything which is then snatched away is bad politics and a bad way of introducing an alternative form of executive structure.
Therefore, while I accept some of the sentiments presented by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I can give him no comfort on his proposal. The Government would not wish to see this provision written on the face of the Bill and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had an interesting and useful debate. The point we raised is an important one. Moreover—dare I say it?—it has had the effect of lightening the atmosphere in the Chamber which was becoming somewhat heavy.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hanham for her support. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that nothing in these proposals would have prevented elections. The amendments in this group only talk about referendums, which are a novel introduction into the political proceedings of this country; an introduction about which there is still a great deal of interest and, indeed, disagreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, talked about people voting if they are affected. If people knew that a floor had been set, they might—if, in fact, they were enthused—be persuaded to turn out and vote in order to beat that floor. I gather from the noble Lord's remarks that he suspects that people would be singularly bored by the whole business and that, therefore, we would actually be putting through proposals which lacked the support of the community.
I hear what the Minister says about the dangers of winning a referendum but then being cut off by a threshold. However, I do not think that that is a matter we should necessarily accept. I certainly do not accept

139
it overall. But I would accept that risk rather than the risk that is also present in the Bill of seven votes to five carrying a community comprising several hundred thousand people. That is equally possible and I do not accept that it is valid.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the turnout in her ward when she was in elective office. That was a magnificent result. Indeed, I wish all other communities were performing as well. As the Minister said, it is immensely regrettable that that is not the case. I do not apologise for bringing forward this issue and I do not feel inclined to withdraw my amendment. A little exercise will do us all good; indeed, a democratic vote in what is called an "undemocratic" Chamber would be of interest to us all. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 184) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 141.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns. B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Astor, V.

Liverpool, E.

Astor of Hever, L,

Luke, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Blackwell, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blaker, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Masham of llton, B.

Boardman, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Montrose, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moynihan, L.

Buscombe, B.

Naseby, L.

Byford, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Northbrook, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Courtown, E. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Cox, B.

Palmer, L

Craigavon, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pike, B.

Denham, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Freeman, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selborne, E.

Glentoran, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanham, B

Stewartby, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Trefgarne, L.

Hogg, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Vivian, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Waddington, L.

Kimball, L.

Wilcox, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Young, B.

140

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Alli, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Amos, B.

Lipsey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Longford, E.

Bach, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Barnett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Blackstone, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Blease, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Borrie, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bragg, L.

Maddock, B.

Brett, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Brookman, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Burlison, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Newby, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Nicol, B.

Crawley, B.

Orme, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

David, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dholakia, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B

Elder, L.

Rennard, L

Evans of Parkside, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rogan, L.

Falkland, V.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sandwich, E.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gavron, L.

Serota, B.

Gilbert, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Goodhart, L.

Shepherd, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Harrison, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hayman, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thornton, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Tope, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hoyle, L.

Warner, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Weatherill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Clmncellor)

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Wilkins, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Williams of Crosby, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Judd, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 9, line 34. at end insert—
("( )Before any referendum is held under this section, the question to be asked in the referendum shall be referred to the Electoral Commission for their determination.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 185, 194 and 251 in this group can be dealt with quickly. They were all tabled before we had the regulations and guidance which have subsequently appeared. If the Minister can give me an assurance that the draft question which appears in the draft regulations will not be altered and will be the question that is used in local referendums, we need pursue this matter no further. I look forward to hearing his comments. I hope that he will give me that assurance. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I can give the noble Lord a quick response. I was hoping that Members of the Committee had reached the provision at page 159 of the draft regulations. I am glad that the noble Lord has done so. It is subject to the same consultation as the other provisions in the document. If any Members of the Committee, or others, have views on that matter, we shall take them into account. Once the final version of the regulations is decided, there will be no variation on the question that is to be asked. At a later stage we may involve the electoral Commission, when that body comes into being. It will not come into being until we progress further with local authorities in considering some of the options under this Bill. I refer in this connection to an amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which we have not yet discussed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will recognise that we have this matter in hand.
Baroness Hamwee: I have an amendment in this group. I am happy to acknowledge that the Government have the matter in hand.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. We shall have to consider the outcome of the regulations' stately progress. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 9, line 36, after first ("proposals") insert ("under section 18").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 9, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 10 and insert ("under section 18, the authority—

(a) may not implement those proposals.

(b) must draw up detailed fall-back proposals which are based on the outline fall-back proposals, and

(c) must send a copy of the detailed fall-back proposals to the Secretary of State.

142
( ) In drawing up outline fall-back proposals or detailed fallback proposals under this section. a local authority must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State.
( ) Outline fall-back proposals and detailed fall-back proposals must include such details of the executive arrangements or alternative arrangements to which they relate as the Secretary of State may direct.
( ) Subsections (2)(b), (3)(a) and (4)(c) of section 18 are to apply to detailed fall-back proposals involving executive arrangements as they apply to proposals under that section.
( ) Subsections (3)(a) and (4)(c) of that section are to apply to detailed fall-back proposals involving alternative arrangements as they apply to proposals under that section.
( ) A local authority must implement detailed fall-back proposals in accordance with the timetable mentioned in subsection (1C).").
[Amendment No. 188, as an amendment to Amendment No. 187, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 187 agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Operation of, and publicity for, executive arrangements]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 10, line 35, at end insert (", and
(v) specifies the address of their principal office").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 not moved]
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Revised executive arrangements]:
[Amendments Nos. 192 to 195 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 196:
Leave out Clause 21 and insert the following new clause

OPERATION OF DIFFERENT EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling a local authority which is operating executive arrangements (''the existing arrangements") to operate executive arrangements ("the different arrangements") which differ from the existing arrangements in any respect.
(2) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes provision—

(a) which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 18, (Proposals not requiring referendum), 19 or 20,

(b) for or in connection with requiring the consent of an elected mayor under the existing arrangements to the operation of the different arrangements,

(c) with respect to changes to the existing arrangements as a result of changes to the functions which are the responsibility of an executive.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").
[Amendments Nos. 196A to 196C, as amendments to Amendment No. 196, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 196 agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 197:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—

ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify arrangements by a local authority with respect to the discharge of their functions (referred to in this Part as alternative arrangements) which are arrangements of a type—

(a) which the Secretary of State considers are likely to ensure that decisions of the authority are taken in an efficient and accountable way, and

(b) which are not permitted by or under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 15 to 17 of, and Schedule I to, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

(2) The arrangements which may be specified by regulations under this section include—

(a) arrangements for the discharge of functions of a local authority by individual members of the authority or by individual members of any committee or sub-committee of the authority,

(b) arrangements for the appointment of committees or subcommittees of a local authority the membership of which is determined otherwise than in accordance with the political balance requirements,

(c) arrangements for the appointment of committees or subcommittees of a local authority to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of functions of The authority.

(3) Regulations under this section may make provision for the purpose of determining the functions of a local authority which may, may not or must be the subject of alternative arrangements of any particular type.
(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 198:
After Clause 21 insert the following new Clause—

OPERATION OF ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
(".—(1) A resolution of a local authority is required in order for the authority to operate alternative arrangements.
(2) Subsection (2) of section 20 is to apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.
(3) A local authority which pass a resolution under this section to operate alternative arrangements may not at any subsequent time cease to operate those arrangements unless, by virtue of any provision made under subsection (5) or section 22, 23 or (Power to require referendum), the authority operate executive arrangements in place of those arrangements.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling a local authority which is operating alternative arrangements to alter those arrangements in such ways as may be permitted by the regulations.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling a local authority which is operating alternative arrangements to operate executive arrangements in place of the alternative arrangements.
(6) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (5) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 18, (Proposals not requiring referendum), 19 or 20.
(7) Nothing in subsection (6) affects the generality of the power under subsection (5) ").
[Amendment No. 198A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 198, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 198 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Referendum following petition]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 12, line 11, at end insert ("for or in connection with").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 199, I shall speak also to the amendments grouped with it.
Amendments Nos. 199 to 217 make a number of changes to Clause 22, which deals with petitions for referendums. Most of these are minor drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 200, 206, 216 and 217 alter the way the provisions work, but not their overall effect.
The main reason for changing these provisions is because the original drafting did not resolve the issue of the basis on which the figure for the percentage of local electors would be calculated in respect of any particular petition. This could lead to problems, particularly where the number of electors changes over the period during which a petition is collected. These amendments therefore extend slightly the scope of the regulation-making power to enable this to be much more precise.
The proposed Local Government (Constitutions) (Petitions and Referendums) Regulations and Chapter 3 of the draft guidance illustrate how we are proposing to use this power. In particular—contrary to recent reports in the press—the Government do not intend to set the threshold for a petition at any level lower than 5 per cent of the local electorate.
Amendment No. 216 introduces a new provision which would allow the Secretary of State to take action in default where a local authority fails to act on a petition. This is necessary to ensure that in the event of a local authority ignoring a bona fide petition, the petitioners do not have to resort to the courts to force the local authority into action. A similar provision is made in Clause 23 by Amendment No. 233. Amendments Nos. 230 to 232 and 234 are minor drafting amendments.
Amendment No. 236 introduces a new power which will enable the Secretary of State to require all local authorities, or all authorities of a particular description, to hold a referendum on a particular form of executive. The Government believe that it might be appropriate for local people in a number of council areas to be able, in a co-ordinated way, to express through referendums their support for new executive arrangements for their council. This new power is necessary should the Government wish to give effect to such a policy. But it will remain a choice for local people whether or not they wish to support a particular form of executive proposed in this way. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I have tabled a number of amendments as amendments to government amendments. Going at them backwards— because why not—Amendment No. 236A seeks to include a reference to the Electoral Commission. I hope that the Minister can again assure the Committee that the Government, to use his words, "have the matter in hand".

145
Amendments Nos. 206A and 206B are amendments to the Minister's amendments in regard to the calculation of what is required for a petition. I understand the difficulties that the Government have now realised there will be in calculating percentages; in working out the date on which the electoral register will apply; and how to set about a fair approach to the matter. None the less, I am concerned about the provision for a minimum number rather than for a percentage. A percentage of a local authority's electorate will be different from the numerical answer, obviously depending on the size of the electorate. I am unclear as to how the fairness and equality of the Government's approach in setting a minimum number for each local authority's area can be assessed. Will the Government publish a number for each area? If so, how will it be possible to compare number by number? Does it mean that there will be different percentages for each area?
My first amendment, Amendment No. 206A, seeks to deal with the issue of percentages rather than numbers; and my second amendment, Amendment No. 206B, suggests that there should be a standard minimum; otherwise, if different numbers apply in different local authority areas, there could very easily be justified allegations of partial or preferential treatment of particular authorities.
In regard to Amendments Nos. 199 and 200, I regret that I did not quite hear what the Minister said about the 5 per cent threshold and the comments that had been made in the press. It seems to me that these amendments will mean that there will be no statutory minimum. While 5 per cent may not be the right figure, I confess to a concern that there is no percentage mentioned on the face of the Bill as a threshold for such a petition. It is an important matter which should be dealt with on the face of the Bill.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon Smith: I have tabled Amendments Nos. 201, 218 and 223 in this group. Amendments Nos. 201 and 223 seek to permit referendums on whether to cease to operate executive arrangements where a community decided that what was going on was not working in its best interests. One might consider that this goes against the spirit of the Bill, but the spirit of the Bill is to dictate that a particular conclusion should be the outcome. I do not think that that is reasonable; I think that communities ought to be able to decide what their administrative arrangements should be. That is my interpretation of the European Charter of Local Self Government. We have therefore tabled these two amendments to support that case.
Amendment No. 218 is somewhat different. It is tabled as an amendment to government Amendment No. 217. The Bill as originally drafted required 5 per cent of the electorate to make a petition in order to force a change in the system if a local community was not satisfied with either its executive arrangements or any other arrangements and wanted to bring about a
146
change to something different—particularly if it was moving from what one might call a cabinet style of local government management to an elected mayor style of local government management. If we were in a situation down the road where a cabinet style had been operating and the community decided that it wanted to have an elected mayor, the Bill stated in its original form that 5 per cent of the electorate would be required.
Amendment No. 217 changes that very fundamentally. It states that the number required may be determined by regulation and shall not exceed 5 per cent. I echo the voice of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that that causes some concern. Not exceeding 5 per cent gives the Minister discretion. I trust his discretion, but I do not trust it all the way down to zero or, shall we say, 1 per cent. My amendment seeks to provide that, while 5 per cent will be the maximum, the minimum may not go below 3 per cent. I do not think that that is unreasonable. A little while ago we had a discussion on floors. It may be that the Minister will repeat his view that the idea of floors is not valid in this case. I think it is valid and that many of the arguments already used today are appropriate.
Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 219 seeks to do very much what the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seek to do—that is, to stop the Minister's powers under Clause 22(5), which states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1)(a)".
As has clearly been said, under the government amendments the figure could go down to as low as 1 per cent if the Minister so wished. In some local authorities that would mean that very few people would be required to sign a petition to force a referendum.
A maximum and a minimum of five would be about right. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith suggests three. However, we must include a realistic minimum figure, bearing in mind that electorates vary substantially, from a borough of 120,000 to a county council of far more than that. My amendment seeks to support those already tabled and to limit the powers of the Secretary of State to reduce the figure to one that becomes meaningful in that too few people can put forward for a petition.
Lord Filkin: One recognises that the provision for a referendum in order to show public support before a substantial change is made to the system of elected mayors is right. That is a serious test and there must be clear public consent before we change our current system of political governance.
However, one does not want the test to be so severe that it is never possible to make change and innovation. One is aware of a dilemma because most local authorities are substantially opposed to the idea of elected mayors whereas the public, surprisingly by a majority of two to one, are strongly interested in the

147
idea. That does not automatically prove one side right and the other wrong, but it demonstrates a willingness on the part of the public to experiment.
When we are in a mode of experimentation, we should not put a specific number on to the face of the Bill. No one knows for certain how the debate will play out in practice. There may be cases for going above or below 5 per cent, although I note that the Government do not intend to go below that threshold. Nevertheless, we may find in five years' time that the debate has substantially changed and that a good case made one way or the other for making a variation commands support across the House.
Finally, I believe that one should approach the Government's new idea for co-ordinated referendums with an open and positive mind. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, spoke about low turn-outs in such referendums. One way of ensuring a substantial or increased turn-out would be to have a national debate about whether certain areas of England wish to move towards elected mayors. Were such a co-ordinated referendum to take place, each area would still decide for itself whether it wanted change. But the fact that, say, most major cities had the debate simultaneously would guarantee substantial national attention and one hopes informed debate. That would strengthen the likelihood of a high turn-out.
Lord Whitty: I note my noble friend's recommendations in relation to the timing of the referendums, but that is not a matter for this Bill. In regard to the 5 per cent threshold, I indicated that we would not put a non-5 per cent figure on the face of the Bill. However, in response to the report of the Joint Committee the Government undertook to keep the position of thresholds under review. Since tabling our amendment, it has become clear that it does not deliver what we said in response to the Joint Committee in that it no longer indicates the flexibility that we indicated we wanted so that the threshold could be changed above or below the 5 per cent.
The amendment deals with a number of issues, but it does not deal with that issue. Therefore, with the indulgence of the Committee, we may need to return to that aspect and bring forward another minor amendment at the Report stage which includes the additional flexibility both for the Secretary of State in England and for the National Assembly in Wales. I hope that the Committee will recognise that this is not quite the end of the story in terms of the amendments.
As regards other amendments, I am afraid that we cannot accept Amendments Nos. 201 and 223 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We would not accept that it should be possible for local people to force a referendum to abandon arrangements with an elected mayor through a petition. Nor do we believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to do so. In either situation, local people will relatively recently twice have approved the arrangements for an elected mayor: first, through arrangements themselves for a referendum and, secondly, through the mayor's own mandate for his or her election. That does not mean that local people cannot petition the council for
148
such a referendum, but it would be up to the local authority to decide whether it acted on the referendum in those circumstances. I would urge the noble Lord to withdraw those two amendments.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 206A and 206B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can reassure the Committee that the Government have no intention of setting a petitions threshold at any given time that differs between authority to authority. I understand that to be the main intention behind the amendment, but we do not believe that it achieves that. However, we shall examine it because that is our intention, too.
Despite arguments that have been made, we do not believe it sensible to define a petition threshold by way of an absolute number. The draft regulations and guidance we published make clear that we propose a percentage threshold. Currently we are thinking of starting at the 5 per cent figure, but with the flexibility to which I have referred.
The flexibility which Amendment No. 206A seeks to remove is necessary. For example, after experience of the petitioning process it may become apparent that in addition to a universal threshold of, say, 5 per cent there should also be a requirement for a minimum number of signatures on a petition from each ward or each part of, say, a shire county. We believe that the noble Baroness's amendment might restrict the enabling power in a way that would preclude us from doing that and I cannot accept that.
I regret that I must also oppose Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We believe that there needs to be some flexibility. Opinion polls have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of local people favour arrangements for an elected mayor but that most councils do not. If following consultation councils implement arrangements which do not reflect public opinion, there needs to be some way for local people to force their hand. That is where the petitioning process comes in.
As regards Amendment No. 236A, I can reassure the noble Baroness that we intend to consult the electoral commission, once it is in place, on the regulations. However, as I indicated earlier, we expect to proceed with moves by local authorities in the direction of the new structures before the likely date of the commencement of the commission. We therefore need these powers in this form without requirement to revert to the commission.
I hope that that explains why, with regret, I cannot take on board any of the Opposition amendments. I commend my amendment to the Committee.
Baroness Hamwee: In connection with the figure of 5 per cent and the Government's desire to achieve flexibility, the Minister recognised that his amendment does not quite achieve that. I shall make my point in the least adversarial way that I can perhaps other than not making it at all. There is a substantial number of government amendments to the Bill and I invite the

149
Minister to withdraw his amendment so that we can see it in its final form at the next stage rather than doing half a job.
Lord Dixon-Smith: What the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says merits serious consideration. This is a quite complicated Bill. We have had words across the table, so to speak, about both the volume of amendments and the detail of those amendments. I have no doubt that there will be many occasions on many amendments when we shall have to return to that matter. If the Minister could withdraw the existing amendment and return with a better one in the future, it would be most helpful to all of us.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: Members of the Committee will know that I am usually accommodating in that respect. However, we are talking about a whole raft of provisions relating to the petitioning procedure and the way that it triggers a referendum in only one small respect which relates to future flexibility. I have explained clearly what such a further amendment would do. Therefore, it will come as no surprise at Report stage if I table an amendment to do precisely that. It would not be sensible to withdraw the other provisions on the understanding that I should return with what, in textual terms, would be a relatively minor amendment when I have spelt out already what that amendment would provide. It would need to do so in a form applicable to the National Assembly for Wales, which has raised some concerns on the matter, as well as the Secretary of State for England. The form of the amendment will reflect that accordingly. Apart from that minor complication, everything else before the Committee will stand. I shall therefore resist the request to withdraw at this stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gardner of Parkes): In calling Amendment No. 200, I must say that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 201.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 12, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert ("which complies with the provisions of the regulations to hold a referendum. in such circumstances as may be prescribed in the regulations, on whether the authority should operate executive arrangements involving a form of executive for which a referendum is required.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 202 to 205:
Page 12, line 21, leave out (", in particular,").
Page 12. line 21, leave out ("as to").
Page 12, line 22. at beginning insert ("as to").
Page 12, line 22, leave out ("that a petition is to take") and insert ("and content of petitions (including provision for petitions in electronic form)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 12, line 22, at end insert—

("(aa) as to the minimum number of local government electors for a local authority's area who must support any petition presented to the authority during any period specified in the regulations,

(ab) for or in connection with requiring the proper officer of a local authority to publish the number of local government electors for the authority's area who must support any petition presented to the authority.

(ac) as to the way in which local government electors for a local authority's area are to support a petition (including provision enabling local government electors to support petitions by telephone or by electronic means).

