Sitting of 4 July 2000

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

  ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 July.

  CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 11 July.

  GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Monday 10 July at 7 o'clock.

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

    Children's Hospices
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make resources available to ensure that children's hospices receive the same level of funding as other hospices. [127508]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): Children's hospices are on the same footing as adult hospices. We are increasing the resources available to the national health service across the board, and we expect local areas to put in place palliative care strategies; that includes support for children, and families too.
    Mr. Hoyle: I do not think that that is quite the case—far from it. In fact, Derian house, based in Chorley, does not get the same funding as an adult hospice would. All that we are asking for is equal funding. Quite rightly, my neighbour, Mr. Leo Duffy, who is the treasurer to Derian house, came to see me and asked me why children's hospices do not receive the same amount. I could not give him an answer, but I promised that I would raise that with my hon. Friend the Minister. I do hope that we can change the situation and that funding can be found, especially as children's hospices—particularly the one in Chorley—
    142
    take children from all over the country, and therefore the burden should be spread and there should be direct funding from the Government.
    Yvette Cooper: It is a matter for local commissioners to develop palliative care in each area and to set up appropriate commissioning arrangements. We expect that to include support for children as well as for adults. We are aware that, where children have illnesses that are life-threatening, there are specific additional needs for support for such children and their families. That is exactly why we have introduced the Diana's children's community nursing teams, who often work with hospices to provide extra support directly for those children and families in need.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: As chairman of the all-party parliamentary hospice group, I am aware that not just children's hospices but many other hospices are finding it extremely difficult to meet their revenue costs mainly from voluntary subscription, and that some are facing serious financial problems. Will the Minister undertake to review the resourcing from the Government for hospices, to ensure that they remain viable and continue to provide such a worthwhile service in our community?
    Yvette Cooper: We recognise the huge contribution that the hospice movement makes to palliative care. We have identified the need for more systematic support for palliative care, especially for cancer; that is why Professor Mike Richards is currently developing a supportive care strategy for palliative care that includes suggestions of how we can improve that across the board.

    Commission for Health Improvement
    Mr. David Borrow: If he will make a statement on the role of the Commission for Health Improvement. [127509]
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the role of the Commission for Health Improvement. [127511]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The commission's role is set out in section 20 of the Health Act 1999. The Commission for Health Improvement is the health service's first independent inspectorate. It began its programme of hospital reviews last week. The commission will help to raise standards in all parts of the NHS as part of the Government's drive to tackle unacceptable variations in performance across the NHS.
    Mr. Borrow: As a Member of Parliament representing an area where postcode medicine is at its worst, I welcome that statement by my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that users of the NHS attach much more importance to the raising of standards within the NHS than they do to the policy of the Conservative party, which is to promote private health insurance and the use of the private sector?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. The country has a fundamental choice to make. The Conservatives seem

    143
    to have made their choice. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) confirmed in the House last week—and on television earlier last week—that their policy is now to contemplate spending about £468 million on subsidising people who already have private health insurance, in company-based schemes, out of the taxpayer's pocket. I believe that it is also the case that, earlier this year, the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition explored the possibility of the taxpayer subsidising individuals who had private health insurance policies. The deadweight cost of that alone would come to £1 billion. That is more than the costs of this year's nurses' pay rise and of the modernisation, in which we are investing, in casualty departments in every part of the country.
    The Conservatives have made their choice; we have made a different choice. Our choice is for the national health service—free, fair, funded from general taxation and based on need, not ability to pay. I believe that that will be the choice of the British people at the next general election.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the commission raises standards in such a way that it will be impossible for the Conservative party to introduce a two-tier system in the national health service and, more important, for things such as hip replacements and so on; and that it will ensure that the private sector, as supported by the Conservative party, will not get a foot in the door?
    Mr. Milburn: The Commission for Health Improvement has a very important role to play in the NHS. Although regrettably the Opposition voted against the establishment of the commission in the Health Act 1999, many people agree that it is about time that we had some form of independent inspectorate for the national service. We all know from our constituents that the quality of care, standards of service and even the services on offer vary immensely according to the part of the country in which people live. That is unfair and it has to change. One of the ways that we can best do that is through an independent inspectorate such as the Commission for Health Improvement.
    My hon. Friend is right. Our ambition as a Government is to raise the standards of care, so that patients everywhere—and not just in some places—get first-class health services.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Secretary of State accept that what drives up quality in most services is not just inspectorates—important though they are—but the choice of users within the service? Are we not fighting with one hand tied behind our back by depriving users of the national health service of choice between different hospitals? Should not that choice be restored?
    Mr. Milburn: I have heard the right hon. Gentleman make such comments before both in this place and in the articles that he has written for newspapers. We have made the point before that he is wrong. In fact, if he cared to examine the history of choice in the national health service, he would know that, prior to the introduction of the Conservatives' internal market in the early 1990s, there was freedom to refer for individual general practitioners.
    144
    Unfortunately, the internal market mechanisms, and particularly the establishment of GP fundholding, meant that that choice was denied to 50 per cent. of GPs. We have restored the right to refer, because every primary care group now has the choice of where best its patients should receive the care that they need.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: The Government have announced plans for a proper watchdog for independent hospitals—a watchdog that will have teeth and the power to inspect the hospitals and to deregister them if they are not safe and satisfactory. By comparison, the Commission for Health Improvement is a toothless tiger with no sanctions available to it. Given the Government's policy of treating increasing numbers of NHS patients in the private sector, is it not time to establish a single, unified regulatory and inspection body that is responsible for monitoring standards across all hospitals, so that people can be confident of the quality of health care that is being delivered to them wherever it is delivered and however it is financed?
    Mr. Milburn: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I know that he has been exploring some of these issues in Committee with my hon. Friends. The Commission for Health Improvement and the National Care Standards Commission have very different functions. The Commission for Health Improvement is intended to act as an independent inspectorate for the national health service as a managed care system, which is what it is. The National Care Standards Commission has a quite different function. However, the hon. Gentleman is aware, as my hon. Friends are aware, that we introduced an amendment during the passage of the Care Standards Bill through the House to ensure that there is much closer co-operation and flexibility between the two commissions. That is the right thing to do, and it will help to ensure that wherever people receive care—whether in the health and social care system or in the public or private sectors—the quality of care that they receive is always of the highest possible standard.

    NICE (Drugs)
    Mr. John Heppell: How many people he estimates are now receiving drugs who would not have received them in their area before recommendations by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [127510]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): NICE has completed its appraisal of the taxane drugs. It estimates that an additional 4,000 women with advanced breast cancer and 1,000 with advanced ovarian cancer should now be offered treatment with taxane drugs who might have been denied access to those treatments before guidance was issued.
    Mr. Heppell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is particularly pleasing to know that 5,000 women suffering from breast cancer will receive a proven and effective treatment for that cancer, which they would not have previously received under the postcode prescription

    145
    lottery that we inherited from the previous Government. The cost of that treatment, however, will be £7 million. How will health authorities be able to find that money?
    Mr. Denham: The health authorities will be able to meet the costs of this decision from the record increases in funding that we have made available to the national health service and, in particular, the £660 million allocated to health authorities just after the recent Budget.
    I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that, in Nottingham, provision for taxanes has risen from less than £30,000 in the early part of last year to more than £300,000. My officials advise me that that should be sufficient to make the drug available as indicated by the guidelines.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: Is the Minister satisfied with the progress that NICE is making? Was its original objective to examine not only new and existing drugs, but other procedures and interventions throughout the health service? Given that its first work programme was to examine only 13 drugs, that the plan is to get that number to only 30 per annum and that more than 100 new drugs come on to the market each year, how on earth will it catch up with the task of examining even just the new drugs, let alone its original task of considering all existing procedures in the NHS?
    Mr. Denham: I am very pleased with NICE's progress. It has given important guidance on relenza, stents, wisdom teeth and a variety of drugs and procedures. In the first year, it has been essential that NICE establish its credibility in its decision-making and appraisal systems. It will move on to assess more drugs. We are currently consulting on the referral of about a dozen extra cancer drugs to NICE and shall shortly announce decisions on that referral. At the same time, NICE is commissioning guidelines on the handling of several different conditions.
    NICE has therefore made a good start to its work. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: NICE is a critical part of the future of the national health service and we must ensure that it has the capacity to do its job fully.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I tell my hon. Friend how welcome was the recent announcement to add zyban, the anti-smoking drug, to the possibilities to help people give up that terrible habit? However, will he explain why a ban has been placed on the prescription of that drug in East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority? Is that simply a local decision, and can my hon. Friend do anything to assist in making the drug available?
    Mr. Denham: I shall certainly examine the position in Sussex. The answer is that that would have been a local decision by the health authority. Clearly, we are giving consideration to the question of whether zyban should be referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
    Dr. Liam Fox: On that point, what criteria were used to make sure that beta interferon was referred to NICE, but that zyban was not, before the Secretary of State's decision was announced?
    Mr. Denham: There is a set of well-publicised criteria, including the likely impact on the national health service
    146
    and possible benefits for patients, all of which were set out in public form in documents that were published last summer. Those criteria have been used to make decisions on referral to NICE, and will continue to be used for the future consideration of existing drugs and new drugs that become available.
    Dr. Fox: Will the Minister tell us what is the difference, in his view, between affordability and the effective use of clinical resources?
    Mr. Denham: Quite clearly, NICE has been asked to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drugs and treatments. I believe that, in a speech last week, the hon. Gentleman supported the Government's position that NICE should examine clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The question of the total amount of resources available to the NHS is clearly a responsibility of Ministers and government.
    Dr. Fox: What a muddle. Is it not true that there is no difference between the concept of affordability and the effective use of clinical resources? The Government changed the criteria for NICE because that was merely another spin trick for Ministers who wanted an arm's-length rationing mechanism as they were too cowardly to take decisions directly. Is not the real reason that zyban was rushed in that the Government were desperate to get another good news story on health, regardless of its consequences or even their own policy? Does that not show that Ken Follett was spot-on with his analysis of the Government, when he said that they were intellectually bankrupt, morally suspect, all spin and no substance, and were willing to let anyone suffer, as long as Ministers got good headlines?
    Mr. Denham: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. We have made it perfectly clear, from the time that NICE was first proposed, that it would need to consider clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. That is in all the documents that the Government published. We have made it clear many times that we amended the establishment order for NICE last summer because we had received legal advice that, as the order was drafted, NICE would not have been able to consider cost-effectiveness at all. Given that the hon. Gentleman believes that NICE needs to consider cost-effectiveness as well as clinical effectiveness, he would have been required to make that amendment, had he been in that position—[Interruption.] I must tell Conservative Members that that advice was received by the Government.

    NHS Trusts (Mergers)
    Mr. Phil Sawford: What advice his Department gives to health authorities regarding mergers of NHS trusts. [127512]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): We have said that mergers should proceed only where they bring clear benefits for health and health care. Every merger must save at least

    147
    £500,000 in management costs in the first two years. The savings released are retained locally for investment in front-line NHS services.
    Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she recognise that in trust mergers, services do not always dovetail perfectly? Where they do not, will she give guidance and ensure that services are levelled up, rather than down, that there is no fragmentation of services and that services to patients are the principal factor guiding the process?
    Ms Stuart: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend, and the proposals for Northamptonshire make it clear that we want to create a new organisation that delivers community-based services throughout the county. It is intended that the new organisation will capitalise on best practice, and the main outcome will be that local people and staff will have access to high-quality, modern community services. My hon. Friend will be aware that consultation on the proposals is well under way, and the outcome will be accepted by Ministers only when it is clear that the proposals represent the best possible options for patients locally.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that when two NHS trusts merge, each with its own hospital with an accident and emergency department, it will not lead to one of those departments closing? I am thinking in particular of the merger between Chase Farm and Barnet.
    Ms Stuart: It may be helpful if I remind the hon. Gentleman that mergers of trusts should not be confused with hospital services reconfigurations. Merger proposals concern the merging of organisations and management, and the services that are to be provided form part of the reorganisation structure. Trust mergers do not always lead to the closure of associated hospitals—that is always a matter for local consultation.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: When considering trust mergers, will my hon. Friend have regard to the fact that we now have community health trusts, whose functions are changing? Are there are any proposals to make trust mergers more efficient by merging community health trusts with hospital trusts, or is there a general policy in the Department to review the workings of community health trusts?
    Ms Stuart: As it stands, it is unlikely that community and acute trusts will he merging. It is important to stress that mergers and reconfigurations are being considered because we have ended the competition of the internal market in which one hospital competed with another, and our policy has a wider scope and focuses on the provision of decent services for local areas. I take on board what my hon. Friend said about the provision of community services, but any mergers have to be in the interests of the patients and must provide significant savings for the local community.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: When contemplating trust mergers, will the hon. Lady always bear it in mind that a clear line of responsibility and chain of command are crucial for the effective provision of
    148
    services within the hospitals that are grouped together? Is it not the case that, all too often, the loyalty and morale of individuals are undermined and, as a consequence, the standard of patient care diminishes?
    Ms Stuart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the whole purpose of the process must be to improve patient care, and that sometimes requires sensitive handling of discussions and negotiations, because some of us fear change more than others. That is why we are always sensitive about the need to consult locally with all key stakeholders and to come up with service configurations that serve local communities. Sometimes that is difficult: when we inherit health economies that have run up huge deficits, hard choices have to be made. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the bottom line for any decision is patient care.