(ad) as to the action which may, may not or must be taken by a local authority in connection with any petition,").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendment Nos. 206A and 206B, as amendments to Amendment No. 206, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 207 to 216:
Page 12, line 23, at beginning insert ("as to").
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("given") and insert ("presented").
Page 12, line 24, at beginning insert ("as to").
Page 12, line 25, at beginning insert ("as to").
Page 12, line 26, at beginning insert ("as to").
Page 12, line 26, leave out ("to") and insert ("which may, may not or must").
Page 12, line 26, after ("before") insert ("or in connection with").
Page 12, line 27, at beginning insert ("as to").
Page 12, line 27, leave out r to- and insert ("which may, may not or must").
Page 12, line 27, at end insert (", and
( ) for or in connection with enabling the Secretary of State. in the event of any failure by a local authority to take any action permitted or required by virtue of the regulations, to take that action").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 217, I must say that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 219.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 12, line 28, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
(""(3) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of sections 18, 19.20 or (Operation of alternative arrangements).
(4) The number of local government electors mentioned in subsection (2)(aa) is to be calculated at such times as may be provided by regulations under this section and must not exceed 5 per cent. of the number of local government electors at any of those times.
(5) Nothing in subsection (2), (3) or (4) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 218, as an amendment to Amendment No. 217, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 not moved.]
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage on this Bill begin again not before 8.35 p.m. I draw the attention of noble Lords taking part in the dinner hour debate to the inaccuracy in the timing originally given. In order to keep within the time limit, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in opening the debate, may speak for 10 minutes. My noble friend Lady Scotland may speak for 12 minutes. Other speakers are allowed nine minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Kosovo
7.35 p.m.
Lord Skidelskyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe on human rights in Kosovo.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the occasion of this Unstarred Question is the publication on 6th December 1999 of the report on human rights violations in Kosovo compiled by the OSCE verification mission. The report covers three periods: 1st November 1998 to 21st March 1999; 24th March 1999 to 10th June—that is, the period of bombing; and the post-bombing period until last October. In the first and third periods, monitors were in place on the ground. During the bombing period, the evidence is taken by the OSCE from Serb refugees and expellees. It is by far the most authoritative account of human rights violations in that period.
Comment on the report by the media was conspicuous by its absence. Publication was noted and a few extracts given from the executive summary. That is particularly unfortunate, since the summary failed to bring out the crucial break in trend—which is something I want to emphasise—in the level of human rights abuses between the pre-bombing period and the bombing period.
I raise the matter this evening because the factual evidence set out in the report casts serious doubt on the justification for the war consistently given by Her Majesty's Government and by the NATO alliance as a whole. The Government claim that the war was fought to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe and that it succeeded in its aim. The Prime Minister has used the words "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" to describe what the Serbs were doing before the bombing started. It has been the Government's contention that the latter was the result of a deliberate, long-matured plan by Milosevic to empty Kosovo of its Albanian population. Most people in Britain probably believe some version of that story to this day.
I do not need to remind your Lordships that truth is the first casualty of war. The OSCE report paints a different and to my mind far more plausible picture of what was going on at the time. It is perfectly true that
152
fears of an impending humanitarian catastrophe were well founded in the summer of 1998. UN aid agencies reported that between 200,000 and 300,000 Albanian Kosovars had been driven from their villages into the hills in the Drenia region along the Albanian border that summer. On 23rd September 1998, Security Council Resolution 1199 demanded an immediate ceasefire and political dialogue, the scaling down of Serbian security forces and the installation of observers to verify compliance. It should be noted that Russia vetoed the use of force to support the resolution, but the NATO council nevertheless endorsed the use of aerial bombardment to do so if necessary.
Resolution 1199 led to the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement of 16th October 1998. It provided for a ceasefire, a return to their homes of the displaced Albanian villagers, a scaling back of Serb forces to their pre-1998 levels and the emplacement of 2000 international observers in Kosovo. The observers arrived at the start of November.
For the first two months everything seemed to be going well. However, a ceasefire takes two to observe, and by the end of December/early January it became apparent that the KLA had used the lull to arm and train. Fighting broke out in the north-east of the province, where the KLA had established positions athwart the supply routes from Serbia to Kosovo. There were also,
"a number of reactive operations by the Yugoslav/Serb forces against [KLA] infiltration along the Albanian border".
The observers reported "small scale ambushes" and "individual" atrocities by both sides.
What triggered off the events which led to NATO's armed intervention was the discovery in mid-January of 45 Albanians, including some children. murdered, mostly at close range, in the village of Racak. Responsibility for that atrocity has never been established. The Serbs claimed that they were killed in fighting and their bodies arranged by the KLA to look like murder. Though that was an isolated event, in a situation otherwise characterised by low-level skirmishing and sporadic atrocities, there is no doubt at all that it had an enormous impact on world opinion. It was assumed that it was part of a systematic campaign of terror by the Yugoslav/Serb forces. As the Rambouillet conference neared breakdown in mid-March of last year, the Serbs started preparing for a war on two fronts—against NATO in front of them and against the KLA behind them. For the first time, OSCE observers were denied access to the frontier areas. The escalation of violence was a direct response to NATO's own build-up.
The break in trend between the pre-war and war period is captured by the following quotations from the report. I dwell on them because their effect is cumulative. The first quotation:
"The level of incidents of summary and arbitrary killing escalated dramatically after the OSCE withdrew on 20 March".

153
The second quotation:
"Summary and arbitrary killing became a generalized phenomenon throughout Kosovo with the beginning of the NATO air campaign … on the night of 24–25 March".
The third quotation:
"Indiscriminate attacks on populated areas, sporadic prior to 24 March 1999, became a widespread occurrence after that date".
The fourth quotation:
"The loss of life of large numbers of Kosovo Albanian civilians was one of the most characteristic features of the conflict after 24 March".
The fifth quotation:
"Once the OSCE … left on 20 March 1999 and particularly after the start of the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 24 March, Serbian police and/or the VJ, often accompanied by paramilitaries, went from village to village and, in the towns, from area to area, threatening and expelling the Kosovan Albanian population".
My final quotation:
"Between March and June 1999 the FRY and Serbia forcibly expelled 863,000 Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo".
The Government want us to believe that this dramatic escalation in the level of violence and scale of expulsions had nothing to do with the withdrawal of the observers and the start of NATO's bombing. What is more they want us to believe that it was only the NATO intervention which stopped it!
"I have no difficulty in justifying this action",
wrote the Prime Minister on 16th May.
"We fought for an end to ethnic cleansing",
he said on 31st July. What hypocrisy! What is the evidence? There is very little in the report.
Now, my Lords, for the results. Nothing, of course, can bring back to life the hundreds and perhaps thousands of Albanian Kosovars killed by the Serbs during the period of the NATO bombing and the hundreds and perhaps thousands of Serbs killed by NATO bombs. We can at least claim to have reversed the ethnic cleansing which started after 24th March. Around 700,000 Kosovars have been returned to their homes and live in much greater security than before under the protection of the UN forces. However, under the protection of those same forces, the ethnic cleansing is now done by the other side. In a BBC interview given by the Foreign Secretary on 24th June 1999, Mr Cook said:
"When we met the leaders of the Albanian community yesterday, including the leader of the KLA, they all said that they want to create a multi-ethnic society, open to all the people of Kosovo and indeed Hashim Thaci, leader of the KLA, did say he appealed to the Serbs to stay. Over two-thirds of them have stayed and some of them are coming back".
In the lexicon of fatuous pronouncements made by our Foreign Secretary, that surely takes the prize.
Taking an average of different estimates, it looks as if there are about 70,000 Serbs left out of a pre-bombing population of about 250,000. Milosevic expelled about half of the Albanians under war conditions. Under the eyes of the UN's 50,000 armed troops, about two-thirds of the Serbs have been expelled and many more atrocities have occurred since June.
154
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that the last thing in my mind in bringing this report to the attention of the House is to whitewash Milosevic. He has brought untold damage to former Yugoslavia and to his own people in the sole interest of hanging on to power. The sooner he is removed the better. Nor would I want to deny that at some point military intervention might have become right and proper. What I do want to claim is that the reasons given for the intervention, when it occurred and in the form it took, do not stand up to serious scrutiny. I do not myself believe that the avoidance of a humanitarian disaster was uppermost in NATO's mind when it embarked on the diplomacy which made bombing inevitable. I believe that having threatened bombing back in October 1998, NATO's leaders convinced themselves that the credibility of the alliance was at stake if they did not bomb. And here I ask: credibility for what purpose? Perhaps the Minister will give us an answer.
What I mind above all is the lying. On such a basis no durable settlement for the Balkans can be built. If we live in a world in which our leaders cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, that is a dreadful omen for the future.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my intervention will be brief. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for raising this issue. Taken together with his interesting contribution to the recent foreign affairs debate, it is clear that he is posing the kind of fundamentally significant questions which are altogether appropriate for a second Chamber worth having. I also believe that we should put on record our appreciation of the report produced by the OSCE mission in Kosovo. Its findings are sombre, but they are also distressing, particularly the indications that the young are being caught up in the abuse of human rights.
When I was in Kosovo last August for the Council of Europe I recall looking at the extensive damage in one urban area and finding it difficult to comprehend that this was not the result of aerial or artillery bombardment but had been wrought by the "hands on" activity of ordinary citizens against other ordinary citizens. The emotion involved had clearly been terrible. In a volatile impersonal world, people need the security of identity. We should not deny ethnicity. What matters is to encourage and support in time the leaders within ethnic groups who understand that the future of humanity depends on co-operation with those of other ethnic origins. Not to take that approach is what plays into the hands of opportunist extremists, the ethnic entrepreneurs.
Also last August, in Montenegro and Serb Yugoslavia, I met the wretched Serb victims of oppression by ethnic Albanians, and, right at the bottom of the pile, I met the Roma refugees in appalling conditions. While, as the OSCE makes plain, numerically the persecution of Serbs and Roma by ethnic Albanians does not begin to be on the same scale as the systematic, state sponsored persecution of

155
ethnic Albanians by the Serbs which preceded it, it is obvious that whatever the military action by NATO achieved, it did not bring atrocities to an end.
I am convinced that that is why explicit, not implicit, UN authorisation is essential for military intervention. It makes the point that intervention is for universally applicable principles and not partial principles. Or, at least, it makes it even less credible when some try to portray intervention as partial. I believe that, with hindsight, we should accept that the language at the time of the intervention ought to have been more firmly about intervening to uphold universally valid human rights and less open to the interpretation that we were intervening for the ethnic Albanians against the Serbs. That would have given us a far stronger base from which to curb the totally unacceptable and reprehensible—albeit on a smaller scale—excesses by the ethnic Albanians.
Without political stability, human rights can never be secure. If we are to move forward in Kosovo, there has to be a steady transition from a de facto international colonial presence to genuine self-government. There have to be democratic institutions to which the police and other authorities are accountable. But, as I have argued before, for that to happen effectively time will be essential. The preparation for the elections will be as important as the elections themselves. The context in which they take place will he vital. What happens in the rehabilitation of education will be highly relevant. What happens in the development of genuinely independent media— the lifeblood of successful democracy—will be indispensable. Election law and administration will be critically important—not least the registration of voters. That raised the whole question of the absent refugees and displaced people. It will be good to hear the Government's thinking on all this. Do they, for example, favour the idea canvassed by some of starting with municipal or local elections as a trial run for more significant major national elections?
In the meantime, the delay in bringing the external police presence up to the required strength is frankly inexcusable. For all who advocated the action which has led to the international presence, there is surely a moral imperative to will the means to achieve its logical follow-through. Anything less is feeble or, worse, cynical.
Similarly, it is extraordinary that interim arrangements for the administration of justice are still inadequate. What kind of grotesque reality have we reached if we can mobilise without question the resources needed for bombing but totally fail to generate on the necessary scale the human and financial resources to build the peace? That hardly smacks of the real commitment to human rights and democracy of which the Foreign Secretary spoke so powerfully again East week. If I may be forgiven for concluding on a colloquial note, I believe that, in respect of strengthening the international police presence and the administration of justice, we have to pull our fingers out, and fast.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for making it possible.
I have always been critical of NATO intervention in Kosovo: I suppose that it cannot be called a war because there was never a declaration. Like many of my generation, I remember only too well what continuous aerial bombardment is like. I lived with my parents on the outskirts of London during the war and I have never forgotten it. Seeing news flashes on television of Belgrade burning brought it all back to me vividly. I could practically hear my mother saying, "They've got the London docks again". I have ever since regarded the bombing of urban areas as a means of terrorising a civilian population—indeed, I think that is its main objective, despite what military people may say. I thought last year, when NATO bombing was at its height, that we should not have been doing it, and that remains my view.
I do not believe that there was no alternative. Rambouillet was presented as an ultimatum—which it was unlikely that any Serbian government would have accepted. Negotiation was still an option; and the UN was marginalised. Opinions are now more frequently being voiced to the effect that military intervention was unlawful. The UN charter gives two grounds for the valid use of force: self-defence or with the sanction of the UN Security Council. Neither applied in the case of the Kosovo operation.
My noble friends on the Front Bench have repeatedly claimed that the operation was "successful". Well, it depends what the objective was. If the real intention was to create a purely Albanian ethnic state, perhaps it has been successful. But we were told that the aim was to bring about the creation of a state in which all ethnic rights were respected.
It would also appear that it was the bombing campaign which intensified the ethnic cleansing of Albanians by the Serbs, as some of us maintained at the time. Now that has been replaced by the ethnic cleansing of Serbs, brought about not only by revenge killings by Albanians but also by KLA members who are apparently determined to create an entirely Albanian state. It is not only Serbs who are being forced out but also the Roma people, Jews and even the small Croatian community. The international forces present seem powerless to prevent it. The region remains, and is likely to continue to remain, unsettled.
What is to be done now? Little information seems to be available as to the numbers of civilian deaths and injuries resulting from the NATO bombing campaign. Albanians were killed as well as Serb civilians. Many Albanians were killed and injured in the convoys which were bombed by mistake by NATO forces. Nothing seems to have been done to help the survivors or to compensate for the lives lost.
When I have asked about the possibility of compensation—at least for civilians killed and injured as a result of NATO acknowledged mistakes— I have been told that the issue of compensation does not arise

157
because the NATO action in Kosovo was "lawful". So it was lawful, apparently, to use cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions on civilian areas.
There is no doubt that the bombing campaign badly damaged the civilian infrastructure, as well as rendering parts of the Danube unnavigable. Questions about this have been asked in the House, and the response has been to blame Milosevic. Apparently he is demanding that sanctions be lifted before access can be granted. I should be grateful to know whether that is still the situation.
In any event, why are sanctions being continued, since the "conflict" has been won? They seem more likely to strengthen, rather than weaken, the present Yugoslav leadership. It is not surprising that even Serbs with pro-Western sympathies feel that they are victims. The historian Alexei Djilas, the son of the best known dissident ever, made that clear in a recent television interview. Most of those who have studied the situation in the Balkans know that it is immensely complicated and the demonisation of one individual, unpleasant though he may be, does not help us to understand it. Not so very long ago Milosevic was a man with whom Richard Holbrooke could do business. He was needed in order to reach the Dayton accord. I mention that because it is too easy to come to conclusions based on the over-simplifications beloved of the media.
We were told at the time of the Kosovo venture that it heralded a new approach in international affairs. For the first time in history, oppressive leaders could no longer hide behind the doctrine of national sovereignty. If people were oppressed, they could look to the international community for assistance— perhaps even armed intervention.
But it is now clear that in the real world, where unfortunately there are many countries where human rights as we understand them are ignored, that is not a practical possibility. Fortunately, the Government now seem to have come to terms with that view. If recent reports are accurate, it would seem that the Government have been reluctant to give guarantees or assurances to the present leadership in Montenegro, should it feel inclined to push harder for complete independence. If that is the government position, it is very sensible.
Of course, the international community should always be willing to provide humanitarian assistance to those who suffer as a result of such conflicts. And of course the United Nations must be strengthened. I entirely share the view of my noble friend Lord Judd in that respect. That, it seems to me, must be the way forward. In the meantime, in Kosovo it seems that the international community has a continuing task of monitoring and supervising if lawlessness is to be overcome and human rights protected.
8 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I do not refer to him as my noble friend in this House since we belong
158
to different parties, but outside this House he is my noble friend. He and I have worked very closely together, not least in Russia, and I greatly admire and respect the work that he has done there and elsewhere in the world. I say that because during this short debate I must strongly disagree with the argument that the noble Lord has put before the House. I believe that the noble Lord is aware that I strongly disagree with him. I extend my courteous apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who is also a Member of this House whose integrity and honesty I respect. I need to say that because I shall also strongly disagree with her observations.
I believe that when we look at the reports of OSCE we see a description of man's inhumanity to man on a terrifying scale. In a way, we are looking at sheer evil. As one studies page after page of the first report, which is primarily about the period up until March, and the second report, which deals with the six-month period from March to October, one feels a sense of disgust and outrage at the obscenity of what people have done to one another. But we must recognise that a crucial distinction is to be drawn. It is here that I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. It is clear from the first OSCE report that the attack by the regime of Milosevic on the Kosovar Albanians was, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said in a passing remark, state policy.
I respond to the quotations of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, with a few extracts from the OSCE report. The noble Lord said that the Kosovar Albanians had been "expelled under war conditions". The OSCE report states:
"On the part of the Yugoslav and Serbian forces, their intent to apply mass killing as an instrument of terror, coercion or punishment against Kosovo Albanians was already in evidence in 1998",
which was a whole year before the NATO attack was loosed. It goes on to state:
"Rape and other forms of sexual violence were applied sometimes as a weapon of war".
In 1993—six years before the period under discussion this evening—I recall making a visit to Bosnia as a follow-up to the Warburton report on the use of rape as a weapon of war. I spoke to many desperate women in the Croatian refugee camps at the time about the terrible conditions through which they had gone, including the gang rape of children as young as 12 and 13. Those children's future had been ruined, given the culture from which they came. That was not in 1998 or 1999, but exactly the same person was responsible for the use of rape as a weapon of war in Bosnia as in Kosovo later: Slobodan Milosevic.

159
My third quote is perhaps the most telling:
"The accounts of refugees also give compelling examples of the organised and systematic nature of what was being perpetrated by Yugoslav and Serbian forces, and their tolerance for and collusion in acts of extreme lawlessness by paramilitaries and armed civilians".
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. To what period does the last quotation refer?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it covers the period of the investigations into refugees made by the OSCE in Macedonia and also Albania. I cannot give the precise dates, but I have clearly indicated to the noble Lord that the report itself refers back to 1998. I have also given clear first-hand evidence that these practices were not first perpetrated in Kosovo but long before in Bosnia and Croatia. I give one more example. I saw at first hand the so-called winter exercises of the Yugoslav army in Kosovo in January 1999, two months before NATO intervened. I saw at least half a dozen villages burnt to the ground. I was so horrified by what I saw—for example, children's shoes in burnt-out houses—that I became then, as I am to this day, a strong supporter of intervention by NATO in Kosovo. If we pretend otherwise we should see the recent film made about Srebrnica entitled "A Cry from the Grave". If we do not recognise that this is a systematic, strategically planned and carefully thought out policy to commit atrocities against civilians we should not take part in any discussion without looking at the evidence at first hand.
In the terribly troubled century that has just ended, we have seen the use of state policy to break human beings. One example is Hitler's Germany; another is Stalin's Russia. The anarchy that has led to the killing of Serb civilians is unforgivable, but it is not the same as state policy. Or e has in mind the words of William Butler Yeats:
"Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed".
Anarchy and state policy are two different things.
What can we do now? I agree with the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. At this point I am not totally uncritical of Her Majesty's Government. I believe that, as Justice Arbour said, unless there is justice there will be revenge. First, justice is still not established in Kosovo. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, when he spoke about the need to put resources into justice. We have not done it. I understand that there is not even a UK financial contribution to the work of OSCE. But without justice one plunges into revenge. The code of ethics of the peoples of the Balkans is one of revenge. "If no one avenges me I shall avenge myself". Ignatieff calls it the warrior's honour; it is all about tit-for-tat, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Secondly, I believe that the British Government should support the training of more police and courts in Kosovo. Thirdly, I believe that they should disarm both of the conflicting ethnic groups in Mitrovica which is currently under the French UN force. To
160
allow one ethnic group to kill another in an area where one has thousands of troops is insupportable. Finally, I ask the Minister what steps we are taking to try to bring about the return of Serb prisoners from Kosovo and the many thousands of Kosovar Albanian prisoners currently in Serbian prisons. That could be a key to a better relationship between both sides. Such an exchange of prisoners has been a building block in the peace negotiations, however troubled, in Northern Ireland. I believe that we can learn from that lesson in Kosovo.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may put one question. Does she agree that, despite the horrible atrocities committed by the Serbs in Bosnia and Albania before the decision of NATO to intervene, when the bombing commenced and the OSCE monitors left the country the atrocities vastly increased and it was at that point that the majority of the Albanian expulsions took place?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I agree that there was an escalation, as invariably happens. There was an escalation in German mobilisation after the strategic bombing of German towns in 1943 and 1944. However, I do not believe that there is any evidence that NATO's intervention was related directly to atrocities, and I tried to explain why. I have also given the House first-hand evidence of what happened in Bosnia when there was no intervention and the British and French stood to one side and let it all happen. What was the result? Thousands of innocent people were slaughtered. Srebrnica is a clear case where 8,000 people died and the British and French did absolutely nothing to intervene.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Skidelsky for securing this important opportunity to discuss the current situation in Kosovo. I welcome many of the powerful insights made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. All too often, once conflicts are over, the media spotlight is dimmed and the eyes of the world turn elsewhere, ignoring the fact that the real challenge—that of making and keeping a permanent peace—is only just beginning. So today I shall concentrate on what is to be done now.
As noble Lords have heard today, the publication two months ago of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights reports has provided a valuable window into events in Kosovo, past and present; and has shed light on the grave problems Kosovo has faced and continues to face.
Page after page of the report reveals an organised and systematic strategy of human rights and humanitarian law violations, most brutally implemented. The report makes clear that Belgrade has much to answer for in its years of ruthless incitement of ethnic hatreds in the region. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to outline how the Government intend to make use of the reliable database that the report constitutes in order to agree

161
upon appropriate measures to restore and maintain international peace and security in the region; and to bring to justice those responsible for the crimes uncovered, which is an important part of the reconciliation process by which dismembered societies are invisibly stitched back together.
Part II of the OSCE report which documents the period between 14th June and 31st October, when more than 800,000 refugees returned to a war-torn Kosovo under K-FOR protection and UN administration, confirms that Kosovo remains infected with the disease of ethnic hatred and violence and that the nightmares described in Part I are living ones and cannot be consigned to the archives of the past. With one example after another, the report depicts a Kosovo convulsed by the poison of revenge, with acts of vindictive, retaliatory violence contributing to the creation of a climate of lawlessness and impunity.
The report notes that two particularly iniquitous trends have emerged: the targeting of vulnerable, elderly Kosovo Serbs and the participation of juveniles in human rights violations, both of which disturbingly underline the growing intolerance that has emerged within the Kosovo Albanian community.
The current situation in Kosovo highlights the critical importance of the work of the UN mission (UNMIK) in the rebuilding of civil society in the province, a fact which makes the recent allegations of bureaucracy and incompetence against UNMIK all the more disturbing. Yet nearly eight months since the conflict was ended and NATO troops entered Kosovo to keep the peace, today's reality is very far from that goal. Back in May, the Prime Minister promised the refugees of Kosovo,
"practical help, practical commitment and above else a determination that all this suffering and all this misery…[should] not last but [should] be reversed",
so that those same dispossessed refugees would become,
"symbols of hope. humanity and peace".
Yet, despite the international presence, there are very few "symbols of hope, humanity and peace" to be found and the peace that has been built to date stands on the flimsiest of foundations.
The international community has not been able to deliver on its promises. No Kosovar of any ethnicity feels secure. There is no region in Kosovo in which human rights are fully respected. Tens of thousands remain without adequate shelter. Civil registration has yet to get under way. No Serb has agreed to stand on the new UNMIK-Kosovo Joint Interim Administrative Structure. Kosovo's long-term status is still in question. Its economy and infrastructure are still devastated. And, as we have heard today, there is no agreed-upon, functional system of justice, and criminals, including war criminals, continue to operate.
As though to acknowledge that no remedy has been found for the contagion of intimidation and intolerance, the UN mission in Kosovo, UNMIK, no
162
longer talks about reconciliation but about "the first step of co-existence". This is a step that has yet to be taken.
The stark back-drop to the post-war setting described in OSCE reports makes it clear that only a strong law enforcement system can prevent the atmosphere of vindictive revenge that has perpetuated such violence. Amnesty International makes it clear that the international community, through UNMIK, must bear some responsibility for the failures in Kosovo. Last month, Amnesty concluded that the murder of a Slavic Muslim family in Prizren—a father, mother, daughter and an elderly grandmother— highlighted the continuing failure of the international community to protect the human rights of all minorities in Kosovo.
Does the Minister agree with Amnesty that it is indeed,
"time for the international presence to fulfil its obligation to protect human rights and take urgent action to prevent further human rights abuses"?
Does the noble Baroness further agree that the rebuilding of an open and inclusive society in Kosovo founded on the principles of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realised only through the continued monitoring and reporting of the human rights situation and the establishment of the rule of law?
Dr Bernard Kouchner once again was going recently, cap in hand, to the international community in Brussels. He was urgently pleading for more UN policemen, for more support for training local police and for the local system of justice, and for the plentiful pledges and promises of funds from the Kosovo Donors Conference to be fulfilled.
Can the Minister assist the House by explaining why, when the Foreign Secretary was hopeful last June that 3,000 international police officers would be deployed in Kosovo by July last year, today there are still fewer than 2,000 police officers deployed?
We used all the energies of NATO to stop the killing, and the atrocities, at a cost of billions. Yet it appears that we do not have the small resources which would make all the difference between success and failure in Kosovo. If all the nations in the world who claimed to fight for freedom and against repression cannot now manage to send sufficient police officers to Kosovo, then I regret to say that that failure may cost the world Kosovo's peace.
From these Benches we would be the first to say that our expectations must be realistic. Kosovo will not be changed overnight. The legacy of human rights violations that occurred before, during and after the conflict is a very heavy one. Kosovo is a society eviscerated by hatred and fear. Such deep wounds take time to heal. In diplomatic, financial, ethical or any terms, peace is a better investment than war, and certainly an intermittent war. The principle is one which I am sure the Minister will be eager to acknowledge. We must not find ourselves in the position of winning the war that we have chosen to fight, but losing the peace we have sought to impose.

163
The point has been made by the President of the European Commission. Romano Prodi said,
"As each day passes I am increasingly worried that the capacity for organising war far outstrips our capacity to co-ordinate the reconstruction of people's shattered lives".
His concerns struck a deep chord. In the cease-fires and armistices which the UN presides over, it is a lesson well learned that combat suspended is not combat ended. While international peacekeepers are occupied in keeping apart parties who remain hostile, while war seethes under the surface and its underlying causes are not addressed, the deep scars and wounds of conflict will never heal and true peace cannot take root and thrive.
I am sure the Minister will recognise that there have been reverberations far wider than the immediate vicinity of Kosovo, and, indeed, the debate today in this House. These reverberations will continue to be felt in transatlantic attitudes, relations and institutions for a long time. There is an increasing demand for answers to questions about the legality of intervention, mandates for intervention, and burden sharing, both financial and in terms of manpower, firepower, equipment and resources.
In conclusion, we are all agreed that the evil ethnic cleansing that took place in Kosovo which led to the NATO operation against Serbia was an assault on the universal values of respect for human rights and dignity. For that reason, we supported the Government's action, yet the way we implement the peace that has been imposed and the resources we commit for that purpose will be the ultimate test of the success or failure of our military intervention in Kosovo.
The stakes are high for the people of Kosovo, Montenegro, neighbouring states, the Balkans and the international community. Effective war fighting needs to be followed by effective war termination and peace consolidation or history will surely judge us wanting. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline how the Government, who took a lead in winning the war, intend to take a lead in winning the peace in Kosovo.
8.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for drawing the attention of the House to the important and valuable OSCE report on human rights in Kosovo, published in December 1999. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that the report deserves careful perusal. However, it is important to read the report as a whole. We have derived a different flavour from that divined by the noble Lord. We refute entirely any suggestion that the Government have lied. I was surprised to hear such language in this place.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The report Kosovo/Kosova, As Seen As Told is in two parts. The first catalogues the abuses of human rights in Kosovo
164
from October 1998 to June 1999—from the establishment of the OSCE-led Kosovo verification mission to the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Serbia secured by the NATO air campaign. The second part of the report covers the period from June to October 1999—the first four months of the international presence in Kosovo established at the end of the crisis.
Both parts make for disturbing reading and give pause for thought. I will share with the House some thoughts on the implications of the report's findings. I pay tribute to the work of the Kosovo verification mission and in particular to the men and women from Britain who played a crucial role in establishing it. The mission was the result of an agreement between the government of President Milosevic and the OSCE to allow international monitors into Kosovo to give 200,000 internally displaced people, particularly the tens of thousands living in the hills, the confidence to return to their homes—without which, the Secretary-General had warned, there might be a humanitarian catastrophe.
The presence of the KVM helped temporarily to avert such a catastrophe. Britain sent an initial deployment of 120 verifiers, who were among the first on the ground in early November 1998. They did important and often dangerous work that winter, until the OSCE reluctantly took the decision in March 1999 that the situation was too dangerous to allow the mission to continue.
The findings of the KVM report are damning. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who, with her usual style and flair, captured the horror that was alive in the region before NATO's intervention. I do not hesitate for a moment to repeat some of the quotations that the noble Baroness gave from the OSCE report, for it is important to give a sense of balance and proportion. It stated that,
"on the part of Yugoslav and Serb forces, their intent to apply mass killing as an instrument of terror, coercion or punishment against Kosovo Albanians was already in evidence in 1998 and was shockingly demonstrated by incidents in January 1999 (including the Racak massacre and beyond)".
It added that,
"arbitrary arrest and detention and violation of the right to a fair trial became increasingly the tools of the law enforcement agencies in the suppression of Kosovo Albanian civil and political rights".
It also said that,
"rape and other forms of sexual violence were applied, sometimes as weapons of war".
The House will recall images of horror and terror from Kosovo over the past year. Just over 12 months ago, the world was shocked by the discovery by the KVM of the victims of the massacre at Racak. as many noble Lords have said, when more than 40 Kosovo Albanians were shot at close range and dumped in a ditch. That massacre prompted the Contact Group to summon the Belgrade government and the leadership of the Kosovo Albanians to peace talks in France to resolve the crisis in the province by a political settlement.

165
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that the responsibility for Racak has never been established. I remind the House that the Serbs refused to allow the War Crimes Tribunal to investigate Racak. If the Serbs wanted the truth to be discovered, they would have co-operated with the tribunal as the Security Council had demanded. The Serbs refused.
A lot of nonsense has been spoken about the Rambouillet negotiations. With respect and much regret, I cannot agree with the sentiments expressed in that respect by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. Those negotiations were not an attempt to impose NATO government over Kosovo. The agreements worked out by European, Russian and US negotiators were to keep Kosovo within FRY and to restore the autonomy that Milosevic had stolen 10 years before. The negotiations were not an attempt to impose NATO forces across the territory of FRY. We asked FRY to negotiate with NATO arrangements to allow NATO allies and others, such as Russia, to supply the troops they would send to Kosovo to underpin the political settlement there.
The negotiations were not an attempt to force the Serbs into rejecting an agreement to give NATO some sort of excuse for bombing. We were committed to making the negotiations succeed and worked hard to achieve that objective. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his French counterpart, as chairman of the talks, spent hours at Rambouillet persuading the two sides to reach agreement.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the implementation appendix of the Rambouillet accord gave NATO and its allies full access to FRY territory? That was not the case in the agreement that ended the bombing last June.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it was clearly thought necessary at that stage for that requirement to be added and I do not resile from it for a moment. In the end, the Albanians accepted the agreement, even though it fell short of what they wanted, but the Serbs refused. It was not a hidden NATO agenda but a clear Serb one that was to blame for that failure. As the KVM report makes clear, while the Serbs were meant to be negotiating in France, their forces were beginning a spring offensive in Kosovo. That offensive was under way before NATO action began.
My noble friend Lord Judd rightly mentioned the complexity of the conflict between the Serbian and Albanian people resident in Kosovo. When NATO launched its first air strikes, 70,000 refugees had already been displaced from Kosovo in neighbouring states—as well as 200,000 people internally displaced within Kosovo. NATO intervened to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. The Serbs reacted by accelerating the brutal offensive already under way. NATO, in response, made clear that an objective of its campaign would be the return to Kosovo of all those people expelled by Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. That objective was secured.
166
The report's authors spoke to hundreds of Kosovars during the enforced exile. They report an interview with a refugee explaining why he fled Kosovo last May. The man was in his house in Pristina when five or six armed men arrived. They started to smash up the house, placed a bucket over the man's head, then proceeded to kick him in the stomach and ribs. They demanded money, then threatened to kill him. They held a lighter to the man's face and burnt his moustache and mouth. They beat him with rifle butts. They said if they found him again they would kill him. The next day, the man fled Kosovo for Macedonia.
Anyone who doubts that NATO had to intervene to stop what was being done to innocent victims in Kosovo should read the OSCE report—and read it fully.
The justification for our intervention in Kosovo was to stop the appalling repression—as the UN had demanded—and avert the humanitarian catastrophe, of which the UN had warned. The alternative would have left the EU and NATO as spectators while Serb atrocities continued and accelerated. If we needed any extra flavour, I suggest that we have only to remind ourselves of the powerful words of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who gave the House graphic evidence of what she saw with her own eyes.
The criticism that we cannot intervene in every crisis invites the retort: does that justify doing nothing in any situation? As the Foreign Secretary said in his Chatham House speech last Friday, try telling that to the Kosovo Albanians, whose long years of suffering were ended by NATO.
The OSCE returned to Kosovo in June 1999. The organisation was given responsibility within the United Nations mission for democratisation and governance, police training, institution building and human rights monitoring. In pursuance of this last function, some 75 human rights monitors have been at work in Kosovo over the past eight months. The second part of the OSCE report is the result of their work.
The report notes that serious human rights violations have continued to occur in Kosovo. I am sure that the House will agree that the persecution and intimidation of the Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo is appalling. It is right that we should condemn it. NATO intervened to uphold the principle of a multi-ethnic Kosovo, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, touched upon in his speech. We should not let others destroy this now. But, as the OSCE report brings out, what is happening now is very different in scale and nature from the state-sponsored terror and ethnic cleansing practised by the forces of the Milosevic regime in Kosovo.
Since we have a few moments, I shall take the opportunity to reply to some of the specific issues that have been raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right to concentrate on the challenges with which we are faced for the future, and progress is being made in tackling them. Bernard Kouchner, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Kosovo, notes in his foreword to the report that

167
many of the abuses documented in Kosovo since last June have been committed by members of Albanian armed groups against other ethnic Albanians and non-Albanians. There have also been allegations against Serb armed groups.
However, all cur efforts have brought good fruit. The result has been a significant decline in levels of violence and intimidation; but one murder a week is one too many. I accept that entirely. Part of the answer is that Kosovo needs a fully functioning criminal justice system, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble, Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Dr Kouchner's recent decision to revert to the legal system which applied in Kosovo before Milosevic stole its autonomy has helped. As a result, the UN mission is finding it much easier to recruit local judges and prosecutors. In the past week alone some 130 were sworn in.
I shall now turn to one or two specific questions that were raised in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked about the sanctions against Serbia and what is happening as regards the Danube. Sanctions are intended to maintain pressure against the regime in Belgrade led by men indicted for crimes against humanity. So far as concerns the Danube, the EU would be ready to consider supporting work to clear the Danube. However, Milosevic has so far refused to co-operate.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, as regards support given to the OSCE we are one of the OSCE's strongest supporters. We contribute 10 per cent of its budget in Kosovo and 10 per cent of its personnel, including more than 30 UK policemen 'training the future local police force in the OSCE-run training school. In addition, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who raised the issue of the 2,000 police, we agree that UNMIK needs more police. Some 60 RUC officers are in place. recognised as among the most effective in the international presence. Furthermore, we continue to monitor that issue.
The EU has an important role to play, but the international community can only do so much. The lasting answer has to come from the people of Kosovo. The special efforts of UNMIK and KFOR devoted to minority protection can only he a temporary solution, treating the symptoms rather than the disease itself. The people of Kosovo must take on their responsibilities. Those responsibilities are very broad indeed. This Government will continue to play a leading part in working to achieve the goals of peace and security for all Kosovars, be they Serbs or Albanians resident in that country.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will she respond to my query about the victims of NATO bombings, those who were killed or injured? I raised the issue of compensation for such victims. They were Albanian as well as Serb, as my noble friend knows.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have replied to that question before and the noble Baroness gave the answer. I re-emphasise that everything is being done to restructure and assist the Kosovar people to regain stability. We very much hope that that will help
168
to compensate them for the terrible suffering that has been visited upon them by Milosevic and all that has followed with him.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
8.37 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 23 [Power of Secretary of State to require referendum]:
Lord Whitt Lord Whitt moved Amendments Nos. 221 and 222:
Page 12. line 35, at end insert ("for or in connection with").
Page 12, line 37, leave out ("require") and insert ("direct").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 224 to 234:
Page 12, line 38, leave out from ("arrangements" ) to end of line 39 and insert ("involving an executive which takes a particular form permitted by or under section 10.").
Page 12, line 41, leave out (", in particular,").
Page 12, line 41, leave out ("as to").
Page 12, line 42, at beginning insert ("as to").
Page 12, line 43, at beginning insert ("as to").
Page 12, line 43, leave out ("to") and insert ("which may, may not or must").
Page 12, line 43, after ("before") insert ("or in connection with").
Page 13, line 1, at beginning insert ("as to").
Page 13, line 1, leave out ("to") and insert ("which may, may not or must").
Page 13, line 1, at end insert (", and
( ) for or in connection with enabling the Secretary of State, in the event of any failure by a local, authority to take any action permitted or required by virtue of the regulations, to take that action").
Page 13, line 2, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
("(3) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 18, 19, 20 or (Operation of alternative arrangements.).
(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I must confess that I find Clause 23 immensely depressing and I regret deeply that I should have to see such a clause in any legislation. Furthermore, I regret that the Government have felt it desirable to bring forward the clause.
Clause 23 provides that:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision enabling him, in such circumstances as may be prescribed in the regulations—"
for which he is responsible—
"to require a local authority to hold a referendum on whet her they should operate executive arrangements",

169
and so forth. What an amazing vote of confidence in his own proposals that the Secretary of States feels that he must have regulatory power to force local authorities to do what is required here. I am sorry; I find that very depressing.
When one looks at the draft regulations, one finds that it appears to the Secretary of State that the authority has not drawn up this or that, or that it has drawn up this without having done that, or that the authority's proposals do not comply with this or that. And it goes on and on. It does not quite say at the end, "and in such other circumstances as the Secretary of State thinks are appropriate", but it jolly nearly comes to that. That seems to be something which I should find slightly encouraging because it indicates that the Secretary of State has no confidence in his own proposals and therefore he does not believe that people will go through willingly with what is proposed in the legislation. Therefore, he needs to reserve power to force them to do so.
That may be the way of new Labour. If it is, in due time they will pay for that arrogance. I do not believe that that is the proper way for this country to go forward; still less do I believe that it is a proper way to treat democratically elected authorities which might be supposed to have a will of their own. For that reason it seemed to me that it would be preferable that Clause 23 be excised from the Bill. It is with that in mind that I tabled the Motion that Clause 23 should not stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I feel that the noble Lord is reading rather more into the intentions behind this clause than his speech would suggest. We have already made a draft of the regulations, which set out what an authority must do in that respect. I see that the noble Lord has already marked the sentence. Therefore, he will know that all those circumstances relate to a situation where a local authority either does not comply with the legislation or guidance in drawing up its proposals or, alternatively, it does not have regard to the wishes of local people following a period of consultation in line with that guidance and legislation; in other words, a local authority will have decided either to opt out entirely from the word go or to ignore the will of the people once it has been sought.
We do not believe that there will be many such situations. However, we believe that the power is necessary to deal with isolated cases of abuse and to avoid the necessity in those circumstances of having to resort to the courts where an authority does not comply with the legislation. There is nothing more sinister than that behind the clause. Its purpose is to deal with situations of abuse or possibly inertia on the part of local authorities when moving to executive arrangements, which is the whole objective of the legislation. It is simply a safeguard to ensure that councils comply with the legislation and progress to new constitutions at a reasonable pace. It does not give us, nor would we wish to have, powers arbitrarily to require local authorities to hold referendums or to intervene in other circumstances. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Lord Dixon-Smith: It is only because I have stood opposite the Minister for so long and begin to have an element of faith in his words that I feel inclined not to pursue the matter further. However, I shall need to
170
study exactly what he said before I determine absolutely not to deal with the issue at some point further down the line. I am grateful to him for his reply, which certainly helps. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 236:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—

POWER TO REQUIRE REFERENDUM
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring every local authority, or every local authority falling within any description of authority specified in the order, to hold a referendum on whether they should operate executive arrangements involving an executive which takes such form permitted by or under section 10 as may be specified in the order.
(2) The provision which may be made by an order under this section includes provision—

(a) as to the date on which, or the time by which, a referendum must be held.

(b) as to the action which may, may not or must be taken by a local authority before or in connection with a referendum,

(c) as to the action which may, may not or must be taken by a local authority after a referendum,

(d) for or in connection with enabling the Secretary of State, in the event of any failure by a local authority to take any action permitted or required by virtue of the order, to take that action.

(3) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of sections 18, 19, 20 or (Operation of alternative arrangements).
(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 236A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 236, not moved.]
Amendment No. 236 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 237:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—

INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS ETC
(".—(1) A local authority which is operating executive arrangements must prepare and keep up to date a document (referred to in this section as their constitution) which contains—

(a) such information with respect to the discharge of their functions (including functions which are the responsibility of the executive) as the Secretary of State may direct,

(b) a copy of the authority's standing orders for the time being,

(c) a copy of the authority's code of conduct for the time being under section 36, and

(d) such other information (if any) as the authority consider appropriate.