    NHS Staff (Violence)
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: If he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to protect NHS staff from violence. [127514]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Violence to staff in the national health service is unacceptable. A cross-Government campaign, the NHS zero tolerance zone, was launched last October with targets to reduce violence against staff by 20 per cent. by April 2001 and 30 per cent. by April 2003. Changes have also been made to the choice of medical practitioner regulations to combat violence against GPs.
    Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. How many verbal and physical attacks on NHS staff have been recorded recently? More specifically, can he assure my constituents in Bury, South that he and other Health Ministers liaise with the Home Office to ensure that those brought to the courts and convicted of such attacks on NHS staff feel the full force of the law?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend raises some important issues. Our surveys show that about 65,000 staff suffered physical and verbal assaults last year. One of the aims of the new strategy is to ensure that all such incidents are recorded, so the figure will probably increase in the short term as people are encouraged to report them. He is right that cross-Government co-operation is important. We work closely with the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department on that strategy. For example, the Lord Chancellor, who is president of the Magistrates Association, has said that it is entirely legitimate for magistrates to respond decisively to a particular form of criminal behaviour, such as assaults on NHS staff, and to impose a sentence that has a deterrent component. In the Bury area, where the police, the health authority and the magistracy co-operate closely, there has been a reduction in violent incidents against staff of some 24 per cent.
    Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate the Government on the work that they have done in improving casualty departments and, therefore, reducing, I hope, threats of violence in them. Employing more porters has helped in that respect. Can the Minister give an assurance that community staff will not be forgotten?

    149
    In a age where 10-year-olds all seem to have their own mobile phones, is there any reason why community staff have to share mobile phones between teams?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. We shall produce further material as part of the campaign, either at the end of this month or at the beginning of August, which will provide guidance to staff, health authorities and employers in mental health and community health settings and the ambulance services because those staff are at particular risk. On mobile phones and other forms of communication, I agree that employers should make proper assessments locally. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman sighs, but the work done by individual members of staff varies, so it is important that the working position of each of them is considered. In circumstances where such measures would add to their safety, I certainly think that employers should put them in place.

    Air Ambulance Services
    Mr. David Heath: What Government financial support is given to the provision of air ambulance services. [127515]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): Air ambulance services in England are financed largely through public subscription. We support existing services by providing qualified paramedic crew through the national health service.
    Mr. Heath: Given that there is evidence that air ambulance services can result in a significant reduction in deaths in transit and from head injuries and in the amount of time spent in intensive care, is not it extraordinary that they are entirely dependent on public subscription and charitable fund raising? Even more extraordinarily, I am told that some ambulance trusts charge air ambulance services for providing paramedics to go out and save people. Would it not be better if this country were to follow the example of Germany, where there is properly co-ordinated, comprehensive air ambulance cover, which is at least partly publicly funded?
    Ms Stuart: I fear that I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman because the evidence on the clinical outcome is by no means as persuasive as his question would suggest. Professor Jon Nicholls made it clear in his report, "The costs and effectiveness of helicopter emergency ambulance services", that the evidence is not convincing. All the local studies on the outcomes, including those in London, have not made the case for air ambulances. However, it is important that we support them. In some areas they are most appropriate, not least in the hon. Gentleman's area, where the NHS provides 14 trained paramedics to support the service. According to all our evidence, the optimal solution for the 11 air ambulances in the current structure would be to work with the ambulance services, the police and the military when necessary.
    Helen Jones: When my hon. Friend considers the financing of air ambulance services, will she also consider the position of those independent air ambulance services that are sometimes used by the
    150
    national health service? Will she also consider the need to introduce guidelines for both the staffing and the equipping of air ambulances? Although many air ambulances do an exceptionally good job, there is no guarantee to patients being transferred that standards will be the same as in a road ambulance.
    Ms Stuart: That is an important consideration and my hon. Friend may be aware that in the north-west consultation is taking place in the working group on developing proper proposals and protocols for transfer. We agree with her basic sentiment and will certainly take that forward.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister consider carefully the evidence that has come forward, particularly in rural areas, on air ambulances and the way in which they are funded? I understand that the lottery is not willing to provide funds to help the NHS with air ambulances, although a lot of money has been taken from the lottery to replace old NHS equipment. There is not the additionality that people are looking for, but surely additionality is important. I should be grateful if she considered that carefully.
    Ms Stuart: It is easy to assume that air ambulances would always provide solutions, certainly in rural areas, and Cornwall was one of the first to have an air ambulance. However, it should be remembered that civilian staffed air ambulances operate only during daytime hours and that the task has its own hazards. For example, there have been a number of civilian deaths in the past few years during such operations so we need to look much more closely at how we get to patients more quickly, whether in rural or urban areas. Our work to improve the ambulance service and support the air ambulance service, rather than thinking that extending air ambulance services would solve the problems experienced in some rural areas, is the right way forward.

    Infant Deaths
    Ms Hazel Blears: What plans he has to reduce the numbers of infant deaths in inner-city areas. [127516]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Infant mortality rates have fallen for very many years, but there remains a gap between those born into affluent families and those born into more deprived families. We are currently developing a national plan for the NHS, which will set out a programme of change and improvement to address some of those problems. It will confirm that the Government's ambition is not only to improve the health of the population overall, but to narrow the gap between the worst off and the better off.
    Ms Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I have no doubt that he is aware of the research from Sussex university that shows that more babies die in Britain than anywhere else in northern Europe, that babies born into the poorest families are twice as likely to die as those born into professional families and that in inner-city areas such as mine—Salford—30 per cent. more babies are likely to die than the average for England and Wales.

    151
    Clearly poverty is a major cause of that situation—poverty that doubled under the policies of the Conservative party.
    Good food and access to nutrition is one way in which we can begin to tackle that scandalous inequality. Will the Government support schemes launched by my education action zone and sure start to provide free school fruit and to ensure that we provide extra money for young mums and pregnant women to improve their diet? Access to fresh fruit, healthy food and good standards of nutrition are crucial to provide good health for future generations.
    Mr. Milburn: This is a very serious issue that deserves to be considered seriously. From visits to my hon. Friend's constituency, I am aware of the good work that is being done by the local authority, the NHS and other players. On health outcomes, she is absolutely right that the gap between the richer and poorer parts of Britain remains stubbornly wide. On infant mortality rates, there was a three and a half to fourfold difference between different health authority areas in the last year for which we have figures. Although progress has been made over many decades to reduce infant mortality rates in England and across the United Kingdom, none the less it is also correct that our infant mortality rates remain above the European Union average. We must address that. To do so, we must not only achieve the proper focus on prevention and treatment, but take action across the Government to tackle some of the root causes of ill health. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a clear correlation between poverty, ill health and, sometimes, infant mortality rates.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Will the Secretary of State explain how his decision to cut the budgets of 11 health action zones in the poorest part of the country, including Salford, will help those plans to cut infant deaths?
    Mr. Milburn: I was not aware that the hon. Lady was a signed-up member of the health action zone fan club; obviously I was wrong. I know from her views about the national health service that she likes to visit NHS hospitals to see what it is like for those who do not have private health insurance. I think that that is what she had to say on the record in The Health Service Journal.
    There has not been a cut in the amount of money going to health action zone areas. This year, the average increase per zone area budget is 37.5 per cent. Individual HAZs are seeing increases of between 10 per cent. and more than 70 per cent. That is not a cut, but an increase.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that inequalities within some health authorities are even greater than those between health authorities? My constituency comes within the Berkshire health authority. For 20 years, the health authority's view of ending health inequality has been to ensure that it does not spend a penny more in Slough than is spent in the rest of the county. Indeed, over the years it has spent much less in Slough, with the result that infant mortality and deaths from heart attacks and strokes are comparable with those in the inner-city area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears).
    152
    Will my right hon. Friend ensure that health authorities are given instructions to tackle the sort of inequalities to which I have referred so that the people of Slough can enjoy the same excellent standard of health that is enjoyed by the people of Wokingham down the road?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right to say that there are inequalities between areas and within health authority areas. We have made it clear that over time we expect health authority areas will be able to move their allocations to primary care groups and trusts so that they begin to address inner health authority problems and inequalities so that there is a fairer distribution of cash between health authority areas and within them.

    Mental Health
    Mr. Michael Fallon: What the proposed timetable is for taking forward the proposals in the Green Paper "Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983". [127518]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Consultation on our Green Paper "Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983" ended on 31 March. We have received more than 1,000 responses to this Green Paper, and we are considering all of them carefully. We will be making an announcement on the next stage of this reform process in the near future.
    Mr. Fallon: Does the Minister's reply mean that he is ruling out legislation in the next Session? If compulsory powers are to be more widely used, does he agree that they should be balanced with better rights to assessment and effective early treatment?
    Mr. Hutton: On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have always made it clear that we believe the answer is yes. That is precisely why the proposals on which we consulted set out the establishment of a new independent tribunal. In future that body would take decisions about whether compulsory treatment should be authorised. That would be a significant change from the present procedure whereby such decisions are essentially made by the clinical teams. That would be a substantial contribution to improving patients' civil liberties.
    We would expect exactly the same approach to be taken in terms of the treatment of people with mental health problems as for any other group within the NHS, where possible. That should be by agreement and consensus. In some instances where people have very serious mental health problems, that is sadly not the case. Legislation has always recognised the need for a compulsory framework. We think that the present framework can be reconstituted on a fairer and more equitable basis, and that is the basis on which we intend to proceed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, decisions about the introduction of Government legislation will be taken not by me, but by others.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware that many of the people who responded to the Green Paper expressed concern that the Government had not wholeheartedly accepted recommendations made by the expert scoping group on the use of compulsion. Does he agree that compulsion should

    153
    not be used as a substitute for good quality care? When legislation is introduced, will he consider using the capacity-based approach to safeguard against the inappropriate use of compulsory treatment?
    Mr. Hutton: I must correct my hon. Friend: we did not reject the Richardson committee proposals in that regard. We simply posed an alternative procedure as a different gateway into compulsion. The consultation response revealed a marked divergence of opinion about the benefits or otherwise of a capacity-based system, and we must take that seriously. Of course, compulsion is not a short cut into second-quality treatment. We want patients who have mental health problems to have access to exactly the same high-quality standards of treatment and care as any other group of patients in the NHS.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Does the Minister accept that notwithstanding any legislation that may be needed to reform the Mental Health Act 1983, it is equally important that the Government do not lose sight of the massive amount of work that must be done—led by the Government, one hopes—to seek to reduce the ignorance, the discrimination and the stigma attached to mental health problems in this country? If the Government can lead on that and help to educate people and to minimise the fears and the stigma, they would be doing a great favour to the whole of society.
    Mr. Hutton: I strongly agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. He has held the same position as I in the Department of Health and he will know the situation. We accept our responsibilities to make sure that people who suffer from mental health problems are not routinely discriminated against in our society, because they certainly are; we know that. There is new legislation about disability discrimination rights on the statute book.
    I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House—I am sure the whole House is with him on this—that the reform of the mental health legislation is only one part of the modernisation programme and the reforms that we have set in train for mental health services. We are putting substantial new resources into improving and changing the front-line services available for people with mental health problems, making them more proactive and able to reach, in particular, patients with severe mental health problems, who do not make contact with traditional mental health services. An important element of the wider work is certainly combating discrimination. We fund a number of initiatives in that area and will continue to do so.

    Cataract Operations
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: If he will make a statement on the number of cataract operations carried out on the NHS in the last year. [127519]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): In the last year for which figures are available, there were just over 200,000 finished consultant episodes relating to cataract treatments. The £20 million that we are investing in our action on cataracts programme will ensure more efficient services and will increase the
    154
    number of operations performed to 250,000 over the next few years. The programme will also ensure that we get waiting times down for cataract treatment.
    Mrs. Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful announcement. What impact will those plans have on the situation of my Ilkley constituent, who will have her first out-patient appointment on 25 October, by which time she will have been waiting 16 months; and then, of course, she will have to go on the waiting list for her operation for cataracts? In the early 1990s, I had four elderly relatives suffering from cataracts. All of them had to withdraw their savings in order to pay for an initial appointment. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right—waiting times are too long at present. That is why we want to get them down. With regard to action in her area, I understand that Bradford health authority is to introduce a new programme of work over the next few months precisely in order to get the waiting times down for cataract operations. It is partly a matter of investing more cash, and that is what we are doing, and hopefully also employing more staff. It is also a matter of redesigning the way in which the system works.
    In my hon. Friend's health authority area, for example, I understand that a new system will shortly be introduced whereby patients can be referred direct from the optometrist to a hospital waiting list, rather than having to go through the push me-pull me system, backwards and forwards between the optician, the GP, the out-patients department, back to the GP and so on. The delay is almost designed into the system, and we must change that. By streamlining the system and getting more staff and more money in, we can get the waiting times down for treatment. The idea is that through the 60 schemes that we have introduced to take action on cataract waiting times, at the end of the next few years the waiting time for treatment will be down to six months.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement on 30 June that an extra £20 million is being made available for cataract services. The only slight problem was that that announcement was first made in February; it was a re-announcement. Is the fact that the Government are prepared to acknowledge that it was a re-announcement proof that at last they are waking up to what was said in the leaked report yesterday by the Minister's colleagues that enormous damage is being done to confidence in the health service by the constant announcement and then re-announcement of money available to the service?
    Mr. Milburn: As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman, who is nearly right, is actually wrong on this issue, as so often. What I announced on 30 June were the areas where the £20 million would be invested. They included the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). There will be 60 local schemes. Many parts of the country will benefit. People will draw the clearest of contrasts between the policy of the current Government, designed to get waiting times down for all conditions, and the Conservatives' policy, which is to force people to take out private health insurance for treatment such as cataract operations, hip and knee replacements and so on.

    155
    I remind the hon. Gentleman, should he need reminding, of what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) told The Sunday Times on 16 January. [Interruption.] These are the hon. Gentleman's words, not mine. I shall gladly circulate a copy to all hon. Members on the Opposition Back Benches if they would like to see what the hon. Gentleman said, because he obviously fancies himself as the next leader of the Conservative party and this is to be part of his manifesto. What he said on 16 January was:
    Philosophically we have moved on. Insurance companies could cover conditions that are not hi-tech or expensive, like hip and knee replacements and hernia and cataract operations.
    There is a very simple choice between this party, determined to get waiting times down and to keep NHS treatment free, and the party opposite, determined to lengthen waiting times and force people to pay for their care.

    Prostate Cancer
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What recent research he has commissioned into the (a) causes of and (b) treatment for prostate cancer. [127520]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The Government recently announced an extra £1 million for prostate cancer research this year. Research has now been commissioned on the identification, diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Further work will be considered in the light of the report from an expert review group.
    Mr. Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Many people will be very pleased that an extra £1 million has been announced for prostate cancer research and treatment. Will she make sure that as many resources as possible go into research and treatment, because it is of growing concern that we seem to have an ever-increasing number of men suffering from prostate cancer? There has been very little research into prostate cancer so far, and there is very little clarity about the treatment that should be available. We have a long way to go. It is one of the greatest public health issues confronting this country now, and it will continue to confront us over the next few years.
    Yvette Cooper: I agree with my hon. Friend. Historically, the level of funding for research into prostate cancer has been too low, given how little we know about the disease and how many men die from it each year. That is exactly why we have put the extra £1 million into new research this year. It is also why we are working with other funders, with the major charities, the Medical Research Council and the Cancer Research Funders Forum, and have asked them as their first project to look into prostate cancer research.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: The announcement is extremely welcome. Prostate cancer is a very large killer of men in our society. Will the Minister also bear in mind the fact that in the treatment of prostate cancer, about which so little is known, a large number of different specialists are frequently required to treat one patient? At present the level of understanding among general practitioners is not very high. Will she carefully
    156
    examine the idea of having one named specialist in charge of each patient when he is diagnosed as having prostate cancer?
    Yvette Cooper: We are commissioning guidance on improving outcomes for prostate cancer as part of the work commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. It is the first of the extra four cancer sites being worked on now. That is exactly the issue that we need to look at, building on the work of Calman Hine.

    Whittington Hospital
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What estimate he has made of the long-term cost of private finance initiative funding of the Whittington hospital. [127521]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The current project at the Whittington should have a full-life net present cost of around £100 million. This is for the new building, its maintenance and operation over 30 years at today's prices, regardless of how the project is funded. Before the go-ahead is given to a PFI option, it will need to demonstrate that it delivers better value for money than a publicly funded alternative.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister look very carefully at that and any other case of PFI funding of new buildings and consider, first, the long-term cost to local health services incurred by using private finance rather than public finance for new buildings; secondly, the likely increase in the number of private patients in the hospital to increase the income stream to pay the debts resulting from the PFI; and, thirdly, the implications for outlying health facilities in the district, given that experience of previous PFI initiatives tells us that outlying facilities are often closed and fewer beds are available in PFI-constructed hospitals than in publicly funded hospitals? There is great demand for new buildings in the NHS, but does the Minister accept that we must ensure that they are publicly owned and publicly funded?
    Mr. Denham: There is certainly a great demand for new hospitals and hospital buildings, which is why I am pleased that the past three years have seen the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS get under way. However, with respect, my hon. Friend is wrong on all counts. There is no evidence that the PFI funding route leads to reduced bed numbers; the whole point of the procedure is that the number of beds required in the local health economy is determined before the decision is made on whether a hospital will be publicly or privately financed. We shall ensure that hospitals planned in future, whether PFI or public sector financed, take full account of the conclusions of the national beds inquiry, which showed that, under the previous Administration, the number of hospital beds was cut far too far.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: Can the Minister tell us what will be the annual rate of return to private investors who put money into the Whittington hospital?
    Mr. Denham: That is a matter for the private investors. What matters to the NHS is to make sure that good value

    157
    for money is obtained. Under a PFI scheme, the cost of the PFI route is compared with the cost of the public sector route. Experience so far tells us not only that every single PFI scheme that has gone ahead offers better value for money than the public sector alternative, but that PFI schemes are delivered ahead of schedule, instead of overrunning. On hearing Conservative Members, one might gain the impression that they are opposed to PFI. In reality, the Conservative Government spent tens of millions of pounds on consultants but did not get a single PFI hospital built, whereas the Labour Government have used PFI to start the biggest hospital-building programme in the history of the NHS—hospitals like the one in Carlisle are already open and accepting patients.

    Hygiene (NHS Hospitals)
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will set minimum cleanliness and hygiene standards in NHS trust hospitals and ensure that these are policed. [127522]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Chief executives are responsible for high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in hospitals. Standards for hospital cleanliness and infection control will be subject to independent inspections by the Commission for Health Improvement and the Audit Commission. NHS Estates has recently distributed guidance on cleanliness to all NHS trusts. The national plan will detail how we can take that forward.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister accept that, even in hospitals with a high degree of clinical competence, narrowly defined, there are potential problems of poor hygiene leading to cross-infection? Does he also accept that that can be caused by a combination of private contractors cutting corners, trust managers trying to save money, and the lack of a proper supervisory system involving nurses, as there used to be under the matron system of old? Would not the principles he describes be strengthened by a system of spot checks, carried out by a national inspectorate and backed up by sanctions against offending contractors and hospitals?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman is obviously right to say that the causes of those problems can be numerous and that a variety of individuals and agencies may be responsible. We regard it as a priority that hygiene standards should be maintained and hospitals should be clean and free from the ever-present risk of infection. It is interesting to note that, whereas the Government are prepared to act on these matters, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), at a recent conference in Glasgow, criticised Ministers for taking action to improve hospital cleanliness—and, as usual, got himself into something of a mess. I have no doubt that the public want us to ensure that their hospitals are clean and hygienic.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the Government should be as responsible for high standards of cleanliness and hygiene as they are for other services that the national health service must provide? For that reason alone, does he agree that the Commission for Health Improvement should be
    158
    responsible for delivering cleanliness and hygiene in the private and the public sectors to ensure that the same standards apply in both?
    Mr. Hutton: I am not entirely sure that that is the position the Conservative party adopted during the passage of the Care Standards Bill. Perhaps the hon. Lady needs to have a conversation with her Front-Bench colleagues about that. It is important to take effective action to improve standards of cleanliness and hygiene. We are taking that action.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I believe that there is a real problem. My hon. Friend knows that I have spent time in many hospitals over the past 15 years. It has often struck me that the standard of cleanliness in the toilets of many hospitals worries patients and their visitors. Should there not be a major effort to ensure that the necessary standards are achieved?
    Mr. Hutton: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. He has much experience of such issues, and I am glad that he looks as well as he does today. We are going to take action to make sure that the issues that he raised are properly addressed. As I said earlier, the national plan, which we shall publish later this summer, will explain the way in which we can take that work forward.

    NICE
    Mr. John Bercow: What action he is taking to ensure that patients are represented during the deliberations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [127523]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is responsible for determining its own processes. However, NICE invites submissions from relevant patient groups and offers them the opportunity to comment on draft conclusions of its guidance. There is also patient or lay representation on all of NICE's key committees, including the appraisal committee, the guidelines committee and the appeals panel.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, given that, on his own admission, patients are not directly represented on NICE, will he confirm that NICE's assessment of the cost-effectiveness of beta interferon has taken full account of the costs of home care, domestic adaptations, welfare payments and tax revenues forgone when individuals who are clinically suitable for the drug are denied it? Will the Minister also confirm that the institute will publish in full its findings on those important considerations?
    Mr. Denham: I think the House and the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government will not comment on a leak of a draft appraisal—there is some way to go before the full appraisal is published. Publication will occur possibly in August, depending on whether there is an appeal. In general terms, I can say that NICE will receive whatever evidence manufacturers, patient groups or others wish to give about the wider social costs that should be taken into account, and the way in which that should be done.

    159
    NICE is certainly required to consider the costs and impact on the NHS and personal social services expenditure. On publication, it is for NICE to determine the way in which it publishes its guidance. On past performance, NICE normally sets out clearly the assessment it has made of the evidence and the way in which it has reached its conclusions. I therefore have no reason at this stage to believe that this case will be any different.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when NICE makes its assessment of drugs and treatments, it takes into account patients' views on the way in which those treatments or drugs have improved their quality of life as well as abated
    160
    their symptoms, but that that evidence must be subject to the same rigorous scientific assessment? That would avoid the clouding that the placebo effect provides.
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is obviously essential that NICE's decisions and conclusions command confidence, not only among clinicians but among patients. That is why NICE invites patients' organisations to give evidence. I am sure that those organisations put forward the views of individual patients as well as their assessment of the scientific evidence. However, it is for NICE to determine the methodology that it wants to use, and to reach a conclusion about the evidence, its form and the weight it wishes to give it. I am sure that it gives great weight to properly validated scientific evidence.

Civil List
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the civil list, which supports Her Majesty the Queen in carrying out her official duties as head of state.
The Civil List Act 1972 requires the royal trustees—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Queen's Treasurer and me—to report at least once every 10 years on the royal finances, and to make recommendations to the Government on future civil list arrangements. The current 10-year period ends later this year. We have therefore reviewed the current arrangements, and are today laying a report before the House. It proposes that the amount of the civil list should remain exactly the same over the next decade as it has over the preceding one. It also proposes that the civil list should take on some costs of the monarchy currently met from other sources.
The report sets out not only expenditure on the civil list, but expenditure on the monarchy more widely. That includes the grants in aid for the royal palaces and travel, and spending undertaken by Departments. The report records the very substantial saving of 55 per cent. in real terms over the last 10 years on spending on the monarchy generally.
The annual figure for the civil list was set by the last Government at £7.9 million in 1990. With Her Majesty the Queen's agreement, and following consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, the Government propose that the annual payment should remain at £7.9 million for the next 10-year period. By the year 2010, therefore, the cost of the Queen's civil list will have remained at exactly the same level for 20 years. In addition, there will be costs transferred from public spending in Departments which will now be met by the Queen's civil list. All in all, this represents a substantial saving as a result of lower inflation, and the efficiency of the way in which the Queen's expenses have been managed.
The principal additions to civil list expenditure will be pension contributions to be paid to the Consolidated Fund, and some of the running costs of the royal palaces which are currently funded within the property services grant-in-aid. In total, around £25 million of extra spending over the next 10 years will be transferred to civil list expenditure from other sources. By expanding the costs for which the royal household is directly responsible, we will contribute to the continuing drive for efficiency to which I know it is committed.
We are able to make this proposal for two reasons. First, as I said, the royal household has achieved substantial efficiencies in the civil list over the last decade, amounting in total to some 10 per cent. in real terms. Indeed, the actual increase in expenditure over the decade has been held below inflation. In addition, when the figure of £7.9 million was set 10 years ago, it allowed for an inflation rate of 7.5 per cent. per annum, in line with the average annual inflation of the 1980s. Inflation has turned out much lower than was allowed for. As a result of those factors, a surplus of £35 million on the civil list has accumulated, including interest of around £12 million.
Under the Civil List Act 1972, civil list provision may be increased by order, but it may not be reduced. However, the Act also provides that any surplus at the
162
end of one civil list period be carried forward to meet official expenditure in later years. This is what will now happen. We expect, nevertheless, that there will be a prudent balance at the end of the period, amounting to around one year's spending at that time. That will enable unforeseen eventualities to be met, should any arise. If they do not, the surplus will be available to fund civil list spending during the current reign from 2011 onwards.
The Queen, supported by other members of the royal family, carries out a wide range of duties on behalf of the nation as head of state. The arrangements that I have announced will provide proper support for Her Majesty in that role. They also reflect the principles that Parliament has embodied in legislation, and which I am happy to reaffirm. They support continuing improvements in efficiency by ensuring that financial and management responsibility go hand in hand; and they are in keeping with the honour and dignity of the Crown, the importance of the role carried out for the nation, and the high regard and affection in which the Queen and the royal family are held.
Mr. William Hague: May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for giving me advance notice of it, and express the Opposition's support for what he has announced? We shall, of course, study the trustees' report carefully, but we remain of the view that the Civil List Act 1972 set out the best framework for the determination of civil list expenditure. We therefore support the future arrangements that he has announced. They are in line with the principles set out in the previous statement on the matter by the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher.
Does the Prime Minister agree—I am sure that he does, given his statement—that the record of the past 10 years provides clear evidence that the civil list is spent wisely and that the royal household has been managed well? Is it not the case that the royal household has made the most of its resources, has been willing to adapt and has supplemented the revenue from the civil list with the prudent use of other sources of income? Does he further agree that the opening of Buckingham palace to the public, the royal family's commitment to pay income tax and the publication of an annual report on royal expenditure have demonstrated a commitment to openness and a willingness to change?
The new arrangement reflects the climate of low inflation, which the Government inherited from their predecessors. However, we—and more particularly Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family—are being asked to take on trust that it will continue. As Members on both sides of the House know, economic forecasts should always be treated with some scepticism. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree that the trustees should lay a further report if it became clear during the coming decade that inflation was significantly outpacing the Chancellor's forecast?
We on the Conservative Benches believe that the value of the service given by the Queen and her family to our country far exceeds any sum granted in the civil list. We are in no doubt of the importance of the monarchy to our national life. As Members of Parliament, we swear