(2) A local authority must ensure that copies of their constitution are available at their principal office for inspection by members of the public at all reasonable hours.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Guidance]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 239 and 240 not moved.]
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Elected mayors.]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 241 and 242:
Page 13, line 27, leave out ("of") and insert ("made by or under').
Page 13, line 27, at end insert—
("(1A) Except to the extent that regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section otherwise provide, an elected mayor of a local authority is to be treated for the purposes of the enactments relating to local government as a member and councillor of the authority.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Voting at elections of elected mayors]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 243A:
Page 13, line 38, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 243A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 245A, 245B and 245C. This group of amendments deals with the voting system for the election of a mayor, should such an election take place. Perhaps I may straight away that, contrary to popular impression, I have spent over 30 years in the Liberal and Liberal Democrat Party and have not spent all my time talking about different voting systems. I recognise that those issues do not greatly excite people, but apparently that is not the case here tonight.
This is an extremely important issue. Should we come to electing a mayor, as in London we shall be doing shortly, it is important that the person who is elected can demonstrate that he demands substantial support. The purpose of our amendments is to substitute the supplementary vote system proposed in the Bill with the alternative vote system. There are important differences. I am fortunate in that the way that the alternative vote system works is set out extremely clearly in Amendment No. 245B. I do not need to take the time of the Committee tonight nor test my intellectual abilities in explaining that.
The defects of the supplementary vote system, which has the effect of eliminating all but the top two candidates, mean that if there are four or more candidates, which is most likely in any mayoral election, the voters who have to decide on their second preference will have to try either to determine that their second preference vote may well be wasted because their favoured candidate will be eliminated or try to determine who, in effect, will come second.
Whatever the rightness or wrongness of their choice, it means that, for many, their second choice will be wasted. The result will be that the successful candidate very likely will be elected with the support of less than half the people who turned out to vote. If we are investing the power that we are in an elected mayor, it must be important that that person is able to demonstrate that he has genuine popular support.
We did not succeed in persuading the Government of the rightness of this system for London, but we now offer them another opportunity. I am sure that in the months since we dealt with this issue in the GLA Bill, the Minister will have reflected further and seen the weaknesses of the system that the Government have inflicted upon us for London. They will not wish to repeat that mistake for the rest of the country and will now recognise the support which exists for the elections to take place under the alternative vote system. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey: Unlike the noble, Lord Tope. I have spent much of my life thinking about electoral systems. I was going to suggest that we all put on our anoraks for the next hour! However, having listened to this afternoon's debate, I find that there is a subject still more "anorakial", if I may coin that word, than electoral reform, and that is local government reform. That is a subject discussed with lightness and levity compared to the debates we have had this afternoon. Nevertheless, it is a very important subject on which I wish to detain the Committee for a couple of moments.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I find it slightly ironic that this amendment should come from the Liberal Democrat side of the Committee because the whole purpose of the electoral system is to find the most legitimate way of electing a mayor. Members on that side of the Committee are not terribly keen on mayors in any event. Therefore, I am not quite sure why they should rally to this cause.
I am extremely keen on elected mayors and I want to see the best possible system. That is why I intervene in this debate. The Government have chosen an extremely respectable method for the choice of mayor. It is better by tons than the first-past-the-post system. If we had a first-past-the- post system for electing a mayor, according to some calculations which I did this afternoon, it is quite likely that the winning candidate would have the support of less than 10 per cent of the electors in his area. That would not be much of a legitimacy for him to carry into action.
Therefore, the SV is a perfectly respectable system. It has a number of strong features to commend it. It was the choice of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Plant for national elections. It is nice and simple. Academic research has found that people like using it. It does not give weight to people's mild choices. It does not matter whether you prefer the Green Party to the Monster Raving Loony Party because those parties are well down on the list of most voters. But that system was chosen for London and there is a sort of Occam's Razor effect in the electoral

173
system as there is in matters philosophical. So there is a case of substance there which is why that system was chosen for London.
On the other hand, there is a strong list of features which should commend AV to the Committee. It was the choice of another committee—that chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on which I had the great privilege to sit—for electoral reform for Westminster. It is simple to use. Indeed, it is used for the lower House in Australia where there is compulsory voting and, therefore, it is not necessarily the case that every voter is the enthusiastic expert who goes to the polls in this country.
It gives voters more freedom. For example, they can choose between the Green Party and the Fascist Party, which for many of us would be quite an important choice to make. And crucially—and this was the point to which the noble Lord referred—it is the only system which means that when the last ballots are counted, the winning candidate invariably has more than half the votes. That is a powerful case for the AV.
As regards a change since the Bill for London, I would have thought for that Bill it was even-Stevens: there was a case for the SV; there was a case for the AV; and I certainly do not criticise the Government for opting for the SV. But let us look at the concrete situation in which we find ourselves. SV is fine so long as there are only three serious candidates, which has been the case in the country until now. It works fine. But let us suppose in a couple of weeks' time, as I richly hope, my party chooses Frank Dobson as its standard bearer and let us suppose that Ken Livingstone runs as an independent and the Liberals have their charming Mrs Kramer and the Conservatives have their charming Mr Norris. In that case, people's third and fourth preferences may become terribly important.
I know that some members of my own party—I would not necessarily count myself among them—would do anything to stop Ken Livingstone being chosen. They want to be able to put him fourth. But under the SV system, they do not have that choice. It is only their first two choices which will count and, therefore, they do not have that fully articulated option to express their choices right through.
What has happened in London may happen in other cities. I can imagine situations in which the three parties put forward candidates and some local dignitary or independent puts himself forward. The people there should have the full choice which the AV grants them. We cannot tell the future, but if we were looking again now at a system for London, although I believe the Government made a perfectly good choice at the time, the system of AV would have been better in the situation in which we find ourselves.
Therefore I ask the Minister to reflect on these questions. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed this evening because the issues require serious consideration. I ask him to go further at a later stage
174
and tell the House that, having reconsidered the arguments, he now sees the case made out for the alternative vote.
Lord Whitty: I see the Conservative Front Bench has no role to play in the slightly esoteric argument taking place among the electoral reformers.
I have considered the alternative proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Indeed, it was considered at some length during the deliberations of the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield. It may be that that was not the final word of wisdom on the matter. I know that my noble friend Lord Lipsey has sat on other commissions and my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton has had the distinction of being a member of all of them. Therefore, she is probably the greatest source of wisdom on these matters.
Nevertheless, there is a difficulty in accepting the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It may be said that one difficulty we brought upon ourselves; namely, that we have already adopted the supplementary vote system for London. But having done so, the system must have some clarity about it in terms of how the votes are designated. Most people can move quite easily from putting one cross on a ballot paper to putting two. The final run-off, in effect, is between two persons. Therefore, there is a clear choice. It provides a clear solution. It is simple and easy to understand and results in a clear winner.
But even if I were slightly hesitant in those arguments, the fact that we have already chosen one system for London is important in that respect. That system has been chosen for the election of a mayor of London, which is the highest-profile contest that we are likely to see, and some people will say, "Thank goodness for that". The election of a mayor for London will be a high profile political event. Why should we have a different system and how do we explain the need for a different system to the electorates of those other authorities which choose to elect a mayor?
My noble friend Lord Lipsey has explained to the Committee the supplementary vote system. It has certain advantages. The alternative vote system also has advantages and I accept that the balance is a fine one. Nevertheless, I do not believe that there is a clear argument for departing from the decision which we took in relation to London when choosing the system for the election of mayors of other cities and local authorities. Therefore, I am not moved to accept the amendment and I understand that we may return to this matter when we shall probably have a longer and even more arcane debate. However, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Tope, not to pursue the issue this evening.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall write down "amendment for Report" now. Before my noble friend responds, perhaps I can ask the Minister to accept that in the alternative vote system, although electors may vote all the way down a list, they need vote only for one, two or three or however many candidates they choose to vote for.

175
Many of us who advocate the system recognise its benefits in allowing that amount of flexibility but also in allowing, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, indicated, one to show one' s opposition to a candidate as well.
I am sure that my noble friends have had the experience which I have had. We use the system of single transferable votes within our party for internal elections. There have been several occasions when I have had quite clear views as to those I would not want to see elected. I have worked on the ballot paper, starting from the top, down a few, then to the bottom and up for a few and then filled in the middle.
Given that we seem to be moving so fast in the direction of "personality politics", there may well be occasions in mayoral elections when certain candidates will raise strong feelings among the electorate, both in favour of and against. The alternative vote system would allow those feelings against to be expressed in a way that is not possible with the supplemental vote system.
As we continue with the Bill I gain the increasingly distinct impression, perhaps wrongly, that because mayors in general were thought to be a good thing, Downing Street—maybe particularly the Prime Minister—felt that there should be mayors up and down the country. We are in a situation where we have to work towards that somehow, however many problems are identified and analysed in the legislative process. To say that because we have a particular voting system in London we must therefore apply it directly in other cities and districts seems in no way to support intellectually the argument for mayors. I believe that such argument is becoming weaker as we continue with the Bill.
9 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may point out that most people are perfectly capable of ranking 15 items in order of preference, let alone four or five.
Lord Tope: I am not surprised that the Minister rejected the amendments. On these Benches, one tends to get used to that. However, I was disappointed with the way in which he dismissed not my arguments but the much more able and experienced arguments of his noble friend and, indeed, those of his own party's electoral commission and all the bodies with which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, was involved. I am pleased to see that the noble Baroness has joined us for this part of the debate.
I hope I do not do the Minister an injustice by saying that all the arguments are dismissed on the grounds that the mistake has been made once in London. Perhaps it is a mistake recognised with hindsight on his Benches but, I have to say, not on ours. Therefore, having got it wrong for London, the same mistake has to be inflicted on the rest of the country. That appears to be almost exactly what he was saying.
He also appeals to say that the British electorate is not capable of writing down, "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" instead of "X, X". The Minister is not a patronising man.
176
However, that was a patronising statement, although I am sure unintended. I am disappointed by the way in which the Minister dismissed the arguments. I suspect he did so because his brief required it of him rather than because his head told him to do so.
As he goes home and thinks about the issue—I am sure he will think of little else tonight—I hope that he will perhaps consider the plea, not from these Benches but from his own, to reflect further before the same mistake is made for the rest of the country as is now being demonstrated has been made for London. This small change in the voting system is important. It could easily be made and is one which the Government should now adopt. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 13, line 39, leave out from ("have") to end of line 4 on page 14 and insert ("one vote and the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes shall be returned as the elected mayor").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, will not think it ironic to find the Conservative Party trying to change the system of voting for mayors back to first-past-the-post. Ai least there is an element of consistency in what we advocate. Not only that, we advocate a system which appears to satisfy everybody in the other place. There seems to be no sign at present that they have any wish to change it. One might have thought, therefore, that the first-past-the-post system, which has the merit of even greater simplicity, if perhaps an element of unjust brutality, would be preferable to devising even more complex systems of voting than the one inflicted on London.
The whole authority is an experiment as the Greater London Authority does not exist. It is just being brought into being. Perhaps, therefore, it is not unreasonable to have an experimental system when dealing with an experimental authority. If the Government had been prepared to sit back, draw a deep breath and wait to see how it worked before inflicting the system on the rest of the country, I might have been more willing to go along with what I would call the direction of their legislation. I nearly said "the drift" of their legislative programme. As stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, they appear to be committed to a system in which mayors are a good idea, therefore everybody should have them.
In many parts of the country the local government system, although interfered with over the years by numerous governments, has nonetheless been in existence for a long time. We are dealing with longstanding responsible bodies which know exactly the meaning of local administration and do it well. Nonetheless, they are to be changed. If they are to have elected mayors, they will also have inflicted upon them this marginal system of proportional representation. The British people are adaptable and will make of it the best they can. However, as in so many things, I expect that they would prefer the system with which they are familiar. It may not always produce the most just result. However, if we were to explore the result of the last general election there could be some argument

177
about justice and the fact that the Government received fewer votes in 1997 than their predecessors, the Conservative government, in 1992. The difference in results is extraordinary.
However, that is the system we accept and it would seem reasonable to argue for it. Amendment No. 244 would bring that about. If Amendment No. 244 is accepted, Amendment No. 245 would not be necessary. Schedule 2 appears after this amendment. However, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to it at the same time. Schedule 2 would also be unnecessary in the event that Amendment No. 244 is accepted. That is the reason why Schedule 2 be agreed to is on the Marshalled List. I do not intend to discuss it again. I understand the procedure, that it must be separate, but I shall certainly not speak to it again.
Our position is clear. We are convinced that the ground on which we are standing is perfectly adequate. I am not optimistic that the Minister will accept my remarks. But if he were to try to impose on Members of Parliament in the other place what he is trying to impose on local government, he might have an interesting debate on his hands. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right in divining my intentions in relation to this amendment. I regret that I cannot accept it.
The Government have the benefit of consistency, albeit slightly less long-run than the consistency of the party opposite in defending first-past-the-post to the last ditch in all circumstances and at all times, in that we consider that our proposal in relation to the supplementary vote to be the appropriate one for mayoral contests. We enacted that in relation to London and consider it to be appropriate here.
We do not consider the first-past-the-post system to be appropriate for a mayor. As alluded to in the previous debate, it could lead to a mayor in a four-sided contest succeeding with around 28 per cent of the vote. That is not an appropriate way in which a mayor for any local authority should be elected. Therefore, though I have some intellectual cross-over with those advocating the alternative rather than the supplementary vote and feel that there is a fine argument in that regard, I do not feel that there is a fine argument here.
We cannot read across from Westminster seats, whatever one's view may be on how we elect people to the other place. For the institution of mayor we must have a result which at least means that a substantial proportion of the population voted for the mayor either as first or second choice, and not just a potential minority as the amendment suggests. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not proceed.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hear what the Minister says. He may well end up with a minority mayor whatever happens if he finishes up with only a 30 per cent poll.
178
So one has a problem. However, I have said what I have said. I do not withdraw any of it, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 245 and 245A not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Election of elected mayor]:
[Amendment No. 245B not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Entitlement to vote]:
[Amendment No. 245C not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Power to make provision about elections]:
[Amendment No. 246 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 246A:
Page 14, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) the requirements for nomination of candidates for the position of elected mayor, and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 246A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 246B and C and 247A.
The first of these amendments seeks to insert in Clause 29 a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the nomination of candidates for the position of elected mayor. I included this provision as I am not clear that it is otherwise covered. It seems to me that some attention needs to be paid to the number of nominators that a candidate for the position should have. If a potential elected mayor needs nominations only from the same number of electors as any other councillor, I question whether that would be appropriate. The number for councillors is not large and an elected mayor would, by definition, be representing and dealing with a much wider area. It may be that the Government have in mind a multiple of the number of nominations needed by a candidate to be a councillor. But this is a matter which needs attention.
Amendments Nos. 246B and C deal with the question of elections for the return of elected mayors. I sought to include two relevant points, referring not just to mayors but also to other members of an executive who are directly elected. It seems to me that the way in which the elections of a directly-elected cabinet are dealt with should be set on a fairly similar basis to that which applies to the return of elected mayors. Finally, Amendment No. 247A deals with a similar point to that covered by Amendment No. 246A. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the issues that she has raised on these amendments. We do not believe that Amendments Nos. 246A and 247A are necessary because the Government already propose powers in the Bill to make such regulations.
Clause 29 already proposes to enable the making of regulations about the conduct of elections by applying or incorporating previous enactments with or without

179
modification. That includes legislation on nomination requirements for candidates. In addition, government Amendment No. 242, to which I spoke during the first day in Committee, provides that the mayor is a councillor and a member (including nomination requirements for candidates) unless regulations provide otherwise. Therefore, we consider that Amendments Nos. 246A and 247A are unnecessary.
However, we broadly agree with the points made by the noble Baroness in speaking to Amendments Nos. 246B and 246C. In fact, this issue goes wider than Clause 29 of the Bill; indeed, it applies equally to other clauses, in particular Clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28. Therefore, we wish to take the matter away and consider it carefully before returning to the Chamber. In the light of my response, I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press her amendments tonight.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for her reply. I wonder whether she can tell the Committee what the Government have in mind with regard to the number of nominations for an elected mayor. Is this a matter that has been considered?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We have not yet come to a firm view on whether the nomination requirements for mayoral candidates should differ from those for other councillors. We would like to give the matter further consideration. Perhaps it will be helpful if I point out that regulations under Clause 29 will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and, as I have already indicated, subject to consultation with the electoral commission once it is established. Therefore, this Chamber will have another opportunity to debate the issue when those regulations are considered.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that further response. By now she will be very clear that our view is that the number of nominations required for a candidate for elected mayor should be rather more substantial than for a councillor. I am aware of the difficulties that at least one of the independent candidates for mayor of London is having. He is spending all his time going round the boroughs gathering up the 330 signatures that are required, but that figure may be on the high side for mayors outside London. I am grateful to the Minister for her comments about Amendments Nos. 246B and 246C, and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 246A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 246B and 246C not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 14, line 24, at end insert ("and
(c) the recall of the Mayor in the event of a loss of confidence and the filling of a casual vacancy").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to provide for the recall of the mayor, should that become
180
necessary and appropriate. I am, again, conscious that we are returning to a subject that we debated on a number of occasions during the progress of the GLA legislation. We failed to convince the Government at that time. However, it is possible that, during the course of events in the Conservative Party before Christmas, the Government began to wonder whether they were right to resist this proposal. I suspect that they may be wondering even more now as regards events which may well unfold in their own party in two or three weeks' time.
We are discussing an extremely important issue. In the case of an elected mayor, whether in London or, with slightly less profile but still high profile, in other major cities, we are vesting in one person very considerable power; and, indeed, even greater profile and influence. I do not put forward lightly the proposal that such a person should easily be recalled simply through any party shenanigans, for whatever reason. But the fact that such a person should be elected for four years and be beyond any recall— subject, of course, to the law of the land—must surely be wrong.
I cannot think of any other elected politician in this county—or, for that matter, in most other countries— with considerable personal power who cannot be recalled for any matter other than clearly breaking the law, or going demonstrably mad. Surely we should have some provision for the recall of a mayor in circumstances upon which we may speculate tonight, but perhaps it would be better not to do so. We can all envisage circumstances when that action might become necessary and it is clearly unsatisfactory at that stage to find that nothing can be done.
I am aware that when we discussed the GLA Bill the amendments we sought to move were objected to at least in part as a consequence of the different mechanisms that we suggested for recalling the mayor. I accept that that was only part of the argument, but it was certainly a part of it. In this amendment we seek to give that power to the Secretary of State to determine. The Secretary of State, of course, can do no wrong and will be far more capable of dealing with this matter than the humble Members on these Benches trying to construct amendments. However, I say in all seriousness that I hope this amendment concentrates on the principle of the issue rather than on the mechanics of achieving the outcome which we seek. The principle is extremely important. We should not allow people to attain such considerable personal power without any means of recalling them under any circumstances. I hope that the Government will give this issue further consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Lord said, during the passage of the GLA Bill we discussed this matter several times in connection with the role of the mayor. The question of recall of the mayor became a matter of relatively high drama in this Chamber. I suspect that the arguments behind the amendment will resurface. However, we do not even know what mechanism the noble Lord proposes, as he proposes handing responsibility for the mechanism of removal to the

181
Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations. At least during the passage of the GLA Bill several different mechanisms to remove the mayor of London were proposed. I objected to all of them on the principle that one group of elected politicians should not be able to take a decision—I was going to say "conspire"—to remove another directly elected politician. That does not apply in any other part of our constitution.
It is not correct to say that there is no means of removing the mayor; indeed, the noble Lord in effect referred to them. The mayor will be subject to the law of the land and to local government regulations. Demonstrable insanity is catered for in local government provisions, as it was in the London Bill. Should a mayor be removed for political reasons, or should this important office be subject to recall on the basis of a political arrangement by other elected politicians? We have a judicial procedure in the event of crime being committed. If, however, it is a case of political misdemeanours as viewed by the mayor's opponents within the council, or by some other group that regulations may prescribe, I do not believe that is a legitimate case for recall and I would resist any amendment on those lines.
I accept that there is a slightly stronger argument for recalling a mayor through popular mandate: that is, through a petition or through the demand of a minimum number of the electorate. However, at what figure does one pitch a petition or trigger a ballot to make it legitimate as a means of overthrowing the decision of the majority of the electorate—if the mayor is elected on a majority, or a number close to a majority—without making it appear ludicrously high and unattainable? Therefore there are problems of legitimacy as regards any political means of attempting to recall the mayor.
I do not accept that that is a sensible way to deal with an office which we expect to last a full four-year term and to be responsible for delivering a wide range of services. I do not accept that the mayor should be restricted or recalled because perhaps he or she is not of the same political persuasion as the majority, or a temporary majority, of the council, or there is an issue on which the 5 per cent threshold—if that is to be the relevant threshold of the electorate—might be mobilised through good organisation. It would gravely inhibit the mayor to carry out a four-year strategic approach to his or her task on the basis that such a response as I have described might be provoked if a particular issue was unpopular.
I therefore oppose the amendment in principle in relation to political removal. It is there already in practice in terms of legal crimes and Local Government Act crimes; it is not necessary to get the Secretary of State, with his admittedly vast ingenuity, to draft regulations which would enable the removal of
182
a mayor part-way through his or her term. I oppose the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue it.
Lord Tope: I am perhaps a little less surprised at that response, although I am still saddened that we cannot move the Minister even on the principle.
I accept entirely that any measure to remove an elected mayor should not be taken lightly and only in the most extreme circumstances. We would all hope that such circumstances would never arise. But it is probable that, sooner or later, somewhere they will arise. Let us take, first, the circumstances under current legislation in which a mayor could be removed. Demonstrable insanity is not always easy to demonstrate; sometimes it takes some time to do so. Indeed, some would say that insanity is demonstrated merely by wishing to seek the office in the first place. However, in all seriousness, insanity is not easily demonstrated. It also takes time to prove criminal activity through the judicial process. During such processes, the administration of the area concerned is undoubtedly paralysed and polarised.
I understand the principle that concerns the Minister—I share that concern—that someone who has been democratically elected should not easily be removed from office. That is important. One of our proposals under the GLA Bill—I do not want particularly to return to these matters—was described as the nuclear option. In a city as large as London, any popular vote in terms of petition numbers and so on was a practical impossibility. We suggested that the members of the assembly, by a very large majority—I forget the exact figure—should have the right to dismiss the mayor but, in so doing, would dismiss themselves as well. No assembly is likely to vote by a large majority for such an option unless it is absolutely necessary, because its members would then be facing the electorate and having to justify the action they had taken. I thought that was a very fair proposal to deal with such circumstances—which we hope will never arise, but might—in a city as large as London.
We have deliberately not chosen mechanics, which would give the Minister another easy option to shoot us down, but rather we have tried to concentrate on the principle that unfettered power to an individual should not be allowed. There should be some means of recalling a mayor under extreme circumstances without a lengthy and paralysing judicial process in regard to criminal matters or in regard to matters of sanity or insanity.
Lord Whitty: I apologise to the Committee. I was reminded when the noble Lord said "under extreme circumstances" that there was one measure I failed to mention in my previous remarks—that is, that the new ethical framework will apply to the mayor as it will to other office holders. Therefore the question of disqualification or suspension could arise in that context. Again that is not a political removal but a