163
allegiance to the Queen with pride. We hope and pray that she and her family will continue to give service to our country for many years to come.
The Prime Minister: I am in the happy position of being able to agree with virtually everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said. He is right. If inflation were to outpace the Chancellor's forecast, we would lay further matters before the House, but I am happy to say that we do not anticipate that eventuality.
I point out, in addition to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, that the Queen receives about 80,000 guests a year, that there are 2 million visitors to the royal homes and palaces, and that the royal family undertakes about 3,000 engagements. That is a pretty impressive work record by any stretch of the imagination.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I also welcome the fact that an amicable agreement has been reached between the royal household and the Treasury, which will put things on a stable footing for a further decade and enable the royal family to fulfil their duties over that period. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the fact that, despite rather mixed headlines at the moment, he clearly has not lost his sense of humour by choosing 4 July to make the announcement.
Given that one Sunday paper has been speculating on which members of the Cabinet fall into the category of roundheads and which fall into the category of cavaliers, may I unusually declare myself, asking some specific questions on behalf of the third way, as a Jacobite?
Given that the royal household has accepted the need for on-going transparency in these matters, can the Prime Minister confirm that the civil list over the next 10 years will be fully accountable? Can he indicate what efficiency expectations, in common with every other public Department and office, the Government have factored into the equation for the settlement that has been reached? Equally, what level of inflation have the Government relied on as a projection for reaching the conclusions that they have with the royal household? Finally, what level of income does the royal purse derive from the opening of Buckingham palace to the public for a fee? It would be helpful if the Prime Minister clarified those matters and added to the bonhomie of this royal occasion.
The Prime Minister: I cannot clarify the very last point now for the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly ensure that he receives that information. As for his other points, the inflation assumption is the Government's inflation target. As for the savings that will be made, the £7.9 million is itself a saving, as it represents a static cash sum and is, therefore, over the years, reducing in real value. Additionally, we expect about £25 million to be taken from other categories of public spending and transferred to the civil list as a result of the savings and surplus that have been made.
Tony Wright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do no service to the monarchy by not asking sensible questions about how it operates? Is it not really quite extraordinary that, under the 1972 Act,
164
even when the civil list generates a huge surplus, as it clearly has now, we are not able to amend the amount downwards, but can only push it upwards? Is it not true that that applies to no other category of public expenditure? Is it really a very sensible way of proceeding?
The Prime Minister: It is correct that there is no power in the legislation to reduce the payment. On the other hand, the same thing can effectively be done both by keeping the sum static for 20 years—as it will have been by 2011—and by being able to transfer to civil list expenditure items of other public expenditure. There is a significant saving there. I think that a 55 per cent. real-terms reduction over 10 years is quite significant. I also offer my hon. Friend the suggestion that, in terms of legislation, I can think of bigger priorities.
Mr. David Davis: May I commend the Prime Minister on the partial increase in financial transparency that will be achieved because of the report that he is publishing today, and congratulate the royal household on the savings that it has achieved in the past decade? However, the Prime Minister's figures for the next 10-year projection do not assume any efficiencies. One of the side effects of not changing the sum is that no relevant statutory instrument will be put before the House, and that the House will therefore not have a chance to debate or review the figures once they are in the public domain. That raises a rather important constitutional consideration.
The monarchy's ultimate constitutional function is to be the final check on the Executive. It seems a little odd, at least, that these figures are arrived at by agreement between No. 10 Downing street—or the Treasury—and the palace. Does the Prime Minister think that he could improve that process if the civil list itself, like grants in aid, were open to parliamentary scrutiny and to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General?
The Prime Minister: I understand why the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, raises a pretty hardy perennial in this debate. I should like, however, to explain my understanding of the history of the matter. A decision was made, I think in 1972, that the civil list, which is the expenditure most closely associated with Her Majesty, should be treated differently. I think that that was decided after a contemporary Select Committee report had indicated that that was the best way of dealing with the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that other grant in aid expenditure and other expenditure, amounting to about £30 million, is subject to the normal rules. However, it was thought to be right and in keeping with everyone's interests that the expenditure most closely associated with the Queen should be treated differently. I think that he will agree—he perhaps acknowledged it, at least by implication, in his initial comments—that this year there is more detail about how the money is spent.
As for debating the sum in the House, it is £7.9 million. I do not know what fraction that is of overall public spending, but I think that it is 0.002 per cent. or thereabouts. Again, I think that there are probably bigger items of public spending to get our teeth into.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: This is a pretty big winter heating allowance. What is so special about this

165
family that they qualify for £7.9 million instead of 75p? If the Prime Minister really wants to save money, the answer is to kill two birds with one stone by shipping them off to the millennium dome, where they can have a zone apiece.
The Prime Minister: Well, let me answer that in two ways. First, I know that my hon. Friend would not want to let the opportunity to talk about the 75p go without also mentioning the winter allowance, the free TV licences and the £6.5 billion of extra expenditure that the Government have made available. However, in respect of the civil list, it is also worth pointing out that the figures that I gave earlier are quite impressive—3,000 engagements undertaken on behalf of the royal family, 80,000 guests and 2 million people coming to visit. The Queen is our head of state. Whatever their views about the monarchy, most people believe that she does a very good job. She is held in great affection by the people.
Mr. William Ross: I suppose that I am one of the few people in the House who are always suspicious when the leaders of the two main parties agree, even when the issue is one such as this. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the present arrangements will last for only as long as the current monarch is on the throne? Will new arrangements be made every time a new sovereign ascends the throne? Will he also confirm that the Crown estate and the hereditary revenues of the Crown contribute upwards of £130 million to the revenues of the nation every year? Are the sums involved in that to be frozen in the future? Will any surplus that arises over the next 10 years go directly to the royal household?
The Prime Minister: In respect of the hon. Gentleman's first point, the settlement is for 10 years. I am pleased to say that the answers to potential queries that I have are based on the happy assumption of Her Majesty's continuing good health.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the surplus. Any surplus at the end of the next 10 years will be the subject of the next statement, which will be made in the year 2010. However, any such surplus can be used in a variety of ways. In particular, it can be used for special situations with regard to the royal household. It can also be used in the way that it is being used this time—to cover some other expenses from other areas of public spending. At present, I do not think that it is wise to speculate about how large that surplus might be, or what it could be used for.
Mr. Alan Williams: My right hon. Friend has indicated that this money, like the money that we provide for the palaces and for royal travel, is used to support the monarchy. There can be no objection to that, but the way in which the money is monitored does raise an objection. Uniquely, the money is not audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is not monitored by the Public Accounts Committee, nor by Parliament.
It is all well and good to hark back to 1972, but that was some years ago—I had been in the House only a few years at that time. We now live in days of greater transparency, and transparency about the palace money and travel money has done no harm. Would not it
166
therefore be appropriate to bring this money into line and make it accountable to the National Audit Office and to the Public Accounts Committee?
The Prime Minister: Of course, the money is carefully overseen by the royal trustees, whose report this year gives a lot of detail about how the £7.9 million is broken down and about the various items of expense that it covers. The report also includes the numbers of employees within particular salary bands—a matter that has been raised on previous occasions. The report this year, therefore, contains a great deal more information than it normally does. Given the sum of money involved and what has been a very substantial reduction in real terms, I think that we can have every confidence that the money is being managed well and properly.
Sir Peter Tapsell: As new Labour tends to cheapen and vulgarise almost anything that it touches, will the Prime Minister do his very best to try to protect the institution of monarchy in this country from the influences of his spin doctors?
The Prime Minister: I think that that institution probably suffers more from prejudiced and rather unpleasant statements such as that. Given that I delivered the statement in perfectly good faith, and that I paid tribute to Her Majesty the Queen and the work that the monarchy does, I should have expected a slightly more gracious intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Following from the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), as the civil list is public expenditure, has the Prime Minister thought about allowing the National Audit Office to audit the accounts and letting the Public Accounts Committee investigate the result? That would be in line with practice on other public expenditure and would make the whole matter more accountable and, indeed, acceptable to Parliament, because people could then see that there was nothing to hide.
The Prime Minister: There really is nothing to hide, as one can see from the detail that is published today. A decision was taken about this at a very early stage. There has always been this question, because other expenditure is subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the PAC. However, it was considered that the expenditure most closely associated with Her Majesty should be treated differently. I do not think that that is unreasonable, particularly in light of the fact that more detail has been given here today than has been provided before, and it breaks down literally every item of expenditure.
Because the vast bulk of the expenditure is on salaries, there is not a great deal to investigate other than seeing the salary levels. We have put the salary bands in the report so that people can see exactly how many people are employed, and how many are employed in each band. I am second to none in my enthusiasm for the work of the PAC, but I think that it will find that there are bigger issues to look into.
Mr. David Rendel: If, as the Prime Minister says, the civil list expenditure is that most

167
closely associated with the monarch, why are car transport costs included in the civil list, whereas air and rail transport costs are not? Why is one set of costs more closely associated with the monarch than the other?
The Prime Minister: It was decided at the time, back in the 1970s, to treat some of those expenses differently. Air travel and train travel costs, in particular, are incurred when heads of state go abroad and visit different countries. We can argue about the allocation of these costs and the way in which the expenditure is separated, but the actual amount set out for car costs is of a completely different order from those in relation to air and train costs. Again, because those tend to be more closely associated not with personal expenses, but with those incurred as head of state on visits, it was decided to make the allocation in that way.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Prime Minister agree that his statement is rather an understatement of the amount of money that is actually spent on supporting the royal family, and that he should include all the other expenditure within that amount? Since the royal family will end this 10-year period with an even larger surplus than they have at present, is it not outrageous that they are still charging the public to visit Buckingham palace throughout the summer? At the very least, access to the royal palaces should be free. In addition, as I understand that the Cabinet has had a frank and free discussion about royal accommodation, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the possibility of relocating the royal family to some smaller and more modest accommodation in the future?
The Prime Minister: No, I cannot agree with that. As for the other expenses, such as grant in aid for the upkeep of palaces, those figures are all set up and subject to National Audit Office and PAC scrutiny in the normal way. The additional costs that are now to be borne by the Queen's civil list will amount to about £2.5 million a year over that period of 10 years—that is £25 million, which is a significant amount. If we look at this overall, to have kept the Queen's civil list static, in cash terms, for 20 years is a pretty good recommendation.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Nothing that the Prime Minister said in his statement came as a surprise. Why, even on this issue, when there is no controversy between the parties, could the Prime Minister and his advisers not resist spinning it to the newspapers and the "Today" programme first before coming to the House?
The Prime Minister: That is simply not the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] It is not. The timing of the statement is precisely the same as it was back in 1990.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: There are 58 royal bedrooms in Buckingham palace and no fewer than 78 royal bathrooms. Nine occupied royal palaces receive grant aid, leaving aside Sandringham and Balmoral. Given that the civil list helps to run occupied royal palaces, is there not a very real question about how many palaces the royal family needs to discharge its functions to the state?
The Prime Minister: Buckingham palace is, of course, a palace and there is likely to be more than one bathroom.
168
I think that I am right in saying that the palaces receive more than 2 million visitors a year, which is a significant number. I would simply point out to my hon. Friend that since 1993, all the annuities paid to members of the royal family, apart from the Queen Mother and the Duke of Edinburgh, are reimbursed by the Queen.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Prime Minister rightly paid tribute to the work of the royal family. Will he join me in paying tribute to the people who work at the palace and to the considerable dedication that they show? He knows that more than 70 per cent. of the civil list is spent on salaries. Will he confirm that nothing in this settlement will result in any redundancies?
The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, it will not, but obviously I do not know what plans the royal household may have. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the vast bulk of the money is for salaries, which have to keep pace with inflation and, what is more important, with earnings in the public and private sectors as well. If he considers the figures overall, he will see that the royal family and the royal household have done a pretty extraordinary job of keeping the cost down.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister recall our debate about the loyal oath, in which 150 Members, I believe, expressed the desire to have the choice of an alternative form of oath—to the country rather than the monarch? He will be aware that many hon. Members qualify the oath that they take. As at least a third of the population believes that we should be considering an alternative form of head of state, and a growing group of young people feel that way, why can we only discuss these matters once every decade? The debate on the monarchy and the way in which it should be modernised is happening outside this place. Should we not also debate it here?
The Prime Minister: The House is entitled to debate whatever it wants and the oath is, of course, a matter for the House, but I do not believe that it should be changed. On the civil list, I also believe that the fact that I, as the Prime Minister, am making a statement on £7.9 million-worth of expenditure is opening up the matter for debate considerably.
Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the statement as far as it goes, which is probably the best that can be achieved against the background of the Civil List Act 1972. Was it not a serious misjudgment 10 years ago when the House agreed a settlement for a 10-year period with inflation built in at 7.5 per cent., which has resulted in the building up of a huge surplus? If it were allowed under that Act, should we not be recommending a cut this afternoon?
Furthermore, will the Prime Minister undertake a review of royal taxation to ensure that all members of the royal family are subject to the same tax rules as everyone in the House and in the country? Why is the Queen allowed to pay tax voluntarily rather than it being mandatory? How can the right hon. Gentleman explain to my constituents who are on income support why there are all these tax loopholes which, for example, allow the