183
quasi judicial removal. I thought, for the record, that the noble Lord should recognise that that circumstance is already covered.
Lord Tope: I am pleased to hear that. Again, I do not think that that adequately covers the point. Now is not the time to press the matter further, although I suspect that we shall return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 247A not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 247B:
Page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The return of an elected mayor at an election may be questioned in accordance with any enactment or regulation enabling the questioning of the return at an election of a member or councillor of a local authority.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall not take long. Subsection (4) of Clause 29 provides that no return of an elected mayor is to be questioned other than by an election petition. My amendment reverses that and gives me the opportunity to ask the Minister what the Government are excluding in the subsection. It appears to provide greater protection for the mayor than for other elected councillors and that requires justification on the record. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As currently drafted, subsection (4) of Clause 29 provides that mayoral elections may be challenged only by election petitions under regulations which apply the provisions of Part III of the Representation of the People Act 1983. This deals with the procedure for questioning local elections. Amendment No. 247B would replace that with wording which seeks to apply automatically the Representation of the People Act provisions about the questioning of elections. The noble Baroness's amendment would therefore appear to be unnecessary since it only seeks to achieve what regulations made under the current version of the subsection will achieve. The benefit of doing this by regulations is that they will be able to take account of the particular circumstances of mayoral elections where necessary. The noble Baroness's amendment does not allow for such fine tuning. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: It may be the time of night, but I am not sure what the Government are achieving here. Perhaps I had better read what the Minister said. It is inappropriate that the problems arising from the election of councillors are dealt with in primary legislation but in the case of an elected mayor are to be excluded from primary legislation and dealt with in secondary legislation. If anything, the regulations dealing with the election of mayor should be on the face of the statute, as is the case with elected councillors. It is a great pity that yet again something which was thought by previous Parliaments to be sufficiently important to be included in statute is being
184
taken out of primary legislation and left for secondary legislation. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Provisions with respect to referendums]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 15, line 7, leave out ("five") and insert ("three").
The noble Lord said: I would not wish to raise the Minister's hopes that I have suddenly become a convert to the desirability of having many referendums just because I have tabled this amendment. If that were the case, the certifiable condition referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, might well be applied to me. It would certainly be certifiable inconsistency!
The amendment was tabled in the expectation, which, as I suspected, would not be borne out, that we could enable local authorities to reverse out of the cul-de-sac which the Minister was driving them into by giving them an option to have a referendum to return to a more traditional form of administration. That is not the case, but it was the motivation behind the amendment. Therefore, when the time comes I shall seek to withdraw it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 249 standing in my name. I seek to amend the provision because it seems wishy-washy. When does a five-year period start? By the time one reaches the referendum process, the authority will have produced a lawful scheme, consulted locally, notified. the Secretary of State and made the many and far-reaching changes consequent upon the proposal. Therefore, the start of the five-year period should relate to the passage of the resolution under Clause 20(1). That gives us a cut-off period so that the local authority knows from when the five-year period is to run. Otherwise, I suspect that the matter will have to be set out in regulations.
Baroness Hamwee: My Amendment No. 257A is in this group. It may seem unnecessary and I hope that the Minister will tell me that it is. It seeks to establish that the term "referendum" as used in the Bill means a referendum under the provisions of the Bill—or the Act, as it will be. It seems a matter of common sense that the Secretary of State's regulation-making power in respect of referendums cannot extend to referendums on other legislation. All the amendment seeks is confirmation of that point.
Lord Whitty: I regret that I cannot accept any of the amendments. In relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, we considered the five-year period for some time. It seems to us the most sensible period for a number of reasons. The principal reason is that it does not seem sensible that, having introduced a new executive structure, within the first term of that executive structure there should be another process started for yet another change. We therefore consider that the period between

185
referendums would have to be at least four years and, in reality and in practice, five years; after the end of a full term.
With regard to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I take the point about having a clear start date. It may well be that that needs to be dealt with in regulations. However, the amendment as drafted would have a perverse effect. Not only would it make it impossible within the five-year period for local people to trigger a referendum when the council had opted for an executive structure, but it could, at least notionally, mean that a council seeking to avoid ever having a referendum could simply tweak its executive arrangements, pass another resolution under Clause 20 and therefore roll on the process for ever. I am sure that was not the intention behind the noble Baroness's amendment but, nevertheless, it could be its effect.
I turn to Amendment No. 257A proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I assure the Committee that the Government do not intend to use the provisions of the Bill, and in particular this clause, to prevent a local authority from holding referendums on issues other than executive arrangements if they wish to do so and have the powers to do so. But a definition of "referendum" for the purposes of Part II of the Bill would not be appropriate because wherever the word occurs it needs to be read in that particular context. It does not have a single meaning applied throughout Part II. For example, in Clause 22 it means a referendum under that clause; in Clause 23 it means a referendum under that clause, and so on.
In Clause 30, the effect of subsection (7) is to ensure that references to referendums in Clause 30 are clearly references to referendums held under that clause. Any other definition in one clause could not necessarily be read across to the others. I hope that that is clear and that the noble Baroness will therefore not pursue her amendment. I hope also that the other amendments will not be pursued.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, responds, I obviously did not make myself clear. I was not seeking to apply different definitions to different references to referendums in the various clauses; I believed that I had found the right place to include an amendment covering the whole of the Bill. My point was not the distinction between different types of referendums within the Bill but referendums within the Bill and under other pieces of legislation. It seems to be quite clear that the Government do not intend the various provisions on referendums in the Bill to be read over into any other legislation, but since we do not have a definition of "referendum" as such in a way that limits it, it seemed to me worth pursuing the admittedly rather pedantic but possibly important point. Furthermore, I wanted to make the reason for my amendment clear to the Government, as I obviously had not done so before.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I indicated earlier that it was not my intention to press the amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 249 to 251A not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 15, line 20, at end insert ("or referendums").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 15, line 24, at end insert ("(including the publicity to be given with respect to the consequences of the referendum)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 15, line 27, leave out paragraph (d)
The noble Baroness said: Paragraph (d) states,
"permitting a referendum to take place in a manner which does not involve a poll".
I have never come across such a provision. One could, I suppose, do this by telephone or one could have a MORI poll, but I assume that a referendum is meant to be done by formal polling and formal marking up of a referendum question. It may be that regulations will describe what a "non poll" is. I should be grateful for an explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I shall try to clarify the intention behind this provision. The noble Baroness will be aware that yesterday we gave the Representation of the People Bill its Second Reading. Among other things, such as rolling electoral registration, that Bill provides for local authorities to pilot innovations in electoral practice and for those successful innovations to be used more generally in elections.
There are some obvious possibilities, which may or may not commend themselves to the Committee, such as conducting an entire election by postal vote, or over the Internet, or by the telephone, which do not involve a poll in the sense that we normally refer to it. Under the Representation of the People Bill, those will be available for piloting. They will obviously require further legislation if they are to be put into general use. Clearly, such possible innovations could apply to referendums as they could to elections. If the amendment were accepted, it would delete from the scope of the Bill the power to make regulations as to how those alternative ways of casting votes could be used and whether any of those innovations could be used in this context. That would be an unnecessary loss of flexibility. The regulations themselves would have to be tightly written. Nevertheless, I do not think that this Bill should prevent that flexibility applying to referendums.
Baroness Byford: I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this point for me. Whatever form one is using, one is actually taking a poll. There is some form of judgment at the end of the day. That surely is a poll. The difficulty is that the words as set out in the Bill assume a poll in the conventional sense and not in ways that

187
may be used in the future. However, at the end of the day, people are giving an opinion, which surely must be a poll.
Baroness Hamwee: I support that view. I have the same difficulty with the provision and was glad to see that an amendment had been tabled by the noble Baroness.
However, I am slightly more disturbed having heard the Minister's response. I do not want to appear to be a dinosaur, unwilling to contemplate the possibility of new voting methods. However, if there are to be new voting methods, they deserve careful parliamentary scrutiny. They should not be the subject of regulations which may not receive parliamentary scrutiny. If that is so, it does not seem necessary to have these words on the face of the Bill. The changes could be made in legislation introducing new methods of voting.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: It is still my belief that the wording is wrong. If any of the innovations described in the Bill are used, those are still a poll. Proxy voting is part of a poll; it is a formal examination of how people want to vote. The provision states that this,
"does not involve a poll".
Therefore, it raises the question: when is a poll not a poll, and when is it a fiddle?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I had not expected to intervene in this debate, but I have considerable sympathy with everything that is being said on this side of the Committee. At the very least, in the interests of clarity it would be helpful if the Minister would agree—even if he is not prepared to withdraw the words from the face of the Bill—to take the matter away and examine it to see whether he can return with a more felicitous way of stating what the paragraph attempts to put out. As matters stand, we could debate the issue of when a poll is not a poll, or whether a poll is a poll, until midnight and get no further, and have no greater clarity at the end of the discussion.
Lord Whitty: We could indeed, and those who are fascinated by electoral law may be tempted to do so. However, my understanding of the position under electoral law is that a poll, as tightly defined, means attendance at a polling station. Under provisions in different parts of the Representation of the People Act for a proxy vote or a postal vote, they are to be added to the poll conducted at the polling station. Therefore, we are dealing with a rather tight implication of "poll" as originally defined.
I reassure noble Lords that, were we to come forward with regulations which applied the clause in relation to referendums and provide innovative means of voting—and the only point under debate is whether, with the passage of the representation of the people legislation, we should include the referendum as one form of election which could be subject to pilot studies in that regard—those regulations would (a) have been subject to the views of the electoral commission and (b)
188
would be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. I hope that that provides some assurance to noble Lords to keep the present form of words on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hanham: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Power to make incidental, consequential provision etc.]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 15, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult representatives of local government and of any other persons affected by the proposals.").
The noble Lord said: Clauses 30 and 31 together, among other provisions, give the Secretary of State power to combine the normal local elections with a local referendum, to take place on the same day at the same time.
I can applaud and commend the economy in such a move. It may be that, not even being optimistic, we can understand how local electors could separate the two ballot papers and manage that. However, if that kind of combination is to be brought about, we should be sure that at the very least there is thorough consultation with those who might be directly affected by such a proposal, which might well affect an individual local authority. It should be stated on the face of the Bill that the authority should be consulted. The amendment that I have tabled requires the Secretary of State to,
"consult representatives of local government and … any other persons affected by the proposals".
The Minister may assure me that that will occur anyway, and if he does so I shall be happy to hear it. In the meantime, I believe that it is worth putting this requirement on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I believe that the situation to which the noble Lord refers is already covered. However, the noble Lord must recognise that Clause 31 merely makes incidental, consequential, transitional and supplementary provisions and therefore no new policy is represented in this Bill. The Government already have a concordat with the Local Government Association—to which the clause and no doubt the amendment refer—which is the representative body for local government in England and Wales, to consult on all issues, in particular on developments that directly affect the structure of local government. Therefore, anything of substance that emerges will be covered by that concordat. However, in practice, matters of substance are likely to occur not under this provision but under other clauses which are covered by explicit consultation arrangements. Therefore, on the

189
basis of either the voluntary concordat or other provisions of this Bill the noble Lord's objectives are met.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I shall study. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to. Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 256 and 257:
Page 16, line 6, at end insert ("unless the context otherwise requires").
Page 16, leave out line 18.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 257A not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 258 to 262:
Page 16, line 34, leave out ("of") and insert ("made by or under").
Page 16, line 35, leave out ("and 16") and insert ("to 17").
Page 16, line 35, after ("of") insert (and Schedule 1 to,").
Page 17, line 7, leave out ("A local authority's function with respect to") and insert ("Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 does not apply to the function of).
Page 17, line 8, leave out ("may be discharged only by the local authority").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 258 to 262 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 17, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this Part shall prevent, in the case of a London borough, the person who is referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1972 as the Mayor of the borough from using the title and style of Mayor.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 263 is tabled in order to make absolutely certain that nothing in this Bill disturbs the traditional arrangements in London under which a borough has a mayor, albeit not an elected one, who can continue to use that title and style. This is a matter of history and tradition. One can well imagine that in years to come there will be a deal of confusion in local government, not exclusively in London. There will be a Lord Mayor of London, although he represents only the City, and an elected mayor of London. There will also be a mayor of a borough who will fulfil all the traditional roles of a mayor. Further, there will be an elected mayor of a borough. Therefore, it is not an unlikely prospect that for the ordinary elector of London there will be four mayors all of whom will have legitimate authority over him, and that may cause a degree of confusion. I do not regard that as a straightforward situation.
The scope of this amendment is limited. It may be that in response the noble Lord will tell me that it is unnecessary. However, so far as concerns the people of
190
London, within a particular borough the mayor is their first citizen and an important figurehead within the community. I do not believe that any of us in this Committee, including the Minister, want to erode that situation in anything that we do in this Bill. Of course, out in the country one could have the equally amazing situation of an elected mayor of a county council, an elected mayor of a district council, and an elected town mayor. I suspect that the possibility for confusion there would be equally great. We have not addressed that issue. However, should the Minister choose to cover it in his reply that would be helpful.
The amendment ensures clarity and that nothing in the Bill disturbs the current arrangements. I am not aware that any of us wish to do so. I believe that it was worth tabling the amendment. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord acknowledged, we discussed last week the issues surrounding the title of "mayor" in relation to Amendment No. 75, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The amendment would preserve the title of "mayor" for chairmen, or chairs, of London boroughs.
The Government are strongly of the view that there should be clarity about who is the directly elected mayor where councils adopt such arrangements. Local people need to know who is the elected mayor and therefore who is to be held to account for the services provided by the authority. It is for that reason that the Government believe that where there is an elected mayor the title of "mayor" should be used by that person and not, for example, the chairman, or chair, of the council.
If the amendment were to be accepted, it would be possible for a London borough to have two mayors. We do not think that that would lead to a position of clarity. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord does not believe it to be necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: I believe that this is one area in the Bill—there are many—which will cause enormous consternation. To state that the civic mayor cannot be called "mayor" will challenge the community's feelings on the purpose of the Bill. The name "mayor" is well loved and well recognised. It is well supported in particular in the London boroughs. Mayors are well received. To call a civic mayor "chairman" or "chair" seems to be moving in the wrong direction. I realise that the issue has been discussed previously. I simply wish to put my oar in and say that, if any area will be misunderstood, it will be this one.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I somewhat cautiously put the alternative use of the title "chair" or "chairman", having looked carefully around the Chamber to see which noble Lords and noble Baronesses were in their places.
Where a London borough, or a district council with borough status does not opt for that model and does not have an elected mayor, it will be able to continue as before. We recognise that, in some cases there is a

191
derivation other than from the borough status alone, for example through ancient local custom, charters, and so on. We believe it is important that people should be able to distinguish the option of the local community for a directly elected mayor with executive powers. I ask the noble Baroness to consider this. In those circumstances, the issue would have been widely discussed and therefore is less likely to cause confusion for the local population.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I appreciate the need for clarity. If it had not been for that need, we would not have tabled the amendment. We shall study carefully the noble Baroness's response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 66 [Allowances and pensions for local authority members]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263A:
Page 41, line 4, at end insert ("including regulations to limit the number of councilors in any authority to whom special responsibility allowances may be paid").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 265A and also Amendment No. 264A, which is an amendment to the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 264. My noble friend Lord Tope will speak to our two other amendments in the group. Perhaps others would like to speak to their amendments first, so that my noble friend can co-ordinate his remarks.
As to Amendment No. 263A, I failed to find language that is appropriate to the point. I appreciate that providing regulations to limit the number of councillors to whom special responsibility allowances may be paid might indicate that it is not for a local authority to determine how to deal with such allowances. That is not the case because that, together with other ways of conducting business, is a matter for the local authority.
I want to see whether the Government have any response to the situation in at least three authorities where special responsibility allowances are paid to all the members of the controlling group. I understand that in a couple of instances, the number of committees was changed to make that possible. The councils brought to my attention were Swansea, Milton Keynes and Aberdeen. Those authorities may take the view that all councillois of the same political persuasion as those running the administration have particular responsibilities different from opposition members. There is something odd and the system is being distorted if it distinguishes between members of political parties. I do not believe that the system was designed for that purpose.
I was, like others, cheered when the possibility of particular allowances was introduced because it went a little way to recognising the special responsibilities of
192
councillors who undertake arduous and time-consuming jobs. To extend those allowances in the way that at least a small handful of authorities have done is stretching the provision. I hope that there is a way of addressing the problem. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 265 and 377, I fully understand that when amendments are submitted, their wording may not entirely achieve the objective.
I first served on a council 40 years ago when the expenses regime was vastly different from today. There have been great advances, which I have always supported, to make it possible for men and women to serve their community as councillors. I have no objection to that but I refer to a parliamentary Question answered recently by my noble friend's ministerial colleague, Beverley Hughes, in the other place:
"Our policy, as set out in 'Modern Local Government: In Touch With the People' … is that financial support for councillors must reinforce the culture of the modern council and address, as far as possible, any disincentives to serving in local politics"— [Official Report, Commons, 24/1/00; WAl23W]
I live in Loughton in Essex which is around 20 miles from here. It has a town council of 22 members serving a population of 30,000 people. It was set up in 1996 after a period of 63 years during which Loughton had no council of its own. It does good work. It is small in the hierarchy of councils and no great claims are made for its status.
However, I should like the Minister and his colleagues to pay attention to what I believe to be an anomaly. I have been told that one councillor said that in the three and a half years since the election, he had given 200 hours of his time at council meetings. Others had done the same. We know that nowadays councillors can receive thousands of pounds in allowances to compensate for all kinds of things. However, councillors in a place like Loughton, who live in the town, need to travel around three miles to attend council meetings at the far end of the town. It costs £1 each time they use the bus. But they are not reimbursed because the meetings they attend are inside the area; they do not leave the prescribed area.
Perhaps noble Lords may say, "What is a pound?". For an elderly person—an old age pensioner—who is giving up his time, who might attend 30 meetings a year, that amounts to £60 in travelling expenses. Again, noble Lords may say, "What is £60? That is not much". Again, for an old age pensioner who is giving up his time, that is a considerable amount. This matter should be examined.
The amendment I have tabled is attached to changes made in the Local Government Act 1972. In my researches I noted that the then Conservative Minister, Lord Sandbrook, speaking of claims for expenses by councillors generally, stated that:
"We are all agreed that the allowances should be such that good potential council members are not dissuaded from serving on local councils by financial restraints or worries—[Official Report, 18/9/72; col. 846.]

193
I wonder whether my noble friend sees this as an opportunity to put right an anomaly that has been allowed to fester? I do not believe that town councils will disappear, but I do believe that a sense of injustice and unfairness may creep in, especially as in comparison, others who call themselves councillors in different kinds of councils with different responsibilities still receive recompense for their time and—more importantly—for their travel.
I know that my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest, who knows Loughton a great deal better than I, may well rise to say a few words in support of this amendment. I simply say to the Minister that there are many councils—I estimate that there could now be 10,000 small parish and town councils—and the expenses would add up. However, that would be nothing against the good will of this non-partisan Government. When this matter was raised in Loughton Town Council there was no party animus. Something would be moved by one party and seconded by others, and I raise this issue in a nonpartisan way. In this House one often wonders how one can take advantage of a peg on which to hang something. I do not want to hang the Minister, either out to dry or otherwise. However, I wonder whether he will agree that this is an issue which his colleagues can look at before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 264, although I believe that the Minister will not speak to it until he officially replies to it.
Clause 66 concerns giving councillors a fair deal for the amount of work that they put in. I welcome it from that point of view. For a long time councillors have suffered the jibes of whoever was in opposition whenever it was proposed that there should be an increase in allowances. If there was a change of administration then the boot was placed quickly on the other foot. The rise of independent panels which suggest a fair rate of allowance, not dependent on attendance, is a step in the right direction.
However, I am afraid that Amendment No. 264, which addresses pensions, is probably a step sideways because it singles out executive members for special treatment. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has been at pains to tell us that other members of the council—the non-executive members—are equally important and will fulfil important roles. Certainly, one can imagine that the chairmen of the overview and scrutiny committee or committees, depending on how many there are, will have their work cut out. If they are doing their work properly, they should have no less an arduous task than the members of the executive. Although they are not making decisions, they are formulating policy and checking up on those decisions. Much of the time they will be the interface with the public which the executive members probably will not be under the models that we have heard described. Therefore, are they not entitled to pensions? If not, I wonder whether the
194
Minister can explain why. Is it due to the fact that their job is less difficult, will take less time or be seen as being less important?
I believe that there are a number of reasons why the decisions as to who should receive pensions will be left quite rightly to an independent panel, which will be set up locally. However, that panel should have the freedom to look at all the members of the council equally and to decide whether or not a particular post merits a pension. It should not be on the face of the Bill that executive members can receive pensions and other members cannot.
I should also like to support briefly the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, because I believe that parish councillors are another group of people who often give up substantial amounts of time, particularly the chairmen of parish councils and town councils. As a result, they are frequently out of pocket. Not only have they given up their time but they spend their own money attending meetings, and so on. It is becoming difficult to secure democracy on the cheap. We are in an age when we should not expect democracy to depend on whether or not people can afford to pay their own money. There will never be a representative cross-section of society if we depend on that.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to solve my problems with his Amendment No. 264 and that we can see some equity in the way that councillors are treated, particularly with regard to pensions.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: I too wish to ask a question on Amendment No. 264. Of course, I must lend support to my noble friend Lord Graham whom I regard as our shop steward in these matters in any event. In that case, what else can I do but support him?
The amendment addresses itself to allowances and pensions. The draft regulations address themselves to remuneration panels which are not mentioned in the amendment. Should the Bill not be clearer about the role of remuneration panels in setting the allowances? The local government White Paper said that every council should have such a panel and that the Government would consider proposals in relation to making changes to allowances. They said they would deal with that. But it is not clear on the face of the Bill that those arrangements will be put in place. Therefore, I seek clarification about that link which seems to be missing.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My noble friend Lord Graham is too modest to expatiate on his own modesty. Perhaps I may underline the modesty of the amendment proposed. For example, the noble Lord could have referred to telephone bills. He has not done so. He has confined the amendment to dealing with travel expenses. I emphasise to the Committee that that would not cost central government one penny. It would cost local electors a few coppers, but a very few coppers. I am sure that they would not begrudge that

195
in order to make it possible for everybody to accept nomination for election. I hope that the Government will not begrudge it either.
Baroness Hanham: Will the pension schemes and superannuation schemes run by local authorities be authorised to pay pensions to members? If not, the schemes will have to be self-funded and self-financing on an annual basis. If we are not careful we shall encounter the same problems as those encountered by the police with their self-funding pension schemes.
Lord Tope: As suggested by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I rise to speak on Amendment No. 265A and shall attempt to do so in the co-ordinated fashion promised by my noble friend. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to specify maximum rates for travel and subsistence allowances for councillors. That power is something of an anomaly these days because there are no longer any government-imposed limits on local schemes of allowances, subject to the provisions in this Bill relating to an independent panel.
That is a real issue and a real problem but it is an anomaly because the operation of government-imposed maximum rates has presented practical difficulties for loca1 authorities and particularly for individual councillors for many years. Typically and inevitably, maximum rates for overnight accommodation do not keep pace with the prevailing rates in major cities and particularly in London, Europe's most expensive city—of which I see the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has some experience—which many councillors must visit when attending Local Government Association meetings. Those maximum rates do not keep pace with the prevailing rates and that often results in members being out of pocket when staying away from home on council business.
Similarly, it is nonsense that central government these days should specify maximum rates for councillors' meals; namely, how much councillors may be allowed to claim for breakfast, lunch or dinner. Councils are now multi-million pound businesses and really should be given the power and authority to determine reasonable amounts for such allowances. That is an anomaly and I hope that the Government will now take this opportunity to correct it.
I turn now to Amendment No. 264A. I assume that it is in order for me to seek to amend an amendment to which the Minister has not yet spoken. I shall do so anyway. It relates to a subject which has been dear to my heart for years and years in local government; that is, cycle allowances. I say immediately that if this amendment is passed, it will be much too late for me but it will be in plenty of time for many others.
Members of your Lordships' House may be paid a cycle allowance. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships claim it regularly. Members of the other place may be paid a cycle allowance. Employees of local authorities may all be paid a cycle allowance, if appropriate. The one category of people who may not lawfully be paid a cycle allowance is that of elected councillors. That is ludicrous. Many councillors of all
196
parties have been in the forefront of promoting the green agenda, green transport, and, in particular, the promotion and encouragement of safe cycling.
Many councillors use bicycles as their preferred means of transport and sometimes as a means of demonstrating in a practical way what they advocate that their councillors and local residents should he doing. However, they are in effect penalised for doing so. Were they to use a car, they could be paid a reasonably generous mileage allowance. Because they choose to use a cycle, which is much more environmentally friendly, they cannot be paid an allowance. I do not claim that, if we were suddenly to receive cycle allowances, all councillors would take to their bicycles. Sadly, I fear that that is probably not the case. However, it is clearly an anomaly that they cannot be paid anything.
I have raised this on a number of occasions over the years. The answer I have received from successive governments is that they recognise this to be an anomaly but it needs primary legislation to correct it. This is our opportunity. We have the primary legislation. It is a small amendment and one which would correct an obvious anomaly which singles out councillors for no apparent reason.
In the past, governments have been able to say that that cannot be done because it needs primary legislation. Now we have this opportunity, I hope the Government will take it. If they choose not to do so, now and in future they will have to explain to councillors and others why they are singling out councillors as being unable to be paid cycle allowances. I do not think this Government—or, for that matter, the previous one, but certainly this one— would wish to do that. Therefore, I feel rather more optimistic than usual when moving or speaking to an amendment that we shall receive a positive response. Both amendments are fairly minor but significant in their consequences. I hope the Government will consider them and feel able to respond positively.
Lord Smith of Leigh: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 264 and Chapter 15 of the draft regulations. Both provisions seek to recompense people who serve their local communities. I agree with my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who referred to people who work at parish and town council level who equally try to serve their public.
I agree with the statement in Chapter 15 which suggests that we abolish the attendance allowance for local councillors. My own council did that last year on the advice of an independent panel which made a recommendation on pay. However, I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that there are occasions when an attendance allowance may be required. There are a number of occasions in my council when we expect groups of councillors to make quasi-judicial decisions on matters such as applications for village greens. Such matters can last over several days or weeks when people give evidence and so forth. We expect small groups of members to attend. I hope that perhaps we can consider recompensing the members who act on those occasions.

197
I support the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, concerning pension rights. The Bill as drafted differentiates between executive members and other members of the council. The provision recognises that people who serve on large authorities make sacrifices as regards their career and pension rights. That could be true whether people are serving at executive level or even senior levels. Certainly those who have played a lead in the scrutiny roles of local authorities will be equally busy as executive members. I hope that that matter will also be considered. We are not asking for them to receive pension rights but for the independent panels which will be set up to review that point.
I support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that, when setting rates for local councillors, departments do not always upgrade them in line with inflation. Certainly, hotel prices in London are somewhat more than I am able to claim as a local councillor from Wigan.
The one thing that is different these days is that, if one travels by Virgin trains, one no longer pays for food. We may arrive late, due to sheep on the line or numerous other excuses, but we are provided with free food. That food may not be worth eating: certainly some of the meals I have had were not worth eating. In an earlier comment, a reference was made to making meals with one's partner. I believe I am booked in for next Wednesday; that is my earliest engagement in that regard.
On a more serious note, there may be occasions when councils need to recompense non-executive members who are putting a lot of work into quasi-judicial work on the council, which the Government recognise is an important role. Secondly, perhaps we can consider extending pensions beyond executive members. We would be grateful for that.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I should start by setting out what Amendment No. 264—the Government's new clause—attempts to do, which will wrap up some of the concerns expressed during the debate.
The policy in Amendment No. 264 arises from the document Local Leadership, Local Choice, referred to earlier in the debate. There are basically two limbs to the policy; it is proposed, first, that the attendance allowance should be abolished because in many cases it represents a perverse incentive; and, secondly, that there should be other changes, including making the payments to some councillors pensionable, aimed at recognising the role that they play and the expenses they incur.
In order for that to be implemented and to prevent some of the political and internal problems that arise from payment of allowances and pensions, each council is required to establish an independent panel to make its recommendations on allowances and pensionability. Changes to an authority's allowance scheme should only be made after recommendations have been made by such a panel and an authority may only decide that a member's allowance shall be pensionable if that panel so recommends.
198
Furthermore, the amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to issue statutory guidelines to underline those arrangements. The bulk of the policy will be delivered in regulations made under this clause. Those will be detailed arrangements which will need to change from time to time in accordance with the approach under current regulations.
Finally, the amendment clarifies the ability of councils to make payments to councillors who necessarily incur expenditure on the care of children or other dependants in the course of their duties as councillors. I know that that provision will be widely welcomed. It is therefore a whole new system introducing an independent panel, which a number of councils have already adopted, and a new system of defining who shall be paid allowances and what payments shall be pensionable.
In relation to each of the amendments, perhaps I should start with the good news. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, so bowled me over with his enthusiasm for the bicycle that I accept—wearing my integrated transport hat—that there is an injustice in this regard and that we should look at it. I hope he will accept that I will take the matter away and consider how best we can remedy the anomaly. If we were to make a concession in that area, then I hope the noble Lord will consider whether or not it can apply to him.
Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether I can suggest to the Minister—I do not know whether my noble friend made this comment having himself in mind— that, if this amendment were to be incorporated in the Bill, we should make sure it refers to "cycles" rather than "bicycles" because tricycles ought to be the subject of allowances as well.
Lord Whitty: I shall need to take advice on that point. I suspect that there will not be an enormous implication for public expenditure if we relate it to tricycles; nevertheless, we shall need to consider it.
However, I am afraid that I cannot be quite so forthcoming as regards the other amendments in this group. Perhaps I may, first, address Amendment No. 264, which would give the Secretary of State the power to limit the number of councillors in any authority who may receive a special responsibility allowance. I believe that all this will be wrapped up in relation to the independent panel. Without passing judgment on any particular council that has been mentioned, I appreciate that there is an identified problem here in that some authorities seem to pay this allowance to a rather large proportion of their members. I believe that the independent element in the system will take care of such anomalies and potential abuses.
I turn next to the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Graham which relates to parish councils. I take note of some of my noble friend's points in this respect. Of course, a parish council may pay its chair an allowance to meet the expenses of his office and parish councillors are entitled to travel, subsistence and

199
attendance allowance, or financial loss in respect of certain duties, but, as my noble friend said, they are outside of the parish or town council area. We think that there would probably be few cases where there would be serious expenditure considerations, but we will look into the matter. I have to say that the chances of movement in that area are not guaranteed. I shall need to seek further advice on the matter.
As regards Amendment No. 265A, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Committee may recall that the White Paper committed the Government to a review of all current rules on travel and subsistence, as well as on compensation, for co-optees. The Government are attracted to the proposition from the noble Baroness that we should not be in a position to set ceilings for travel and subsistence. We believe that the method of determining allowances should very much be a matter for local decision" based on the independent panel. We need a thorough review, as envisaged by the White Paper. We do not wish to pre-empt that review; but, nevertheless, the objectives of the proposed new clause will be taken care of in that review.
A number of other points were made in relation to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, as regards clarifying where remuneration should be available, and in relation to the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Thornton en the role of remuneration allowances and panels. I believe that the amendment we have already brought forward clarifies much of that area of policy. Nevertheless, with the agreement of noble Lords, I should like to consider further the various points that have been raised in that respect to see whether the powers would permit a rather different policy to be implemented. If the Committee will bear with me, I shall consult certain people on allowances and return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Allowances within councils are a fairly emotive subject, but this is not something that has affected me very directly in recent years. There are some serious problems to be addressed, some of which need to be addressed in our review. I hope that I have said enough to convince the Committee that their particular concerns will be taken care of in the course of that review under the new system. I trust, therefore, that they will not press for changes—
10.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I should like to say that I am grateful for what I would call a glimmer of light and hope in that he is prepared to look at the matter. However, I hope that he will bear in mind the infinitesimal sums of money that the public will bear. As my noble friend Lord Murray said, what we want is the sanction, the right: we want the words that will enable the local council to reimburse people their bus fare. We are not talking about thousands of pounds of allowance and we are not talking about paying massive hotel bills. We are talking about ordinary little
200
people whom we are trying to encourage to run literally their parish council.
I have not had the pleasure of serving on a parish council: mine was the London Borough of Enfield, of which I had to honour to be leader in the 1960s. It is a different world. People who serve on parish councils are entitled to equity and justice. They do not want payments or allowances. They want to be reimbursed for the cost of a bus fare. I am grateful that the Minister is prepared to reconsider the matter. I hope that he will recognise that he could bring enormous satisfaction to thousands of people who at present cannot legally claim their bus fares when attending meetings on behalf of their communities.
Baroness Hanham: I hope that the Minister will answer the question I asked; namely, whether, as members had not contributed to the superannuation pension funds of local authorities, they will be entitled under legislation to receive pensions out of those superannuation funds, which are largely for the staff?
Lord Whitty: It is intended that they would be paid through the local government scheme. Therefore an employer contribution would need to be paid in respect of those individuals who would be pensionable under the new service. It may be helpful if I write 10 the noble Baroness explaining the matter in more detail.
Baroness Hamwee: This is a difficult area. The exchange of views that has just taken place reminds me of the problems that have arisen with regard to the Police Service and the Fire Service where pensions comprise an enormous part of an authority's budget. There are important issues with regard to who has contributed to the pensions which have to be paid.
Much of what the Minister has said is welcome. I am particularly glad that we appear to have made some progress on behalf of those who use cycle transport when carrying out their duties. It seems to me that a number of the points that have been made should be capable of being taken forward without waiting for the review. I refer to the upper limit on expenses in this regard. I shall not ask the Minister to respond to that point now. However, I leave him with the thought that there may be many areas where local authorities resent the interference of central government with regard to issues connected with allowances, expenses and other such matters. To be able to look to central government to take a decision on these matters away from the "heat" of a particular local authority—clearly that would happen under the arrangements which are proposed—would be welcome. If such an arrangement could be put in place quickly, in particular in regard to expenses, that would be welcomed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 264:
Leave out Clause 66 and insert the following new clause—

ALLOWANCES AND PENSIONS FOR CERTAIN LOCAL AUTHORITY MEMBERS
(".—(1) The provision which may be made by regulations under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation of persons employed in local government service etc) includes provision for or in connection with the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of such members of an executive of a local authority as may be prescribed by the regulations.
(2) In subsection (1) "executive" and "local authority" have the same meaning as in Part II of this Act.
(3) Section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) is amended as follows.
(4) At the beginning of subsection (1) there is inserted "Subject to subsection (1A)," and after that subsection there is inserted—
"(1A) In relation to a district council, county council, county borough council or London borough council, subsection (1) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (b)."
(5) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(2A) Regulations under this section may authorise or require a scheme made by a district council, county council, county borough council or London borough council to include provision for the payment to members of the council of allowances in respect of such expenses of arranging for the care of children or dependants as are necessarily incurred in the carrying out of their duties as members."
(6) In subsection (3), for "and (2)" there is substituted "to (2A)".
(7) After subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) Regulations under this section may make provision for or in connection with—

(a) enabling district councils, county councils, county borough councils or London borough councils which are operating executive arrangements to determine which members of the executive are to be entitled to pensions, allowances or gratuities,

(b) treating the basic allowance and the special responsibility allowance as amounts in respect of which such pensions, allowances or gratuities are payable.

(3B) Regulations under this section may make provision for or in connection with requiring every district council, county council, county borough council and London borough council to establish and maintain a panel which is to have such functions in relation to allowances, or pensions, allowances or gratuities, payable to members of the council as may be prescribed by the regulations.
(3C) Regulations under subsection (3B) above may include provision—

(a) with respect to the number of persons who may or must be appointed to the panel of a council,

(b) with respect to the persons who may or must be appointed to the panel of a council,

(c) for or in connection with the appointment by councils of joint panels.

(d) for or in connection with enabling the panel of a council to consider and make recommendations to the council on the level of allowances payable to members of the council,

(e) for or in connection with enabling the panel of a council which is operating executive arrangements to consider, and make recommendations to the council on, which members of the executive are to be entitled to pensions, allowances or gratuities."

(8) In subsection (4), for the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) there is substituted—
"(ba) make provision with respect to the amendment, revocation or replacement of a scheme made by a relevant authority under the regulations, and".
(9) After subsection (5) there is inserted—
"(5A) In making or operating any scheme authorised or required by regulations under this section, a district council, county council, county borough council or London borough council shall have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.
(5B) In this section "executive" and "executive arrangements" have the same meaning as in Part 11 of the Local Government Act 2000."").
[Amendment No. 264A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 264, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 264 agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 265 and 265A not moved.]
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Principles governing conduct of members of relevant authorities]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 266 to 268:
Page 17, line 14, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
Page 17, line 16, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
Page 18, line 6, at end insert—
("(6) In this Part "co-opted member", in relation to a relevant authority, means a person who is not a member of the authority but who—

(a) is a member of any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or

(b) is a member of, and represents the authority on, any joint committee or joint sub-committee of the authority,

and who is entitled to vote on any question which falls to be decided at any meeting of that committee or sub-committee.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Model code of conduct]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 269 to 271:
Page 18, line 8, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
Page 18, line 11, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
Page 18, line 36, after ("concerned") insert ("or the Partnership Council (as the case may be)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Duty of relevant authorities to adopt codes of conduct]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 272 and 273:
Page 18, line 44, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
Page 19, line 16, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 273A:
Page 19, line 23, after ("newspapers") insert (", which may be or include a newspaper published by the authority.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 273A seeks clarification of what is a "newspaper" for the purposes of Clause 36(5). The provision requires a local authority, after adopting or revising a code of conduct, to publish certain matters in a newspaper circulating in its area. My amendment proposes that such a newspaper may include or may be a newspaper published by the authority. In raising this point I am aware of the issues concerning what is proper publication of indicators and reaching performance indicators where local authorities are required to publish details of how they have met certain targets.
It may well be that a local authority newspaper which is delivered free to every household will have a better circulation than a commercial newspaper. In moving the amendment I seek to learn the Government's intention in this matter. I hope that they will feel able, if not to accept the wording, at least to accept the spirit of this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, adoption of the amendment would mean the Bill being amended in order that information regarding the adoption of a code of conduct would be published in a newspaper published by the authority alone. While we would certainly encourage local authorities to circulate their code of conduct through their own publications—the Bill as drafted would not prevent that—we are wary of including an amendment that could reduce the requirement for publication of information on the adoption of a code of conduct solely to a newspaper published by the authority. I can see a position arising where an authority may be tempted to publish even though the circulation of the newspaper is based on membership of the electoral roll. 'That can exclude people who are new to the area and people working in the area and can be limiting.
I should remind the noble Baroness that we are not asking for a large item to be published in a newspaper. We are asking only that information about the code being adopted and where it can be seen is published. In the light of that and the reassurance that there is no need for a specific amendment which requires a local authority to publish information about the availability of the code in one of its own newspapers as well, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I take the point that one has to be careful about using an authority's. own publication, but it seems to me that it is doing no more than meeting a bit of fine print to have a small advertisement in a commercial newspaper which is unlikely to be read by anyone other than its most devoted reader. It might be more effective to have the information published in an authority's own newspaper.
As I was speaking, it occurred to me that there might be a mechanism allowing the standards board to assess the means of publication proposed by an authority. It
204
is not a major issue but one which is worth considering. Perhaps I may leave that thought with the Minister and with myself because it has only just occurred to me. It may be that we can discuss the matter after this stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 19, line 29, at end insert—
("(iii) specifies the address of their principal office, and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Duty to comply with code of conduct]:
[Amendment No. 274A not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 275 to 277:
Page 20, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) A person elected as a member of a relevant authority to which section 83 of that Act does not apply may not act in that office unless he has given the authority a written undertaking that in performing his functions he will observe the authority's existing code of conduct under section 36.").
Page 20, line 15, at end insert ("after a member of the authority has begun to act in that office").
Page 20, line 16, leave out ("each member of the authority") and insert ("he").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 277A not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 278 to 280:
Page 20, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) Any person appointed as a co-opted member of a relevant authority may not act as such unless he has given the authority a written undertaking that in performing his functions he will observe the authority's existing code of conduct under section 36.
( ) Where a relevant authority adopts or revises a code of conduct under section 36 after a co-opted member of the authority has begun to act as such—

(a) he must, before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which the code of conduct is adopted or revised, give to the authority a written undertaking that in performing his functions he will observe the code or revised code, and

(b) if he fails to do so. he is to cease to be a co-opted member of the authority at the end of that period.").