169
monarch to avoid inheritance tax when possessions are passed from one monarch to the next? Is it not time for a review of royal taxation as well?
The Prime Minister: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on two points. First, the Queen pays tax voluntarily and has done so for several years, and I think that that shows the way in which the monarchy has adapted and modernised. Secondly, on inheritance tax, we are talking of sovereign-to-sovereign assets, which are inalienable assets belonging to the monarchy. It would be wrong to treat those differently from the way in which they are treated today. I think that most of the hon. Gentleman's constituents would agree that that is the case.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: How does the reduction in costs that the Prime Minister has announced today compare with the performance of non-executive presidencies in the rest of Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman re-examine the question of having a royal yacht to boost our exports and inward investment, in the face of the damaging uncertainty of the Government's policy on the euro?
The Prime Minister: We might have known that the Tory party would find some way of getting an attack on Europe into a statement about the Queen's civil list. I do not have the faintest idea about the costs of presidencies abroad. As for a replacement for the royal yacht, I shall take that as yet another public expenditure commitment on behalf of the Conservative party.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that, without the 1972 Act, he would, in effect, be announcing a third decrease in the civil list because of the transfer of £2.5 million in a year. As the monarchy has become increasingly popular over recent years and will, no doubt, become even more popular with the reduction in cost to the Treasury, is there any lesson that the right hon. Gentleman can learn for the funding of his own office?
The Prime Minister: I am delighted that, as a result of the efficiencies that have been made and, of course, as a result of lower inflation, there is a 55 per cent. real-terms drop over 10 years. That is an indication not just of the efficiency itself, but of the fact that we are now going to use the surplus to incorporate another £25 million of expenditure. It is a great tribute to the way in which the monarch's civil list has been managed. That is probably the right and the most sensible thing to say.

Football Hooliganism
4.1 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about football hooliganism.
In my statement to the House on 19 June about the disorder perpetrated by England supporters in Charleroi and Brussels, I said that we would urgently consider whether further measures should be introduced so as to improve the effectiveness of court orders against those convicted of football-related offences, and whether to introduce powers in respect of unconvicted football hooligans against whom there was other good evidence. I should now like to tell the House about the conclusions of the review that we undertook following events in Belgium and about the legislative and other proposals that I will be commending to the House.
The House and the country know all too well of the events in Charleroi and Brussels that shamed England's national game and national reputation, and resulted in the arrest of 965 British nationals and the deportation of 464 of them. A very small number of those originally arrested now face trial.
For some years, the widely accepted view has been that football hooliganism abroad is perpetrated by a relatively small minority of known football troublemakers. Measures discussed and approved by the House over a 15-year period have largely been predicated on that assumption. The blunt truth, however, which has become very clear from events last month, is this: football hooliganism abroad is no longer confined to a small minority of known troublemakers. There is now strong evidence of a larger number of England supporters getting involved in violence, drunkenness and disorder; few of them are known in advance to the police nationally as football-related offenders.
As I told the House on 19 June, the policing operation for Euro 2000, against known football hooligans, was largely successful. Of the 1,000 such known offenders on the lists provided by the National Criminal Intelligence Service to both the Belgian and the Dutch authorities, our information is that most either did not travel or were denied entry to the host countries. Thirty were arrested, detained in or deported from either country. However, of the 965 who were arrested in Belgium and Holland, we know that 409 had previous convictions, including convictions for violence.
Against that background, the House will, I believe, appreciate the need for measures to be drawn more widely than has been proposed even in the recent past. I have specific legislative proposals, but the issue runs wider than legislation alone and requires the active co-operation of all involved in football at every level in England.
The legislation that I propose to the House has four key elements. First, we propose to combine the domestic and international football banning orders that are made by a court following a conviction for a football-related offence. We currently have about 400 domestic bans of both kinds in force, but only 106 international bans; only 106 individuals can currently be prevented from leaving the country to attend matches abroad. In future, everyone who receives a banning order will be subject to both domestic and international bans.

171
Secondly, we propose that, save in exceptional circumstances, everyone who receives such a ban will have to surrender their passport while major overseas games are on. Courts currently have a discretion to impose such a condition when they impose an international football banning order. In future, that will be the norm for the new combined orders.
Thirdly, there is the proposal for civil process, similar to that for the anti-social behaviour order, for a football banning order. This was included in our consultation paper published in the autumn of 1998, and has been actively supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Under this, the police could propose a football banning order to the courts where they believed that it would help to prevent violence or disorder in connection with football matches. However, I now believe that this order should be more widely available than hitherto proposed. Under the new scheme, therefore, it will not be necessary that the person in question should have been convicted of a football-related offence, or indeed of any offence, though plainly any convictions for violence of whatever kind would be very relevant evidence. The police would of course have to have sufficient evidence in every case on the balance of probabilities that the test set in the legislation was met. That evidence could come from abroad, and it might date from before the proposed new law comes into force.
Fourthly, I propose that the police should have a new power effectively to prevent a person from leaving the country where they believe there may be grounds for making a banning order. There would be a power of arrest in that respect, and a breach of the direction would be a criminal offence. When the police made such a direction, the person concerned would be summonsed to a magistrates court to decide whether a banning order should be made. The value of this power will be that when people arrive at a port or airport and they give grounds for suspicion that they are out to cause trouble or are likely to do so, the police will be able to make quick inquiries. They will then, in appropriate circumstances, be able to prevent embarkation at short notice, where it would not be possible to go through the procedure of applying to a court for a banning order before the person left the country.
Those, then, are the main legislative measures that we are seeking, although the legislation will include other minor measures. I am satisfied that they are compliant with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Let me now deal with the time scale for this legislation. I have already had constructive discussions with the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, and I am grateful to both for their co-operation. The official Opposition are already on record as saying that they will support any moves in Parliament to restrict English football hooliganism. The next international game for England will be the one against France in Paris on 2 September. It would plainly be preferable if the legislation could be put in good order for it to be on the statute book by the time the House rises at the end of this month.
However, I well recognise that all Members of this House and of the other place, quite rightly, take their responsibilities for scrutinising legislation very seriously.
172
Three of the key measures proposed have been well aired in principle in the past. The fourth has not. In any event, the effectiveness of any legislation comes down to its detail. To combine speed with careful scrutiny, I therefore propose to proceed as follows.
A draft Bill will be made available in the Vote Office for all hon. Members and Members of the other place by the end of this week. I shall discuss its detail with the Opposition parties and hold an all-party meeting early next week for any right hon. and hon. Members of this House and of the other place who have a view on the Bill. We shall also consult outside interests and take account of the conclusions of that process in the version of the Bill that is presented to the House. All the process will be subject to discussion through the usual channels as soon as possible to see whether there is scope for the Bill to have a very speedy passage through both Houses, even possibly before the recess.
Legislation is only part of the answer to the wider problem. I strongly welcome the Football Association's commitment to seek life bans from the home grounds for any England fan convicted of hooligan behaviour, or against whom there is hard evidence of such behaviour, at Euro 2000 or in future. I hope very much that all clubs affiliated to the FA will support their national association in its initiative.
There is however much more that can and must be done to confront the culture from which hooliganism grows. Last week, I met representatives of the Football Association. They themselves recognise the need to take a hard look at ticketing, at travel, at stewarding arrangements, at more effective action against displays of racism and xenophobia at matches and outside, and at closer co-operation with supporters' groups—all with the aim of making support for the England team abroad more attractive to families and to decent supporters, who are currently kept away by the threat of hooliganism. I have asked Lord Bassam to chair a working group, which will involve a wide range of partners from the football world who are committed to make changes for the better in these important areas.
I hope that what I have said will demonstrate to the House our determination to use all the means at our disposal to get rid once and for all of all the dreadful consequences and the obnoxious taint of football hooliganism. The Government have given and will give a lead, but we can succeed as a nation in changing the culture that gives rise to football violence only if we in England are able to claim that the problem has truly been solved. I commend these proposals to the House.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that the necessity to rush through this legislation in such haste is entirely the result of his own and Lord Bassam's vacillation and delay? Will he please tell us why, when we invited the Home Secretary, before Euro 2000 even took place, to consider legislation, and said that we would support emergency legislation, he did not then take up our offer, and has indeed spent the last few weeks not taking up that offer? Why did he not adopt the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), made as long ago as 1998? Why did he—or, for that matter, Lord Bassam—not follow through the very clear statement of the Member for Sport, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), when she said that,

173
although she could not adopt measures in the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), she would nevertheless consider introducing a Government measure? That was in May 1999.
Why does not the Home Secretary admit that the only reason why we now have to hurry this legislation through Parliament is that he did not take action in due time? Is he aware that the England 2006 campaign director has said that the events in Belgium—which might perhaps have been prevented, at least in some measure, had our suggestions been adopted originally—have damaged our chance to secure the world cup? And will the right hon. Gentleman admit that his own dilatoriness has contributed to that?
Rushed legislation can be very bad legislation, and the Bill contains some very sensitive and very significant proposed measures that will indeed need thorough scrutiny—not least the new police power to prevent people leaving the country. We cannot pass such a measure in one day. If the Government wish to give this measure a high priority, the Opposition will support giving it a high priority, but it will mean that the Government will have to reorder their overloaded programme to ensure that this high-priority Bill gets the scrutiny that it deserves, so that it may proceed. After all, the Home Secretary has neglected this issue and the Government have overloaded their legislative timetable. If they now wish us to give priority to this Bill, they must find a way to do so that guarantees proper scrutiny. That means due time to examine the Bill and to make amendments.
The House is well familiar with Government Bills arriving with 500 Government amendments added at a late stage because they have not been drafted properly. We cannot proceed on a rushed basis with a Bill that has serious implications for civil liberties in this country. We will support the right hon. Gentleman in getting the Bill through and we will support speeding up the timetable, but we will not—[Interruption.] The attitude of Labour Members is a disgrace to the duties of the House. We will not let the Bill go through without due scrutiny both in this House and in the other place.
Mr. Straw: As I told the House a moment ago, I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the co-operation that I have received. However, she always adopts a rather different tone in the House.
Miss Widdecombe: Yes.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady agrees. She asked me why we did not pick up her suggestion of co-operation on emergency legislation, which she made at the beginning of the second week of June, just before the Euro 2000 competition began. First, I remind the House that, a week before that, the official position of the Conservative party was that no change in legislation was necessary. On 30 May, a spokesman for the Conservative party said:
What the Government must now do is to show that they are prepared to invest the necessary resources…to track down and convict those who commit football violence. Only once these measures are fully used—
that is, the existing measures—
can we start to assess whether there is a need for further legislation.
174
It was only a week later and a few days before the competition began that there was any promise, even on paper, from the Conservative party to support us in taking legislation through. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady did not ask for it two years ago; we are talking about the pledge that she made two days before the competition began.
The right hon. Lady has said that we should be very careful about rushing through legislation. I agree with that. The simple fact of the matter was that, when she made the offer, it would have been impossible to get any decent legislation on the statute book in time for it to have any effect on whether people who were intent on violence and disruption could travel to Euro 2000. The truth is that if she is not now prepared to deliver in a four or five-week time scale, she certainly would never have delivered in the time scale that she had in mind then.
The second point I make to the right hon. Lady is that the main reason for introducing these measures—including the fourth measure, which has never been before the House, and a considerable strengthening of the third measure—is directly to do with the nature of the football hooliganism that we all saw in Brussels and, in particular, in Charleroi. As I told the House and as the whole House understands, in the past the basic assumption behind all football-related legislation was that there was a hard core of football hooligans who were known in advance to NCIS. They could be identified in advance and, by a variety of direct and indirect legal means, they could be kept away from international games. That was true.
However, we face a new problem. As I told the House in the statement on 19 June and in the debate on 20 June, we of course review things in the light of changing circumstances, and that is exactly what we have done. The reason for introducing the legislation now is that we face a new and more serious problem, which became perfectly apparent in Charleroi and Brussels. We intend to deal with it, while the Opposition, as far as I can judge from the right hon. Lady's confused statements, are simply trying to make mischief out of it.
Mr. Joe Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that responsible Members of the House will congratulate him immensely on the legislation that he has announced, and which is long overdue? Is he aware that England have to play Germany this winter which, without that legislation, was going to be a recipe for another combat zone?
Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to go further, as these incidents happen abroad, not at home, and a lot of them involve the unlimited alcohol and duty-free that people drink while travelling to the games? Will he consult the European Community countries on their different methods of policing—from the hard-line water cannons in Belgium, to the laid-back people in Copenhagen and to the police in Marseille who put video screens on the beach—to arrive at an attitude common to all countries on the banning of alcohol and the regulation of travel?
Mr. Straw: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says and am grateful for his support for these measures.
We do our best to share experience. At the beginning of 1998, during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union, I hosted a major conference of all

175
European Union Interior Ministries and football associations on how better to control football hooliganism. That is a big problem for England, but it is also an international problem. It must be pointed out that, although 250 people of English origin were arrested in Charleroi, about 130 of German origin on whom the German passport bans plainly did not operate were also arrested.
There is a strong relationship between this violence and people who get drunk. In particular, we must learn lessons from the way in which the authorities in the Netherlands sought to contain those who wished to drink too much by the provision of low-strength alcohol in very small glasses. Although that caused laughter beforehand, all the reports suggest that it turned out to be an effective way of reducing alcohol consumption.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his early warning of the statement. 1 agree that one clearly cannot legislate away football hooliganism or hooliganism related to football. Given that the Home Secretary told us last week that 30 per cent. of young people between 18 and 39 now have convictions against them, does he accept that proposing sweeping measures to prevent people travelling to football matches is not easily justified, as so many of them already have a previous conviction?
The Home Secretary's first two proposals, as I understand them, would have the support of my colleagues in both Houses, subject to the possibility of regaining one's passport if one needs it for urgent family or business reasons. The remaining two proposals go far beyond conventional impositions on the rights of the citizen, so we cannot offer support for them at the moment, either in this House or the other place, and will seek to persuade the Home Secretary that there is a better way of proceeding.
Has the Home Secretary considered that, instead of those two proposals, the proper way to proceed is a proposal that would prevent people from travelling if they had convictions for violence and, if necessary, if there was reasonable cause to believe that they might commit violent offences? Exceptionally, will he place in the Libraries of both Houses advice to Ministers from Law Officers suggesting that that proposal is compliant with the European convention on human rights?
Big issues are raised which suggest that restricting freedom to travel may not be ECHR-compliant. What opportunity does somebody who, under the Home Secretary's proposals, could be stopped by a police officer, have to test their case in the courts in time for such a challenge to be relevant? Why would somebody not be entitled to have a warrant issued before they were stopped, as the Home Secretary or I would have if someone were searching our houses? Before going into property, police normally go to a magistrates court to seek a warrant for such action.
The record of hasty legislation in this place over the past 20 years shows that it normally ends up as bad' legislation. Unless both Houses can have the necessary time to scrutinise the proposals and to secure the rights of
176
the many, as well as the few, it is possible that not all the Home Secretary's proposals will get through the House this side of the summer, even if they get through later.
Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his co-operation. It is true that about 30 per cent. of people under 30 have convictions. In the debate on 20 June, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) asked for an analysis of the nature of the convictions of the 464 people out of the 965 who were arrested, and who had previous convictions. We are still doing that analysis, but it looks as though there is a greater preponderance of people with convictions for violence in that group than there is in a similar cohort of the general population.
I entirely accept that the House has to act proportionately in legislating. Not only are we required to do so by the Human Rights Act and our obligations under the European convention on human rights, which we have had for 50 years, but it is right and proper that we should do so. In the past, it has not been judged proportionate to take action, or to give the police powers in any circumstances, to turn people away at ports, because the mischief identified has not been sufficient to justify the action. In the light of what happened in Belgium, I now believe that the mischief is great enough to justify that action. However, the hon. Gentleman, like any other Member of the House, is entirely correct to say that he wants to read the Bill's small print before he makes a judgment. I, too, have been in that position. It would be wrong for the House to buy a pig in a poke, and I am not suggesting that it should do so.
The football banning order will be similar to the anti-social behaviour order. Whether or not people like such orders, they are consistent with this country's traditions. We are working carefully to ensure that there is proper, traditional oversight of banning orders and the operation of the fourth proposal, which is new. It is not a peremptory power, of the kind that I believe was operated in Germany, for the police simply to turn people back on an officer's say-so. A police officer will need to have reasonable and sufficient grounds for believing that a person should be subject to a banning order, first to stop him, and then to seek a banning order, for which there will be a reasonably quick court process.
The hon. Gentleman asked why a warrant could not be issued in advance. The police will not be able finally to identify the person concerned until they have stopped him. We are introducing the equivalent of a warrant by ensuring that there is supervision by a judicial bench as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about hasty legislation. All Members who have been in the House for any length of time know that legislation can be introduced sensibly and speedily, but if speed turns into haste, a Bill may not be properly or adequately worded. I hope, and it is only a hope, that our discussions and the drafting of the measure will ensure that the proposal becomes law before the end of July, but I recognise that Members on both sides of the House want to examine it carefully. If there is a choice to be made between content and haste, the content must take priority, even if we face delay in getting the legislation through. I am sure that the whole House

177
will agree that it must be passed by the end of this Session and, if possible, by the end of July. I will make myself available at all times.
Mr. David Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on reports that extreme right-wing organisations have been involved in organising some of the trouble abroad? Does he accept that there are serious implications for civil liberties which it would be foolish to deny? Bearing in mind the scenes that we have seen on television and that he has mentioned today, it is difficult to see what alternatives there are to the proposals that he has outlined. Those scenes have undoubtedly disgraced our country, and people abroad understandably ask why we cannot keep our thugs in order.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I am afraid that, in my judgment, there is now a yawning chasm between the average football fan who attends club games and England games at Wembley, and the so-called fan who goes abroad in alleged support of this nation. As someone who has been a long-term football supporter with his family, I have seen a change very much for the better over the past 15 years. Clubs now cater for families, many more women attend club games and there is a great effort—not entirely successful, but considerable—to stamp out racism and xenophobia in grounds and away from them. However, I am afraid that a big proportion of so-called England supporters abroad express strongly racist and xenophobic views. They are not remotely representative of the majority of England fans at home. We have a big problem tackling them, and I believe that a Bill may help.
Mr. Simon Burns: Better late than never. I warmly welcome the four legislative proposals that the Home Secretary has announced today, especially as one of them is along the lines that I have long advocated. On the point that he was making to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I urge him to consider that it is crucial to overcome and minimise the culture of violence and obscenity by enforcing the existing legislation, such as the public order measures and the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, to crack down on those mindless morons and the extreme right who use racist chanting and other obscenities at football matches to inflame people, thereby doing so much damage to this country. Such chanting is both disgraceful and distasteful.
Mr. Straw: I express my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for all his efforts during the past two years to have such legislation put on the statute book, and also for the constructive proposals that he made in his speech on 20 June. He will know that we have taken careful note of the suggestions that he made in the House and outside. He raises an important point—which, ironically, was raised by his party spokesman on 20 May—about the need properly to enforce the existing legislation. It is not acceptable that only 33 of the 100-odd international banning orders imposed so far include passport conditions, which could have been imposed in every case. That is wrong. I understand that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are applying for such orders, but magistrates are not granting them. That is why we have
178
had to change the nature of the legislation to ensure that passport orders are granted almost automatically and that other proposals are taken forward as well.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of those involved in the violence had no previous convictions of any kind, so he will understand why those of us who have spent a lifetime opposing racism have considerable reservations about his suggestions, which will give peremptory powers to police officers apparently on the basis of very little evidence. I hope that he will tell the House the rank of police officer who will be enabled to take such decisions and what time scale he is proposing.
Above all, may I tell my right hon. Friend that the history of legislation agreed by both Front Benches and put through the House at considerable speed is extremely sad and unhelpful? I hope that he will reconsider his timetable, because this is a difficult and intractable matter. Before we allow very serious liberties to be put at risk, it is absolutely vital that the House have time to consider every aspect of the proposal, not just some of them, and that we do not respond to knee-jerk bigotry.
Mr. Straw: Of course I understand that the House should be very careful about taking forward into legislation proposals that use the force of the law through civil processes before conviction, but that is by no means unheard of in our system.
The civil courts themselves have many powers of enforcement. The anti-social behaviour order, which has been widely welcomed by Members on both sides of the House and by local authorities and the police outside, is increasingly being used. It makes use of civil process. Good evidence has to be obtained for the order—unfortunately, in many cases, that evidence cannot be only criminal convictions.
There was support for the football banning order from both sides of the House, although it was by no means unanimous. The police may have evidence that may not have been sufficient to obtain a conviction, but that is plain evidence of football hooliganism. For example, there may be available video tapes of people committing straightforward acts of hooliganism in Charleroi and Brussels. If those individuals could be identified, I see no reason why they should not be required to go to court or why the police should not be able to apply for a banning order. They would be given a proper opportunity to answer. Such tapes would not represent evidence that could lead to a conviction, mainly because an extraterritorial offence had been committed, but would certainly be evidence that should lead to an order of the kind that I make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked about the level of police officer who could make what would effectively be a direction to prevent someone from travelling so that a banning order could be obtained. I make this very clear: as far as I understand, these are not the exact powers that the German police have used nor a power of what they call administrative arrest, which leads to no court process at all. We propose that such a direction should be made at inspector level or above.
My other point to my hon. Friend is that it is not true that all legislation that is put through the House at some speed suffers from the defects that she mentioned,

179
although it is true that some does and some has and that speed creates a greater danger of those defects occurring. I seek to provide a process that involves not only necessarily private discussions with the opposition parties, but a perfectly open system in which all hon. Members are able to take part. There will not be unanimity, but we must see whether there is sufficient consensus to get the measure through before the summer. I hope that that is the case and that I can reassure Members on both sides of the House about its contents, but we shall see.
Sir Norman Fowler: Does the Secretary of State agree that his proposals are similar to those that I made from the Opposition Front Bench in June 1998? Therefore, I obviously support what he has said—given also that the decision would rest with the courts, not the police—but has there not been unnecessary delay in handling the issue? Had those measures been in place, some of the recent troubles might well have been avoided. Will he answer a further point? Does not this issue go beyond football hooliganism and are not those who riot overseas also those who cause problems on Friday and Saturday nights in this country? Frankly, nothing will be done about that until we have more police on the streets and more police detecting those hooligans.
Mr. Straw: I thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion when he made it late in 1998. This is no criticism, but, as he said at the time, it was a proposal for discussion that was not in a form that could have been put into the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We have gone over the history of what subsequently happened but, if he wants to go down that track, I remind him that a whole host of right hon. and hon. Members on his side—
Miss Widdecombe: And on yours.
Mr. Straw: Some, but fewer Labour Members opposed the proposals.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) described the confiscation of passports as "wholly unconstitutional"; the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that the proposals, which were less strong than these, were
the mark of a repressive or totalitarian society;
and the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said:
I am deeply concerned by the suggestion that banning orders should be imposed against people who have not been convicted of an offence.
A whole litany of Conservative Members were not interested in taking the route that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) suggested. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) told the then Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), in respect of the Bill of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, that
he will get no support from his own Back Benchers today other than from the Bill's promoter.—[Official Report, 16 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 495–502.]
That was hardly approbation.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield says that we are dealing with a wider issue. Yes, it is. After seven years during which police numbers have declined, as the
180
right hon. Gentleman knows, we are investing considerable sums to ensure that numbers increase. Of course resources are important. If the right hon. Gentleman happened to see BBC television news last night and learned what the Sussex police are doing at Crawley, he would be aware that effective measures are taking place in targeting policing to deal with the drunken behaviour that we see in too many of our towns and cities on Friday and Saturday nights.
Ms Claire Ward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the measures that he proposes. I urge him to continue with the timetable that he has set out. Will he take into account the fact that some hon. Members, especially the maverick tendency on the Opposition Benches, will seek to ensure that the proposed legislation is delayed? They will be the very people who will attack the Government and others if the proposed legislation has not been enacted by September and we see repeated scenes of football hooliganism of the sort that we saw the other week.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those Members who oppose a sensible, speedy but not hasty debate on the proposed legislation will try to ensure that we are not in a position to stop hooligans from disgracing our country and our national game?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks and for her strong support for the proposed Bill and other measures. I hope that we can achieve the timetable that I have set out. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the inconsistency of the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was suggesting that we should have introduced legislation within two days of the beginning of Euro 2000. Two days was too long for that. She now suggests that four weeks is too short a time. I hope that, in more thoughtful moments, she will recognise the problem with which we are dealing and the need to get legislation through Parliament by the end of July. Plainly, it would be far better to have the proposed legislation on the statute book, if it is in good order, before the football season starts again in September.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: What the right hon. Gentleman has outlined to the House sounds to me to be a serious curtailment of ordinary civil rights. I doubt whether some of these proposals, particularly the third and fourth elements, as he has described them, are compatible with some of the articles of the European convention on human rights.
The House should not depart from the ordinary rules of scrutiny and inquiry into what is proposed. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can properly get the proposed legislation through both Houses by the end of the month unless he is prepared to suspend much other parliamentary business. Is he aware that this is a serious matter involving civil rights? It is our business to champion such rights, and what I have heard from Labour Members suggests that they are suspending their duties in that respect.
Mr. Straw: I do not accept that what is being put forward is a serious curtailment of human rights. I have said that I am satisfied that our proposals are consistent