Page 20, line 30, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
Page 20, line 33, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 280A not moved.]
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Standards committees]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 20, line 38, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A),").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 281, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. We want to ensure that the same high standards of conduct apply to all local authority members. Local people must be able to trust their councils to serve them properly. A consistent conduct framework that applies to all levels of local government is vital to achieving this.
Clause 34 lists the relevant authorities to which the general principles, and hence the code of conduct, apply. Parish councils, joint authorities, police authorities, fire authorities, national park authorities and the Broads Authority are included in the list. However, Clause 38 of the Bill, as currently drafted, excludes parish councils and all the other authorities I have listed from the requirement to establish separate standards committees. The original reason for this was to avoid placing an extra administrative financial burden on these relatively small councils.
Amendment No. 282 and the consequential amendments extend the requirement to establish standards committees to all the relevant committees listed in Clause 34 of the Bill. Amendment No. 307 achieves an anomaly whereby the parishes within the framework would not, because of the varying size and character—in England alone there are more than 10,000—and without overburdening themselves be able to set up an arrangement under these proposals.
Amendment No. 307 achieves that by providing that every district council within which parish councils are situated should carry out the functions of a standards committee on their behalf, either within their own committee or within a sub-committee set up specially to consider parish council conduct issues. It must be subject to consultation and agreement with the parishes involved. The amendment further provides that at least one parish member must be present when the committee or sub-committee discusses parish issues.
The final piece of the jigsaw for parish councils is the provision of a monitoring officer. Parishes are not currently required to appoint such officers, but the monitoring officer has an important part to play in the operation of the new ethical framework. Amendments Nos. 361 and 362 therefore provide that the monitoring officer of the appropriate district or unitary council will take on similar functions in relation to parishes in their area. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I wish to refer to Amendment No. 282, which concerns relevant authorities. I ask the Minister a simple question: what consideration have the Government given to the impact of those proposals on police authorities? I chair a police authority and I am a deputy chair of the Association of Police Authorities, so I have something of a vested interest in her answer. I assure the Committee that all police authorities are committed to high standards in public life; in fact, we feel it incumbent on ourselves to set an example because we expect absolute integrity and professionalism from our police services.
206
Police authorities throughout the country greatly welcome the Bill generally. But we are different from other local authorities. We are single service, single purpose authorities and we are independent of local government. Having worked with the Government in that area, we believed that they had listened to our concerns about the excessive bureaucracy that would be created were such measures imposed on us. That is why, when the Bill originally came to the House, it excluded police authorities from the obligation to have standards committees. It was rather a shock to discover that the Government had reversed their position.
My association has made it clear on numerous occasions that we are only too willing to help the Government to reach sensible arrangements to embrace the spirit of the proposals. But the problem may be that proper consultation has not perhaps taken place across government departments. Has the Home Office been consulted on the new move? Equally importantly, the provisions before us do not currently apply to the new Metropolitan Police Authority or even the service authorities for the National Crime Squad, of which I am a member also, or the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Should it not do so?
Furthermore, what about Wales? Responsibility for policing the area has not been devolved to the National Assembly, yet where will Welsh police authorities fit into the framework? I wish to work with the Minister in a positive and constructive way to try to resolve those issues and I offer to put my services at her disposal.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I assure the noble Baroness that the Home Office has been consulted. However, I guarantee and undertake to consider carefully the points that she raised. Amendment No. 282 and the consequential amendments extend the requirements to establish standards committees and, as the noble Baroness says, include the police authorities. Following the consultation that took place, we believe the setting up of standards committees within such authorities as police authorities is unlikely to be as onerous as was originally believed. It would indeed be possible under the legislation as amended for the whole authority, with the addition of an independent member, to act as a standards committee if the authority so decided. If it was felt appropriate, through correspondence or meetings, to continue examining the points of concern raised by the noble Baroness, I should be only too happy to undertake to do so.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I wish to address Amendment No. 307, which is grouped with Amendment No. 281. Why have the Government chosen district councils to operate the standards committees on behalf of parish councils? Having been a member of a parish council, a district council and a county council, I can see why the National Association of Local Councils is worried by the fact that district councils are to be the operators of the standards committees. The functions of district and parish

207
councils are more likely to overlap. In fact, more district councillors are parish councillors than are county councillors. Some districts have devolved certain planning functions to parish councils. Some parish councils have housing allocation rights to social housing within their parishes and district councils may also, through their housing needs register, have a part of that. Such connections are less close with regard to county and district councils.
Planning and housing are probably the two most contentious areas when it comes to interests which should be declared but sometimes are not. Therefore, I believe that the standards committees should operate at county level for the parish councils It should also be remembered that the local associations of local councils are set up on a county-wide and not a district-wide basis. A collection of parishes will have its association on that county-wide basis and therefore it would be a more natural association if the county were the parent standards committee for all of the parishes.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In response to the final point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, it is my understanding that not all parish councils are in membership of the county branches within a particular county area. There can be a very large number of councils within a county area. That would therefore make the task of a committee quite onerous at county council level.
I appreciate the point that has been raised but I would draw attention to the fact that, within a subcommittee set up specifically to consider parish council conduct issues—that has to be subject to consultation and agreement with parish councils—it would be possible to have regard to the concerns that were raised. Close functional links are helpful, not unhelpful, in many ways. There can be a problem with counties. For example, in north Yorkshire there are almost 900 parish councils. We accept that a degree of co-operation will be needed between districts and their parishes to make the provision work smoothly.
I shall consider carefully the points raised by the noble Baroness. However, I do not say that in the context of believing that we would wish to change our position on this matter.
Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may add my voice to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I have been in contact with local councils serving both towns and the country. They state clearly that they are concerned about the direct link to district councils. But I am somewhat relieved by what the Minister has just said. Therefore, I shall save my remarks until I have had a chance to read Hansard and then may come back to this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 282 to 287:
Page 20, line 38, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 20, line 40, leave out ("section 39") and insert ("this Part").
208
Page 20, line 40, at end insert—
("(1A) Subsection ( 1) does not apply to a parish council or community council.").
Page 20, line 41, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 20, line 43, leave out ("subsection (5)(a))") and insert ("any provision made by virtue of subsection (5)(a) or (6)(a))").
Page 20, line 44, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
On Question, amendments agreed to,
11 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 287A:
Page 21, line I, leave out ("one person who is not a member, or an officer,") and insert ("a majority of persons who are not members or officers").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to standards committees. The Bill provides that a standards committee must include,
"at least two members of the authority, and … at least one person who is not a member, or an officer, of that or any other local authority".
The amendment suggests that that balance may not be appropriate.
The possibility of the majority of the committee being members of an authority may not be right. The amendment proposes that, rather than have a single person who is "independent"—I use the term as shorthand—adequately fulfilling the provision, it would be more appropriate to have a majority of people who are not members or officers.
It is important not only that standards committees operate properly—using the term to mean "with propriety"—but that they are seen to achieve the job that they set out to do. There should be no suggestion that, because the committees include members of an authority, they are almost by definition and from the outset tainted. It might be more appropriate to show the world that the standards committee has a majority of independent members who do not have the kind of vested interests that the public might regard members of the authority as having. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: I am minded that the provisions relating to the standards board and the adjudication panel have changed considerably since the publication of the draft Bill. In the draft Bill the board was very much concerned with investigating individual cases of misconduct. Under the Bill as it now stands the board has a wider remit to consider a range of guidance-making powers and will administer the adjudication process as well as overseeing investigations into misconduct as originally intended.
In those circumstances, I wonder whether the wider remit that is now given to the board under the terms of the Bill might benefit from the setting out of some over-arching or guiding purpose to inform its work, or to ensure that it pays due regard to the wider responsibilities conferred on it. That might be a way of introducing a broad purpose or function for the board, perhaps to uphold the principles of conduct set out under Clause 34.
Lord Whitty: In relation to the noble Lord's last point, it is true that some of the functions of the

209
standards board have changed. Consideration of its over-arching objectives may well be appropriate. Perhaps I may take the matter away and return to noble Lords on that point.
Our approach in the Bill is to provide as much flexibility as possible at local level. Therefore, the provisions on the face of the Bill and the regulations would provide for a wide range of circumstances with minimum criteria on membership, which would prevent, for example, a mayor being elected or an executive member chairing a committee, and provide for at least one independent member. It does not preclude a majority of independent members. However, we felt that in this area it would be appropriate to leave the exact composition of the standards committee to local circumstances. There are sufficient safeguards in the provisions as a whole to ensure that councils are guided in a reasonable way but retain choice as to the precise composition. The Secretary of State has power to make regulations in this area, although our preferred approach is not to be too prescriptive. We shall review the matter in the light of experience. If it proves necessary to be more prescriptive in relation to the number of independent members, we shall do so by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: The Government do not want to be too prescriptive but have prescribed that the standards committee should include at least two members of the local authority and one person who is not. If the Government want to leave it to each authority, possibly under some kind of overarching guidance from the standards board as the Minister suggested, the logic of it is that this provision merely requires one member of the authority and one independent member. I am at a loss to understand that approach. The words used by the Minister do not appear to be reflected in the provisions of the Bill that the Committee is asked to address.
Nor is it appropriate—the Minister draws my attention to this matter—that under subsection (3) there is a requirement as to the composition of a standards committee and in subsection (5) the Secretary of State may make regulations for the composition of standards committees. I had initially read it as meaning that the regulations to be made under subsection (5) could not override the primary legislation in subsection (3).
I end by being more rather than less concerned. However, this is not an area in which we seek to lock horns with the Government. By and large, we support this part of the Bill, but it is important that the details are correct. I do not pursue the point at this moment, but I invite the noble Lord to reflect on whether the answer that he has given is supported by the words that the Committee is being asked to agree.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may seek to clarify the matter. The ability to make regulations does not
210
override the provisions on the face of the Bill which are the minima. The Secretary of State can make more substantial regulations.
Baroness Hamwee: One supposes that the Secretary of State could reverse the balance between members of the authority and independent members, which I sought to do. I believe that to have that balance on the face of the Bill is a more straightforward approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 288 to 292:
Page 21, line 2, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 21, line 3, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 21, line 8, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 21, line 16, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 21, line 20, leave out from second ("or) to end of line 21 and insert ("such committees").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 293:
Page 21, line 21, at end insert—
("(6A) The Standards Board for England—

(a) may issue guidance with respect to the size and composition of standards committees of local authorities in England, and

(b) must send a copy of any such guidance to the Secretary of State.

(6B) The Standards Board for Wales—

(a) may issue guidance with respect to the size and composition of standards committees of local authorities in Wales, and

(b) must send a copy of any such guidance to the National Assembly for Wales.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 293 is part of a separate group and I speak briefly to it. This amendment is concerned with part of the provisions that deal with the standards board. In addition to investigating breaches of codes of conduct, we envisage that the standards board will have an important role in best practice, to which my noble friend Lord Filkin has just referred. The power to issue guidance on the size and composition of standards committees is part of that role. Once the basic framework is in force the standards board will be able to issue further guidance, for example on the details of the appointments process for independent members, suitable membership balance and so on. This is guidance short of regulation, as we debated in the context of a previous amendment. The Secretary of State will still be able to make regulations, but the standards board can issue guidance in this area.
The other two amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 310 and 313, serve to clarify that the standards board may publish any guidance it issues on the conduct of members. That guidance may be issued to an individual authority, a group of authorities or local authorities generally. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 294 to 296:
Page 21, line 22, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 21, line 24, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 21, line 29, leave out subsection (9).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): I understand that by pre-emption, with Amendment No. 296 agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 296A.
[Amendment No. 296A not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297:
Page 21, line 38, after ("committee") insert ("of a relevant authority").—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 297A:
Page 21, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section has the effect of abolishing existing parish council power; and delegated functions.").
The noble Baroness said: We on this side of the Chamber have been concerned by reports that the Secretary of State at the DETR has ambitions to abolish all 10,000 parish councils in England. The noble Lord, Lord Graham—he is no longer in his place— touched on the issue when using the phrase "if' they were allowed to continue. He, therefore, has heard rumblings.
The matter was first reported in October of last year and reiterated on 23rd January this year in a Sunday Express article headed "Parish Councils face axe". Some 10,000 parish councils cover hamlets, small villages, large villages and towns as big as Hereford, Lichfield and Weston-Super-Mare. Together they are responsible for some 15.8 million people and are a working example of devolution at the lowest possible level.
The fact that this Bill carries no reference to parish councils has alarmed citizens throughout the country. It has attracted cynosure from no less a body than the National Association of Local Councils, to which we referred earlier. Their influence may have permeated the corridors of power, as I note that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has tabled a lengthy and related amendment.
Mr Meacher stated that Her Majesty's Government are more in favour of neighbourhood fora than parish councils. However, I have difficulty in embracing the concept of a code of conduct being applied to a talking shop. Presumably that is why neighbourhood fora are not covered in Bill. If the principle of local acceptance of local responsibility has any importance in this Government's scheme of things, the Minister must accept that parish councils play a vital role, particularly in rural affairs. Those who live in the countryside are subject to the same law, statutes and— alas, sometimes—European directives as those who dwell in large towns and cities.
Codes of conduct are all the rage at the moment and may turn out to be shortlasting, but to exclude parish councils from this clause implies that someone feels the latter are of no value. Perhaps the Minister, especially in the light of Amendment No. 307—we touched on it a little earlier—will interpret Mr Meacher's pronouncements for us. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that we are even more concerned by the rumours in such papers as the Sunday Express, to which she referred, knowing them to be false and knowing that the Government have absolutely no such plans. The fact that during the course of legislation parish councils have been treated differently with regard to standards committees is a recognition that they are different, not that they are of no value or in any way less important. I assure the noble Baroness from my background of the very rural county of Lancashire that I am fully aware of the nature of the role fulfilled by parish councils.
Clause 38 of the Bill sets out the requirements for local authorities to establish a standards committee. Amendment No. 297A would add a new subsection at the end of the clause specifying that nothing in that section would abolish any existing parish council powers or delegated functions. I should like to reassure the noble Baroness that in introducing a new ethical framework for local government we have no intention to reduce or abolish the powers of parish councils or the functions delegated to them. There is certainly no such suggestion in Clause 38 but I recognise that it does not make suitable provision for standards committees for parish councils—which was the reason for tabling Amendment No. 307, which sets out the detailed arrangements. Amendment No. 297A is therefore not required and I beg the noble Baroness to withdraw it. I hope that she will join me in making sure in future that the Sunday Express and other newspapers are properly informed of Government policy.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her robust reply. I obviously read the newspapers and sometimes treat stories with great scepticism, but it is important to clarify the matter in respect of not only that but other articles. At a fringe meeting attended by Mr. Meacher at last year's Labour Party conference, such views were expressed and discussed.
Earlier, I said that my amendment was probably not in the right place. It was difficult to find the correct location, so I am grateful to the Minister for her tolerant response. Many amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, respond to conversations with local councils, for which I am grateful. When the Bill was published, it did not give that recognition— which was the theme of my amendment. I heard the Minister's reply and will certainly read Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
Clause 39 [Functions of standards committees]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 298 to 302:
Page 21, line 41, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 21, line 44, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
Page 22, line 1, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
Page 22, line 4, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 22, line 8, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 303:
Page 22, line 9, leave out from ("conduct") to end of line 10.
The noble Lord said: The Bill provides for ethical standards officers to determine whether a case should be referred to an authority's standards committee. Amendments Nos. 328 and 335 change that, so the ethical standards officer will instead refer a case to the authority's monitoring officer. Under the new ethical framework, the monitoring officer will have responsibility for probity within the authority, including the provision of support to the standards committee—and so will be the person best placed to handle issues raised by the standards board.
Amendment No. 373 amends Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to ensure that the chief executive is not appointed as the authority's monitoring officer, for obvious reasons. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 304 to 306:
Page 22, line 11, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 22, line 14, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 22, line 17, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 307:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—

STANDARDS COMMITTEES OR SUB-COMMITTEES FOR PARISH COUNCILS
(".—(l) A standards committee of a district council is to have the same functions in relation to—

(a) the parish councils for which the district council are the responsible authority, and

(b) the members of those parish councils,

as the standards committee has under section 39(1) and (2) in relation to the district council and the members of the district council.
(2) A standards committee of a unitary county council is to have the same functions in relation to—

(a) the parish councils for which the county council are the responsible authority, and

(b) the members of those parish councils,

as the standards committee has under section 39(1) and (2) in relation to the county council and the members of the county council.
(3) A standards committee of a district council or unitary county council may appoint a sub-committee for the purpose of discharging all of the functions conferred on the standards committee by this section.
(4) In deciding whether it will be their standards committee, or a sub-committee of their standards committee, which is to discharge the functions conferred by this section, a district council or unitary county council must consult the parish councils for which they are the responsible authority.
(5) The number of members of a sub-committee of a standards committee of a district council or unitary county council, and the terms of office of those members, are to be fixed by the standards committee after consultation with the parish councils for which the district council or unitary county council arc the responsible authority.
(6) Where the standards committee of a district council or unitary county council discharges the functions conferred by this section, the standards committee—

(a) must include at least one member of any of the parish councils for which the district council or unitary county council are the responsible authority, and

(b) must ensure that at least one person falling within paragraph (a) is present at any meeting of the committee when matters relating to those parish councils, or the members of those parish councils, are being considered.

(7) Where a sub-committee of the standards committee of a district council or unitary county council discharges the functions conferred by this section, the sub-committee must include—

(a) at least one member of the standards committee who falls within section 38(3)(b), and

(b) at least one member of any of the parish councils for which the district council or unitary county council are the responsible authority.

(8) Regulations under section 38(5)(a) and (c) may make provision in relation to sub-committees appointed under this section, and regulations under section 38(5)(b) may make provision as to the appointment of persons falling within subsection (6)(a) or (7)(a) or (b) of this section.
(9) Subsections (6A), (7), (8) and (10) of section 38 apply in relation to sub-committees of standards committees appointed under this section as they apply in relation to standards committees.
(10) Subsections (4) and (6) of section 39 apply in relation to sub-committees of standards committees appointed under this section as they apply in relation to standards committees.
(11) In relation to a parish council, any reference in the following provisions of this Part to the standards committee of a relevant authority is a reference—

(a) to the standards committee of the district council or unitary county council which is the responsible authority in relation to the parish council, or

(b) where that standards committee has appointed a subcommittee under this section, to that sub-committee.

(12) A district council or unitary county council is the responsible authority—

(a) in relation to a parish council which is not a common parish council, if the parish is situated within the area of the district council or county council,

(b) in relation to a parish council which is a common parish council—

(i) if the parishes in the group are wholly situated within that area, or

(ii) where that is not the case, if the greatest number of local government electors for the parishes in the group is situated in that area.

(13) In this section "unitary county council" means the council of a county in which there are no district councils.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Standards Boards]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 308 to 313:
Page 22, line 37, al. end insert ("under this. subsection").
Page 22, line 42, leave out ("their members") and insert ("the members and co-opted members of such authorities").
Page 22, line 42, at end insert (", and
(c) may arrange for any such guidance to be made public"). Page 22, line 45, al end insert ("under this subsection").
Page 23, line 5, leave out ("their members") and insert ("the members and co-opted members of such authorities").
Page 23, line 5, at end insert (", and
(c) may arrange for any guidance so issued to be made public").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Standards Boards]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 314:
Page 46, line 23, leave out from ("person") to ("an") and insert ("may not be employed as").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 314A:
Page 46, line 26, after ("is") insert ("or has within the previous three years been").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 314A and I shall not yield to the temptation to say, "moved formally". Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 sets out certain disqualifications to being appointed as a member of a standards board. Those include being a member or an officer of a local authority. The amendment seek; to extend the disqualification to include membership or having been an officer within the previous three years. I take the point that it would be inappropriate for a current member or officer to serve on a standards board. Obviously there might be conflicts of interest and criteria must be laid down that will enable the public to know that the right thing is not only being done but is being seen to be done. I believe that that should include recent past membership or postholding.
One carries one's personal baggage, but it diminishes in size as time goes on. Nevertheless, recent membership might give an individual a particular slant on affairs which would not be appropriate for a member of a standards board. In particular, I believe that the public would expect to see those with recent local authority membership being disqualified.
Lord Whitty: The Government feel that personal baggage can be positive as well as negative and that the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness would be unduly restrictive. The problems she envisages have already been provided for in Clause 43(3), which states that an ESO cannot conduct an investigation in relation to a member of an authority if within the past five years that ESO has been a member of an authority. Clause 43(4) provides that an ESO who is directly or indirectly interested in any matter likely to be the subject of an investigation must disclose that interest to the standards board and must not take part in the
216
investigation. Therefore, the issue of abuse is already covered. I believe that it will be unduly restrictive to exclude anyone who has had recent experience of membership or employment by a local authority from the possibility of being appointed an ESO. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that.
Baroness Hamwee: I was not seeking to deal with a particular interest or involvement. Of course, I accept what the Minister said, but it does not address the point that I was making. I believe that a little gap gives greater objectivity. However, that is another point of disagreement between ourselves and the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 315 to 319:
Page 46, line 27, leave out ("(by co-option) of a committee") and insert ("of a committee, sub-committee, joint committee or joint sub-committee").
Page 47, line 20, leave out ("case").
Page 47, line 23, leave out ("case").
Page 47, line 27, leave out ("case).
Page 47, line 41, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("National Assembly for Wales").
Page 48, line 36, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
Page 48, line 36, leave out ("(or a member by co-option of a committee)").
Page 48, line 37, at end insert ("or
(b) a member of a committee, sub-committee, joint committee or joint sub-committee of that authority").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Written allegations]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 320 to 323:
Page 23, line 9, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
Page 23, line 10, leave out first ("have") and insert ("has").
Page 23, line 16, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
Page 23, line 16, leave out ("have") and insert ("has").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 323A not moved.]
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Functions of ethical standards officers]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 324 to 329A:
Page 23, line 26, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
Page 23, line 26, leave out ("have") and insert ("has").
Page 23, line 34, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
Page 23, line 34, leave out first ("have") and insert ("has").
Page 24, line 4, leave out ("standards committee") and insert ("monitoring officer").
Page 24, line 7, after ("referred") insert ("to").
Page 24, line 8, leave out ("case").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 329B:
Page 24, line 8, at end insert ("falling within section 50(1)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 329B and the other amendments referred to in this group. The Committee will recall that Part III was fortunate to be considered in draft by the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. One of the recommendations of that committee was that the power of interim suspension currently vested in the ethical standards officer should be reserved to the adjudication panel, where appropriate, on application from the ESO. Government Amendment No. 329B and the amendments grouped with it give effect to that recommendation, making consequential amendments to the Bill where necessary. I commend this group of amendments which implement the Joint Committee's recommendations.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Conduct of investigations]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 330:
Page 24, line 11, after ("member") insert ("or co-opted member").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 330A:
Page 24, line 14, at end insert—
("(2A) An ethical standards officer to whom an investigation under section 42 is assigned may—

(a) cease the investigation at any stage before its completion, and

(b) refer the matters which are the subject of the investigation to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 330A and 344C concern the referral of cases from the ethical standards officer (ESO) of the standards board to the monitoring officer of the local authority and the action that a local authority may take on them. As Members of the Committee know, we agree with many of the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in his report—the third report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. However, we have decided to go further than that report by establishing external independent investigation and adjudication. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, envisaged, we have assigned important roles to local authorities, through the adoption of codes of conduct and the establishment of standards committees. The draft Bill published in March did not, however, assign a role to local authorities in dealing with individual cases.
That issue was considered by the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and we are grateful for that consideration. The committee recommended that a,
"power of temporary exclusion of members of the authority—perhaps for a period of up to four weeks—be given to the local standards committee".
In their response to the Joint Committee, the Government accepted that there may be occasions when standards committees would wish to impose penalties on councillors but recognised that before conferring such powers, they would have to be assured that they would be exercised fairly and responsibly and dovetail with the statutory powers conferred on the adjudication panel.
Because it will be for the standards committees to establish their credentials within their councils before becoming involved in what are potentially more controversial matters and, as we pointed out in our Joint Committee response, we need to be confident that an authority's procedures are robust and fair, the provisions in these amendments will enable the role played by the standards committees to grow as the system evolves. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 331:
Page 24, line 16, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 331A and 331B not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 332:
Page 24, line 19, leave out ("(by co-option) of a committee") and insert ("of any committee or sub-committee").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Investigations: further provisions]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 333 and 334:
Page 25, line 12, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
Page 25, line 27, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 334A:
Page 26, line 32, leave out ("case").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 334B:
Page 26, line 40. leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 41.
The noble Baroness said: I am rather reluctant to do anything for the convenience of the Committee because I have a personal feeling—and I speak only for myself—that we are failing to do justice to some of the amendments, no doubt because there are some Members of this Committee who simply want to get to the end of the Bill.
However, as it may be for the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No, 334C because the amendments deal with the same or a related point.
Clause 46 deals with restrictions on the disclosure of information and Clause 46(1)(d) allows information to be disclosed if it is,
"for the purposes of criminal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom and the information in question was not obtained under section 45(2)".
My two amendments deal with that paragraph. They suggest, first, that we exclude the reference to information not being obtained under Section 45(2) and, secondly, provide that if the disclosure is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction—which I readily accept may be more contractual language than parliamentary but nevertheless serves the purpose—that information should be disclosed.
In particular, I seek to understand the position of the information in connection with civil proceedings. Is information not to be made available for civil proceedings, or is it for criminal proceedings only if it is obtained in certain circumstances?
I am concerned about the restrictions contained within the section, which on the face of it seems to be lifting restriction;. I wonder how that fits into the slightly wider schmie of things. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I understand the apparent attractions of this amendment. We certainly expect the standards board and its ethical standards officers to co-operate with the police as far as is practical. They have wide powers to collect information. In addition to their rights of access to all relevant documents, they may make whatever inquiries they think appropriate and require whatever information or explanation they think necessary. That may require someone to attend before them.
The Bill obliges individuals to comply with the requests from ESOs for information. If they do not comply, they may well be found guilty of a criminal offence. We believe that ESOs should have those powers. However, having those powers also means that we need to make them compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 of that convention provides the right for a fair trial. The recent judgment in the case of Saunders v UK ruled that some of the basic components of that are the right to silence and the right not to incriminate yourself. In the transfer of documents, one could find oneself in that territory.
It would not therefore be correct for the Bill to compel someone to provide information which might then directly be used to incriminate them in a criminal prosecution. That could breach the individual's rights to silence and prejudice a criminal prosecution.
If people are to be compelled to give evidence to an ESO, we need to ensure that that evidence cannot then be used in a criminal prosecution. We therefore believe that the amendment is flawed in that respect. I assure the Committee that that would not hamper subsequent criminal proceedings. Documents collected by the ESO could be shared, but it would be for the police to collect their own witness statements and not for the ESOs to pass them on.
220
As regards Amendment No. 334C, we have included the restrictions in Clause 46 simply to protect individuals from the inappropriate disclosure of sensitive material. I am sure that the noble Baroness and the Committee will agree that we must be careful not to prejudice the ESOs' function of investigating allegations of misconduct. As such, access to information held should not undermine the investigation or punishment of breaches of the code. We are concerned that if information could be released for purposes other than those currently listed, that could happen. That may simply be because the information is released earlier than is helpful giving a councillor under investigation the opportunity to destroy related evidence, for example. In such cases it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the information.
The amendment, as it stands, would allow for anyone to seek a court order for the release of the information held. That could create obvious problems in the disclosure of confidential and personal information, much of which would be vital to an investigation and would be subject to the need to retain control of that information until the investigation is concluded. It would also allow for the disclosure of sensitive information which, although collected during the course of an investigation, would have no bearing on the final result.
The amendment, as drafted, would override the other provisions of Clause 46 and would therefore remove these protections, and we could not accept it.
Baroness Hamwee: Those comments are helpful. It is a difficult area. I was going to say that it is a technical area, but it is much more than that.
It occurs to me that I might take a little further advice on this matter and the obvious person from whom to take advice—I am sure that the Minister will regard this as helpful and not a threat—is my noble friend Lord Lester. That is not for this evening. I shall look at the matter again but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 334C not moved.]
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 [Reports]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment Nos. 335 to 337:
Page 27, line 40, leave out ("standards committee") and insert ("monitoring officer").
Page 28, line 3, leave out ("case").
Page 28, line 3, after ("tribunal") insert ("falling within section 50(1)").
Page 28, line 8, leave out ("a member or") and insert ("any members or co-opted").
Page 28, line 11, after ("member") insert ("or co-opted member").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 335 to 337 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Interim reports]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 338:
Page 28, line 18, leave out ("or on their behalf").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 338 is a technical amendment to achieve our intention that ethical standards officers—ESOs—should have full responsibility for the conduct of investigations into allegations of councillor misconduct. In order to ensure that the function of conducting the investigation, and therefore responsibility for it, remains with the ESO, the Government are advised that it is necessary to make a technical amendment to remove the words, "on their behalf" from the draft Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 339 to 340A:
Page 28, line 20, leave out ("a member or") and insert ("any members or co-opted").
Page 28, line 27, leave out ("52(3)(b)") and insert ("52(3A)(b) or (3B)(b)").
Page 28, line 29, leave out ("conclude") and insert ("include a recommendation").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 339 to 340A en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 340B:
Page 28, line 29, after ("suspended") insert ("or partially suspended").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 340B I shall speak also to the related amendments. Amendment No. 340B deals with the provisions in relation to the extent of suspensions but the substantive amendment is Amendment No. 347 and I shall speak primarily to that.
The Bill currently provides that a case tribunal may suspend a councillor from being a member of an authority or from any committee or sub-committee of an authority. In addition, Amendment No. 347 would enable the case tribunal to suspend the councillor from the executive or any other bodies on which they serve in their capacity as councillor, such as, for example, a school governor or local authority company.
It is important that in making its recommendations the case tribunal has as many options as possible at its disposal. The tribunal must be able to impose the penalty best suited to a particular breach of the code. In certain circumstances it may be felt necessary to suspend the councillor from the whole council but it is conceivable that for many breaches suspensions from individual activities, such as membership of a planning committee or a scrutiny committee, would be more appropriate. We do not want to tie the hands of the tribunal so that it is limited in the number of choices it may make.
Amendment No. 347 is the substantive amendment. The other amendments effectively carry it through. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 341 to 344B:
Page 28, line 30, after ("member") insert ("or co-opted member").
Page 28, line 30, leave out from second ("authority") to end of line 31.

Page 28, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) The period of suspension or partial suspension which may be recommended under subsection (3) must not exceed six months or (if shorter) the remainder of the person's term of office.").
Page 28, line 32, after ("Where") insert ("an ethical standards officer produces").
Page 28, line 32, after ("section") insert ("which").
Page 28, line 32, leave out ("conclusion") and insert ("recommendation").
Page 28, line 33, leave out from ("(3)") to end of line 46 and insert ("he must refer the matters which are the subject of the report to the president of the relevant Adjudication Panel for adjudication by a tribunal falling within section 50(1A).").
Page 29, line 1, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").
Page 29, line 2, after ("member") insert ("or co-opted member").
Page 29, line 4, at end insert ("and
( ) to the president of the relevant Adjudication Panel."). Page 29, line 5, leave out subsections (10) and (11) and insert—
("(10A) Any reference in this Part to a person being partially suspended from being a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority is a reference to a person being prevented from exercising particular functions or having particular responsibilities as such a member or co-opted member.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 341 to 344B en bloc. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I can ask the Minister to explain the thinking behind Amendment No. 342A relating to the period of suspension or partial suspension. The Government have clearly gone through a thought process in arriving at this proposal. Perhaps in two sentences the Minister could share it with the Committee.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: This was dealt with when we discussed Amendment No. 329B. I referred to the matter in that context. I believe that the noble Baroness said then that she would need to consider my comments. Amendment No. 342A refers to a,
"period of suspension or partial suspension which … must not exceed six months".
I think I had better beg the indulgence of the Committee and that of the noble Baroness and say that I shall write to her on this particular proposition.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 343 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 344C:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—

MATTERS REFERRED TO MONITORING OFFICERS
(".—(l) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to the way in which any matters referred to the monitoring officer of a relevant authority—

(a) under section 43(2A), or

(b)as a result of a finding under section 42(5)(c), are to be dealt with.—

(2) The provision which may be made by regulations under subsection (1) includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) enabling a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to conduct an investigation in respect of any matters referred to him,

(b) enabling a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to make a report, or recommendations, to the standards committee of the authority in respect of any matters referred to him.

(c) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to consider any report or recommendations made to it by a monitoring officer of the authority (including provision with respect to the procedure to be followed by the standards committee),

(d) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority, following its consideration of any such report or recommendations, to take any action prescribed by the regulations (including action against any member or co-opted member of the authority who is the subject of any such report or recommendation).

(3) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(a) includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) conferring powers on a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to enable him to conduct an investigation in respect of any matters referred to him,

(b) conferring rights (including the right to make representations) on any member or co-opted member of a relevant authority who is the subject of any such investigation.

(4) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(d) includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to censure a member or co-opted member of the authority,

(b) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to suspend or partially suspend a person from being a member or co-opted member of the authority for a limited period,

(c) conferring a right of appeal on a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority in respect of any action taken against him.

(5) Nothing in subsection (2), (3) or (4) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).
(6) An ethical standards officer who refers any matters to the monitoring officer of a relevant authority—

(a) under section 43(2A), or

(b) as a result of a finding under section 42(5)(c),

may give directions to the monitoring officer as to the way in which those matters are to he dealt with.
(7) In its application to Wales, subsection (1) is to have effect as if for the reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Adjudication Panels]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 344D to 344L:
Page 29, fine 14, leave out ("case").
224
Page 29, line 14, at end insert ("drawn from the Panel").
Page 29, line 16, leave out ("case").
Page 29, line 16, at end insert ("drawn from the Panel").
Page 29, line 33, leave out ("case").
Page 29, line 33, after ("tribunals") insert ("drawn from the Panel").
Page 29, line 37, leave out ("case").
Page 29, line 37, after ("tribunals") insert ("drawn from the Panel").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Case Tribunals]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 344M to 346C:
Page 29, line 40, leave out ("for adjudication") and insert ("under section 47(3)").
Page 29, line 42, at end insert—
("(1A) Adjudications in respect of matters referred to the president of the relevant Adjudication Panel under section 48(4) are to be conducted by tribunals (referred to in this Part as interim case tribunals) consisting of not less than three members of the Panel.").
Page 30, line 2, at end insert ("or interim case tribunal").
Page 30, line 5, leave out ("for adjudication") and insert ("under section 47(3)").
Page 30, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) An interim case tribunal drawn from the relevant Adjudication Panel may conduct a single adjudication in relation to two or more matters which are referred to the president of the Panel under section 48(4).").
Page 30, line 7, after ("tribunal") insert ("or interim case tribunal").
Page 30, line 9, after ("tribunal") insert ("or interim case tribunal").
Page 30, line 10, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").

Page 30, line 12, leave out ("(by co-option) of a committee") and insert ("of any committee, sub-committee, joint committee or joint sub-committee").
Page 30, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) A person who is a member of an interim case tribunal which, as a result of an investigation under section 42. conducts an adjudication in relation to any person may not be a member of a case tribunal which, on the conclusion of that investigation, subsequently conducts an adjudication in relation to that person.").
Page 30, line 15, after ("tribunals") insert ("or interim case tribunals").
Page 30, line 18, after ("tribunals") insert ("or interim case tribunals").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Adjudications by case tribunals]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 346D to 346K:
Page 30, line 22, after first ("tribunal") insert ("or interim case tribunal").
Page 30, line 27, after ("tribunals") insert ("or interim case tribunals").
Page 30, line 30, after ("tribunals") insert ("or interim case tribunals").
Page 30, line 33, after ("attend") insert ("adjudications")
Page 30, line 38, leave out ("conducted by a case tribunal").

225
Page 30, line 40, leave out ("to a case tribunal").
Page 31, line 3, leave out ("case").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 346L:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—

DECISIONS OF INTERIM CASE TRIBUNALS
(".—(1) An interim case tribunal which adjudicates on any matters which are the subject of an interim report must reach one of the following decisions—

(a) that the person to whom the recommendation mentioned in section 48(3) relates should not be suspended or partially suspended from being a member or co-opted member of the relevant authority concerned,

(b) that that person should be suspended or partially suspended from being a member or co-opted member of the authority concerned in the way and for the period recommended in the report, or

(c) that that person should be suspended or partially suspended from being a member or co-opted member of the authority concerned in a different way or for a different period from that recommended in the report.

(2) The period mentioned in subsection (1)(c) must not exceed six months or (if shorter) the remainder of the person's term of office.
(3) An interim case tribunal must give notice of its decision to the standards committee of the relevant authority concerned.
(4) If the decision of an interim case tribunal is that a person should be suspended or partially suspended from being a member or co-opted member of the relevant authority concerned-

(a) the notice must specify the date on which the suspension or partial suspension is to begin, and

(b) the relevant authority must suspend or partially suspend the person in accordance with the notice.

(5) A decision of an interim case tribunal under this section shall not prevent an ethical standards officer from continuing with the investigation under section 42 which gave rise to the interim report concerned and producing a report under section 47, or a further interim report under section 48, in respect of any matters which are the subject of the investigation.
(6) The suspension or partial suspension of any person under this section shall cease to have effect on the day that a notice under section 52 is given to the standards committee of the relevant authority concerned with respect to that person.
(7) A copy of any notice under this section must be given—

(a) to any member or co-opted member of the relevant authority concerned who is the subject of the notice, and

(b) to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned.

(8) An interim case tribunal must take reasonable steps to inform any person who made any allegation which gave rise to the investigation under section 42 of its decision under this section.
(9) A person who is suspended or partially suspended under this section may appeal to the High Court—

(a) against the suspension or partial suspension. or

(b) against the length of the suspension.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Decisions of case tribunals]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 346M to 357:
Page 31, line I L leave out ("is to adjudicate") and insert ("adjudicates").
Page 31, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("member") in line 23 and insert ("suspended or disqualified in accordance with subsection (3A) or (3B).
(3A) A member of a relevant authority may be—

(a)suspended—

(i) from exercising particular functions as a member of the authority, or

(ii) from being a member of the authority, or

(b) disqualified for being, or being elected or appointed, a member or co-opted member of that or any other relevant authority.

(3B) A co-opted member of a relevant authority may be—

(a) suspended from being a co-opted member of that authority, or)

(b) disqualified for being, or being elected or appointed. a member or co-opted").

Page 31, line 26, leave out ("(3)(a).") and insert ("(3A)(a) or (3B)(a),").
Page 31, line 30, leave out ("(3)(b),") and insert ("(3A)(b) or (3B)(b),").
Page 31, line 34, leave out ("(3),") and insert ("(3A) or (3B),").
Page 31, line 41, leave out ("(3)(a).") and insert ("(3A )(a ) or (3B)(a),").
Page 32, line 1, leave out from ("authority") to ("for") in line 3.
Page 32, line 3, after ("period") insert (", and to the extent,").
Page 32, line 9, leave out ("(3)(b),") and insert ("(3A)(b) or (3B)(b),").
Page 32, line 14, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 32, line 14, after ("elected") insert ("or appointed").
Page 32, line 15, after ("member") insert ("or co-opted member").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before midnight.

  Deaths in Police Custody: Proceedings
  Deaths in Police Custody: Proceedings
  Hedgerows
  Hedgerows
  Lead Shot Restriction: Enforcement of Regulations
  Lead Shot Restriction: Enforcement of Regulations
  Lead Shot Restriction, Scotland and Wales
  Lead Shot Restriction, Scotland and Wales
  London Underground: Performance Targets
  London Underground: Performance Targets
  Commercial Pilots: Age Limit
  Commercial Pilots: Age Limit
  Train Operating Companies: Response to Complaint
  Train Operating Companies: Response to Complaint
  Touting by Unlicensed Taxi Drivers
  Touting by Unlicensed Taxi Drivers
  Mobile Phone Use on Public Transport
  Mobile Phone Use on Public Transport
  Heathrow: Take-off Statistics
  Heathrow: Take-off Statistics
  Visual Arts: Support for Contemporary Work
  Visual Arts: Support for Contemporary Work
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Short-term Working Groups
  Short-term Working Groups
  Knowledge Network System
  Knowledge Network System
  Apiculture Council, 24 and 25 January
  Apiculture Council, 24 and 25 January
  Pig Offal Exports
  Pig Offal Exports
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips
  Brittany: Pesticide Levels in Drinking Water
  Brittany: Pesticide Levels in Drinking Water
  Northern Ireland Act 1998: Section 75 Designations
  Northern Ireland Act 1998: Section 75 Designations
  Garda Siochana and RUC: Members' Religious Affiliations
  Garda Siochana and RUC: Members' Religious Affiliations
  Irish Population: Religious Affiliations
  Irish Population: Religious Affiliations
  Côte d'Ivoire: Coup
  Côte d'Ivoire: Coup
  Commonwealth Institute
  Commonwealth Institute
  GCHQ: Compensation to Former Employees
  GCHQ: Compensation to Former Employees
  DSS Staff: Assistance to Scottish and Welsh Administrations
  DSS Staff: Assistance to Scottish and Welsh Administrations
  EU Member States: Human Rights and Armed Forces Discipline
  EU Member States: Human Rights and Armed Forces Discipline
  Chinook Fleet: Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorders
  Chinook Fleet: Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorders
  Armed Forces: Premature Voluntary Retirement Applications
  Armed Forces: Premature Voluntary Retirement Applications
  Defence Medical Services: Medical Consultants
  Defence Medical Services: Medical Consultants
  Mr Mike Tyson's Entourage: Leave to Enter UK
  Mr Mike Tyson's Entourage: Leave to Enter UK
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Police Officers: Injuries
  Police Officers: Injuries
  Local Elections: Pilot Schemes
  Local Elections: Pilot Schemes