181
with the European convention on human rights and with the Human Rights Act. It is my intention to sign a section 19 certificate to that effect.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked me—I am sorry that I did not answer this particular question—if I would exceptionally make the advice of the Law Officers available. Anyone who has been a Minister will know that it is never the practice to make such legal advice available, any more than legal advice to any other individual or corporation is ever made available. Moreover, the legislation does not require that the Attorney-General certifies the compatibility of any draft Bill before the House, but requires that the Minister responsible for that Bill should make that certificate. That is the proper way to proceed.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) spoils his case by suggesting that the normal processes of legislation should never be abrogated in any way. Like many of those on the Opposition Benches, his memory started on 2 May 1997. He has sat in the House long enough, as has the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, to remember many occasions under the previous Administration when those processes were compressed, sometimes into a far shorter time, with far less open consultation, than I am proposing.
Mr. George Mudie: May I associate myself with the remarks and question from my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? I quietly ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the case that he has made. As we are discussing a tournament that ended less than 48 hours ago, the review seems rather rushed. Although I support proposals 1 and 2, we have heard the point that has been made about proposals 3 and 4. I wonder how my right hon. Friend will justify those proposals to Labour Back Benchers. In his statement, he gave the impression that he had had discussions with the Opposition parties and that they were compliant with moves to push the legislation through urgently. In view of the mood of those on the Opposition Benches, I urge my right hon. Friend to re-appraise those discussions and reconsider rushing the legislation through Parliament.
Mr. Straw: I understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. As I have made clear, I am not intending to rush the legislation through in the terms that he suggested. I have already said that, if a choice ultimately has to be made between haste and content, content must be the determining factor. I hope that he accepts that, if we can achieve proper speed—I do not know whether we can—if we can achieve the legislation by the end of July and it is in good order, that would be to the benefit of the country as a whole.
I note what my hon. Friend says about proposals 3 and 4, which I announced today. The third proposal has, albeit on a narrower basis, achieved wide support on the Labour Benches. As to the fourth proposal, of course I will consider what my hon. Friend says, and I hope that, in turn, he will look at the small print of the proposal. He is likely to be reassured by that. On co-operation, we look forward to the usual co-operation with the usual channels.
Mr. David Davis: I agree with the Home Secretary on one issue: the reputation of
182
this country abroad is extraordinarily important. Even more important, however, is the foundation stone of the British justice system, which, as I understand it, is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty—proven guilty on criminal standards under criminal process. What the Home Secretary is suggesting is a civil process leading to criminal sanctions, and rather fundamental criminal sanctions. Most free societies give their citizens the right to leave that society. That is pretty fundamental, and that is what the Home Secretary is striking down. I will oppose the legislation during its progress through the House—not delay it, but oppose it by argument.
On the question of undue haste in passing legislation that affects individual liberty, will the Home Secretary give thought not just to the process of the House, but to the interests of organisations outside which will want to comment closely on his proposals in the coming months?
Mr. Straw: On the last point, I said in my statement that we would take account of views expressed outside the House, as well as inside the House. It will come as no surprise to the right hon. Gentleman or the House to learn that we have already informally consulted the police organisations and NCIS about the proposals, as well as the Football Association, but there are others that have an interest in the matter.
There are some people—I respect their views, but I do not happen to agree with them—who take the right hon. Gentleman's view that civil process should never be used to deal with bad behaviour of the kind that we are talking about. That opinion was voiced during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act in respect of anti-social behaviour orders. Our point was that the existing law provided, for example, for evictions and for all kinds of orders to be made by civil courts on the basis of a process that uses the civil burden and standard of proof, but, having been made, if they are then broken they are subject to effective criminal sanctions, including custody for breaching injunctions. This is no different in principle. Moreover, as with the anti-social behaviour orders, where one of the banning orders is broken, that is a criminal offence and the breach of the order would be subject to the criminal standard of proof.
Mr. Derek Twigg: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. It is interesting that the Opposition had four or five attempts at legislation during their 18 years in power, but still failed to stop violence and disorder. It is a subject that Opposition Members seem to want to shy away from.
Let us get down to what has been proposed today. I welcome everything in my right hon. Friend's statement, but, as has already been mentioned, the Bill of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made it clear that magistrates had various powers that they never used. Does my right hon. Friend know why the magistrates did not carry out the actions that they should have?
Secondly, why do we again see a mass deportation, albeit of many innocent people, but obviously of some people who are not innocent, without their being taken to court in the countries where the offences were committed? Clearly, unless such countries take firm action, people will go there and think that they will get away with it again.

183
Finally, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the withholding of passports on the occasion of big games, an important part of his proposals today? I think that it will be very effective.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to call attention to the Opposition's confusion. As I have already indicated, they develop an extraordinary total amnesia—only when it suits them, however—about all events and responsibilities for actions taken before I May 1997. On other occasions, they want to nitpick at the record of the previous Conservative Government and bring that into comparison but, whenever it is convenient, they deny that they were involved in any way in what happened between 1979 and 1997.
My hon. Friend talked about the problems of so-called mass deportation. Many people who are used to the British system of justice will not really know administrative arrest, which is used in some European countries but not others. It is a concept by which police arrest people, detain them without charge for a period of around 12 hours and then either release them or, as in this case, deport them. In terms of the existing orders, it certainly would have been easier if the majority of those people had been subject to proper process in the criminal courts, but we have to take things as they are. One of the advantages of the new orders is that, where there is good evidence abroad of football violence by an individual, it can be used to obtain an order in this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We shall no doubt return to this matter before too long. The House has a great deal of business to get through today and must now move on.

Point of Order
4.53 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In his answer to me after his statement on the civil list, when I asked the Prime Minister why the statement was not news to the House, because the details had already appeared on the "Today" programme and in this morning's newspapers, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was no departure, because it what was what had happened 10 years ago, when such a statement was made before. I do not believe, from the answer I received, that the Prime Minister understood the issue that I was raising. Will you take this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to remind those on the Treasury Bench that it is their obligation to bring statements to the House before they are broadcast elsewhere?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I did not hear the exchanges which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and I would not want to refer specifically to them. Madam Speaker has made it extremely clear that any important Government announcements should be made in the first instance to this House.

Planning (Provision of Affordable Housing)
4.54 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow local authorities to stipulate that 50 per cent. of all new housing development should be set aside for affordable housing.
I hope that this is a subject that has broad appeal in many quarters of the House.
In January, the National Housing Federation carried out a survey that revealed the sorry state of affairs that more than half of Britain's population believe that they or their children will not be in a position financially to buy their home in 20 years' time. If we are to change that perception of the future and provide the housing that our country needs, we need massively to increase the amount of affordable housing in the UK, especially in property hot spots such as London. My Bill would not mandate local authorities to do things, but allow councils effectively to set a quota that half of the housing developments in their area should consist of affordable housing and ensure that that rule guides councils when they give planning permission to developers seeking permission to build.
Many people's lives are blighted by the lack of affordable housing, and we should not presume that the problem is confined to urban areas, such as my constituency. At the weekend, I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and discovered that the issue is significant in rural communities and small towns in her area. Urban, suburban and rural communities throughout much of England face a lack of affordable housing: the same challenge confronts the smallest villages and the biggest towns and cities. I was brought up in Herefordshire: my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) has discovered that almost no affordable housing is being built in large parts of that county, and I know that affordable housing is now entirely absent from the market in the village in which I used to live.
My surgery, like that of many other Members of Parliament, is packed every week with people who are trying to buy a new home or to move to a decent home, but are having difficulty finding an affordable property. My constituency has the largest proportion of electors living in local authority property of any constituency in England. Today, I checked the figures with my local council and discovered that there are more than 13,000 people on the waiting list, of whom 5,000 have no tenancy.
High and rising land values combined with increasing property prices mean that we are pricing many people out of the market. Of course, little local battles can yield results: on the south bank, we had a successful battle over Coin street in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and another over the Cherry garden pier site in the 1980s and 1990s; and battles are being fought to ensure that there are affordable homes around Tower bridge and on the Heygate and Dickens estates in Bermondsey. However, the problem is not merely one of numbers and statistics, but of keeping communities together, making it possible for people to remain where their family has lived for
186
generations, and ensuring that all communities have the key workers that they need to carry out the basic jobs on which every community depends for its support.
We could have a long debate about the definition of "affordable housing", and perhaps one day we shall. For now, I offer two definitions, the first of which appears in Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circular 6/98. It states that, for the purpose of planning policy, affordable housing is
Low cost market and subsidised housing…available to people who cannot afford to rent or buy houses generally available on the open market.
The National Housing Federation states that
rents are affordable if the majority of working households taking up new tenancies are not caught in the poverty trap or paying more than 25 per cent. of their net income in rent.
My arguments do not apply solely to council or local authority housing; they apply equally to properties that people take out mortgages to buy, properties in shared ownership and properties that are rented from housing associations, trusts or private landlords. I commend Tower Hamlets council and Wychavon council—authorities in different parts of the country—for taking developers to court under planning law and succeeding in defending the interests of their communities by ensuring that the developers did not pull a fast one and reduce the amount of affordable housing provided.
In London, more and more people exceed the 25 per cent. of net income threshold. The National Housing Federation says that registered social landlord rents in 1998 were unaffordable for more than 70 per cent. of households with one or more persons in work. Between 1979 and 1998, the average rent for council dwellings in London rose by 600 per cent.—three times inflation, which rose 200 per cent. in the same period. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) made that point well in a recent debate.
The general rate of inflation throughout the country has been 43 per cent. in the past decade, but it has exceeded 100 per cent. for housing in assured tenancies. In the past year in London, property prices have risen by approximately a quarter. The average cost of a home in this city is £163,000. The statistics speak for themselves. I do not need to tell any other London colleague, from whatever party, about the crisis that we face.
The position is a boon for property developers; it is heaven on earth for them. However, it is a nightmare from hell for people who cannot afford to remain in the community to which they belong or in which they need to work. In recent years, new housing has often been provided where it is least needed. Homelessness is increasing. Approximately six households per 1,000 throughout the country and nine per 1,000 in London are homeless.
The amount of social housing is decreasing. In 1993, approximately 31,200 social housing properties were completed. In 1999, the figure was 17,500. This year, only 13,500 affordable homes have been completed in England. Yet, according to the best projections, we need approximately 107,000 units every year for the next 10 years. Nearly 85,000 newly forming households, as well the 750,000 people who live in unfit housing, will need affordable homes.
The position is nonsensical. I am not talking about ensuring the provision of affordable, new-build housing. Approximately 750,000 houses in the United Kingdom

187
are empty. Many of them are in the wrong places to fulfil the need. That should be tackled. There are 150,000 homeless people. VAT penalises someone who brings old properties back into use; but VAT does not have to be paid on new-build housing.
I want to make an important point about key workers. I shall cite one example of a young woman called Rhian Williams, who is a special needs teacher. She teaches in Walthamstow and lives in Southwark. She earns less than £20,000 a year, and she has said publicly that she will have to move out of her flat at the end of July. It costs £287 a month. She cannot find anywhere else for less than £600 a month. She approached the Church Commissioners, who said that they would love to house her but that there would be a three-year wait. The result is that a special needs teacher, whom we need, will leave London and seek a job abroad. She is typical of many public sector workers who say that rising prices are beyond their control and that it is therefore increasingly difficult for them to carry on.
Unless there are opportunities for the teacher, the nurse at hospitals such as Guy's, the bus driver, the postal worker and the social worker to live here, we shall not have a community with the support that it needs. We are losing 10,000 key workers every year. We have an opportunity to remedy that.
The Green Paper has been issued for consultation. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that we shall enable local authorities to secure a proportion of affordable housing in larger housing developments in urban and rural areas. I welcome the statement from the Greater London Authority that it is about to hold an inquiry on housing, and the new Mayor's indication of support for a 50 per cent. proposal.
I hope that we can have a quota for affordable housing in all developments, not only new developments; a quota for small developments, not only big developments; an obligation on councils to consider the options and, if they wish, to go up to 50 per cent. I also hope that democratically elected local representatives, not developers, will determine what constitutes housing need. We need housing that is determined by need.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Tom Brake, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Paul Keetch, Mr. Andy Love.

Planning (Provision of Affordable Housing)
  PLANNING (PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING)
  Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to permit local authorities to increase to 50 per cent. the proportion of housing in any development which is affordable to people in low paid employment or with equivalent incomes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 150].
Orders of the Day

  Local Government Bill [Lords] (Programme)
  5.5 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill [Lords]:—

  Local Government Bill [Lords] (Programme)
    Report and Third Reading
    1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second of those days.

    Proceedings on Consideration
    2. (1) Subject to the Speaker's powers to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, the proceedings to be taken on consideration on each of the two allotted days shall be as shown in the second column of the Table in sub-paragraph (2) below and shall be taken in the order so shown.
    (2) Each part of the proceedings on those days shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the third column of the Table.

    TABLE

    Allotted day

    Proceedings

    Time for conclusion of proceedings

    First day

    New Clauses relating to Part I, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 1 to 8.

    One and one-half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

    New Clauses relating to Part II, other than Clauses relating to access to information.

    Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

    New Schedules relating to Part II, other than Schedules relating to access of information, Amendments to Clauses 9 to 20

    New Clauses relating to access to information, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 21 and 22,

    Four and one-half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

    Amendments to Schedule 1,

    Amendments to Clauses 23 to 40,

    Amendments to Schedule 2,

    Amendments to Clauses 41 to 45

    New Clauses relating to Part III, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 46 to 54.

    Five and one-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

    Amendments to Schedule 3,

    Amendments to Clauses 55 to 80

    New Clauses relating to proportional representation, New Schedules so relating,

    Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

    New Clauses relating to Part IV,

    New Schedules so relating,

    Amendments to Clauses 81 to 86,

    New Clauses relating to Part V, other than Clauses relating to pensions and allowances or to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,

    New Schedules relating to Part V, other than Schedules relating to pensions and allowances or to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,

    Amendments Clauses 87 to 93.

    New Clauses relating to pensions and allowances, New Schedules so relating, Remaining new Clauses other than Clauses relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,

    Six and three-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

    Remaining new Schedules other than Schedules relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,

    Amendments to Clauses 94 to 97

    Second day

    New Clauses relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, New Schedules so relating.

    Two and one-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day.

    Amendments to Clauses 98 to 101,

    Amendments to Schedules 4 and 5,

    Amendments to Clauses 102 and 103.

    Conclusion of proceedings
    3.—(1) For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are brought to a conclusion at the time appointed by this Order, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

    (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

    (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

    (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
    (3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
    (4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

    Miscellaneous
    4. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting.
    5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.
    6. If on an allotted day a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day or to Seven o'clock—

    (a) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion, and

    (b) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for the period after Ten o'clock on that day for which sub-paragraph (a) permits them to continue.

    7.—(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
    (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

    Supplementary provisions
    8. In this Order "allotted day" means today or any other day on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
    9. If any Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order so as to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Order, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
    The Bill was in Committee in the House of Commons for more than 40 hours and 16 sittings, following consideration in the other place involving four days for the Committee stage, two for Report and one for Third Reading.
    Debate in Committee was conducted in good spirit. It was extremely constructive, and there was a general intention of improving the Bill, which I think was achieved. An informal timetable was agreed, and was used effectively, with no curtailment of debate on any point raised by the Opposition parties. There was no complaint from either side about insufficient time being allocated for debate. Indeed, we had the opportunity to sit more frequently if we needed to.
    The time allocated for Report has been discussed through the usual channels. We tabled this motion with a view to ensuring that there was sufficient opportunity, within the overall time provided, to discuss all aspects of the Bill, to which amendments have been tabled by both sides. That approach has also been discussed through the usual channels. I therefore do not intend to take up any more of the time available in discussing how we should organise the business of considering the Bill, and propose that we proceed to do so as soon as possible.
    I look forward to another constructive debate today.
    5.6 pm
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: I shall speak briefly.
    It is true that the motion has been agreed by all the major parties, but I do not want the Minister to run away with the notion that we accept for a moment that six hours

    191
    and 45 minutes is enough for us to discuss every clause in this not exactly short Bill—with the exception of that dealing with the section 28 issue, which will be dealt with tomorrow. It was in the spirit of trying to be helpful to the House, as always, that we agreed the motion.
    As the Minister was good enough to concede, the Committee stage was conducted in good spirit. There were a few good jokes here and there, at least from our side. The Government, of course, lost almost every argument in Committee, but, sadly, none of the votes. The Minister was also good enough to confirm that we took a wholly constructive attitude. We supported the good things in the Bill and tried to make them better, and we opposed the bad. Above all, we tried to improve the Bill as a whole.
    The Minister mentioned amendments, which, from her point of view, was bad salesmanship. A total of 438 Government-inspired amendments were tabled in the Lords, and, subsequently, nearly 400 more were tabled in the Commons Committee. At this late stage, the Government have tabled well over 100 new amendments—115, according to my arithmetic—again, to their own Bill. No wonder the Minister said on Second Reading that the Bill was not yet finished.
    Things are going from bad to worse, as we shall see as the debates develop. Labour Back Benchers are queueing up to rubbish the Bill. The Government have been universally criticised over Cabinet secrecy. They face renewed defeats in the Lords on council structures and on section 28. Frankly, the Bill has turned into an embarrassing shambles. It is hardly surprising that the Minister was slow handclapped at the Local Government Association conference last week.
    5.9 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: One advantage of having three children and 10 grandchildren is that I am used to people not listening to what I say. Indeed, some would claim that I have made an entire career of talking when no one listens to what I say, which is why I have been so long in the House of Commons. However, I want to make a serious protest about the growing practice—on the part of not just the Government, but Opposition Front Benchers—of reaching an agreement on timetabling.
    The Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons has made a proposal, which has not, as far as I am aware, been debated in any real detail by ordinary Members of Parliament, to move towards the routine timetabling of all legislation. It is important that we put on record what that entails. If both Front-Bench teams agree a timetable—I am talking not about any particular type of legislation, but about all legislation—the right of Back Benchers to move amendments and the right of constituents to ask their individual Members to move an amendment that may not be agreed by their particular party will be, if not grossly circumscribed, then, even worse, lost.
    As a democrat, I happen to think that the reason why the House of Commons works—indeed, the reason why our extraordinary system of government in the United Kingdom works—is because it is sufficiently flexible to allow any person who wants to write, to telephone or to
    192
    visit an individual Member of Parliament to raise a matter that could form the basis of an amendment to legislation. If that is lost because of an agreement by both Front-Bench teams to get legislation through, irrespective of how many individual Members of Parliament have the right to take part in the debate, we are moving towards a juggernaut system that will destroy many of the rights of individuals in this place and in the UK generally. I am almost coming to dread the words "programme motion" or "the usual channels" because I have been here long enough to know that power always resides in the Whips Offices and with those who agree on the general programming of the material.
    In my lifetime, legislation has not necessarily got better. This is not a party point. I think that all Governments are faced with the difficulty that, before Third Reading or, even worse, in another place, large drifts of amendments to Government legislation are tabled by Government managers. That cannot be acceptable.
    When I was a junior Minister, the following was drummed into me: give parliamentary draftsmen enough time to frame good legislation, tell them the basis of it, argue with them on the way in which it is framed, bear in mind the general implications of the whole of the legislation and then—and only then—bring it to the House of Commons for debate. That is getting lost. To substitute for that the suggestion, "Well, it doesn't matter because Members have only so long to debate the legislation anyway. If it is not in the form that it will be in law after it is passed by both Houses, that doesn't matter. At some point or another, it can be amended in future." We must stop and think where we are getting to. As a House, we must seriously consider whether we are looking at what we are doing and are confident of the quality of the scrutiny that we are giving legislation. I do not think that that is the case.
    The fact that Ministers and the Opposition Front-Bench team do not even feel nowadays that they must get up and defend at any great length the imposition of a timetable motion is in itself revealing. This is a massive Bill. It concerns local authorities across the UK. It has enormous implications. Simply to say that that is a very good reason for curtailing the debate on the various provisions does not seem to follow; it is a non sequitur. The longer and more important the Bill and the more serious the content, the more it should be looked at by all Members of the House of Commons—not just one group and not just from one particular political point of view.
    The House of Commons needs very careful scrutiny. It is full of people who have high hopes and high standards, but that does not make them infallible. Civil servants are excellent and take brilliant direction, and we have parliamentary draftsmen who know superbly how to create legislation, but that does not make them infallible.
    What we as individual Members of Parliament have to say—I accept that I have said this before; God help me, I may even say it again—is that it is important that the House does not routinely accept timetable motions as though they are the answer. Timetabling is not modernisation, but a retrograde movement. It takes away from the rights of the people of the United Kingdom to have on their statute book laws that work, laws that have been thought about and properly framed, and laws that the citizens themselves accept and want to uphold. When we forget that, we forget why this Parliament exists.
    5.16 pm
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: I say hurrah and—to quote a famous 18th-century speech in its entirety—"ditto" to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). However, I shall not follow that 18th-century speech in like measure because, as the hon. Lady said, this is the 35th Bill in this Parliament on which debate has been truncated. The purpose of all guillotine motions, whether agreed between those on the Front Benches or not, is to prevent continuation of debate, and, therefore, in many instances, as the hon. Lady said, to deny hon. Members the opportunity to speak perhaps to their own amendments and to vote on amendments.
    With today's motion, the Government hold out the prospect of certainty in the finishing of business and the rising of the House. The motion certainly would enable the House to conclude the debate, if not the votes, at 10 minutes to midnight.
    The timetable motion is Government business. It is not being driven by the Opposition, although they have agreed to it. There is clearly a very firm intent by many hon. Members to go down the route of programming legislation. All I want to know about that route is, who ever consults Back Benchers?
    I was not told by my Front Benchers that there was to be a guillotine on this legislation. Undoubtedly—I defer to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions on this—Labour Members were fully consulted on it. Undoubtedly, Labour Members who had signed non-Government amendments were sought out, and a calculation was made on whether there would be adequate time for them to speak as the voice of their constituency or of our country. I have no doubt that Liberal Democrat Members fastidiously went through that process. Perhaps I am making a slight criticism of my own Front Benchers for their failure to determine whether this agreed timetable motion meets the criterion required of every motion that binds the House.
    The problem, of course, was demonstrated again today. Another piece of legislation has been announced on the hoof; apparently, it is to be completed by July. I should simply like to know what has happened to the Disqualifications Bill.
    In truth, we have simply to examine the pattern of legislation in this Parliament to understand why there is a crisis, and the mood seems to be to accept the Government's continual guillotining of Bills. In the very first and long Session of this Parliament, there were 1,901 pages of legislation. In the second Session of this Parliament, there were 1,590 pages of legislation. In this Session, so far—not even counting what the Home Secretary has in store for us—there have been 2,537 pages of legislation. That is putting not a quart but a gallon into a pint pot. Motions such as this truncate the Government's mandate when it comes to consideration of important Bills, and hon. Members must reflect on what the Government are doing to them.
    The Minister said that the 40 hours spent in a jolly little Committee upstairs covered all the dimensions of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, that does not tally with the number of Government amendments tabled in Committee, in the Lords and now on the Floor of this House. Those amendments amount to a huge number of additional pages of legislation on top of the two and a half thousand
    194
    already brought before the House this Session. They reveal that the Government have not even prepared the legislation.
    The system is breaking down. The Government write legislation as it goes through the House, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made admirably clear. The practice is improper, but yet again the House is being marched to a guillotine.
    The motion contains an element that strikes against the function of Back-Bench Members. Paragraph 3 is entitled "Conclusion of Proceedings". All hon. Members want to table amendments on matters about which they feel strongly, and hope to get an opportunity to speak to them in the ordinary course of business. However, I draw the House's attention to the terms of this agreed timetable, of which paragraph 3(1) states:
    For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are brought to a conclusion at the time appointed by this Order, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others).
    Paragraph 3(1)(c) makes a special category of
    the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown.
    Paragraph 3(4) states:
    If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
    That means that one vote will cover almost all Government amendments to the Bill. No other amendments will be taken, regardless of how much they represent the opinion of Back-Bench Members from the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties. The motion gives the Government power to abolish all the subsidiary amendments that Back-Bench Members may want to raise. The tightness of the guillotine, which allows just six and three quarter hours for debate, will not even give us an opportunity to speak.
    Many hon. Members have commented that being jumped with legislation means that we cannot anticipate how we fulfil our role or function in the House. There were 52 Bills in the first Session of this Parliament—one Bill a week. Invariably, people interested in matters such as civil liberties, over which the Home Secretary rode so gaily a few minutes ago, bring their concerns to the detailed examination of legislative proposals.
    I apologise to the House for the fact that I tabled amendment No. 221, to clause 60, only yesterday. It appears as a starred amendment, because it was tabled too late to be selected for debate. In a reasoned, measured debate, there would have been every possibility that I would get to speak to the amendment, which deals with matters of freedom of information and the Bill's creation of a criminal offence without any test of harm.
    I am speaking up today, along with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, in order to stand up for Back Benchers. We should not give the Government the right to mandate all the amendments necessitated by the fact that they did not draw up the Bill correctly in the first place. That amounts to writing legislation on the hoof. The Government will get their amendments, but what about the voice of every diligent Back Bencher in the House who feels that he or she has a contribution to make or argument to put that may command a majority of the House?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend speaks with immense knowledge of the way the

    195
    House operates, and with a fervour that can be picked up in all parts of the House. Is he not saying, in essence, that this guillotine motion—and it is typical of what might happen in the future—is making the role of Back Benchers in the House totally irrelevant and handing over control to the usual channels? Am I not right in saying that the House is a place in which Members of Parliament, whatever their role, should be heard, and that they are being denied?
    Mr. Shepherd: I agree with my hon. Friend. He has only to refer to paragraphs 3(1)(c) and (4) to see that the motion gives enormous power to the Government. In addition, there is another device, to which my Front-Bench colleagues agree. What is so startling is that debate on guillotining Bills should be included in the time allotted to the first group of amendments. The objective is quite clear, and we have had enough of it—it is to stop people discussing the fact that they are being denied the right to speak to their own amendments, and even to vote on them. It has happened time after time.
    One can see Ministers' eyes glazing over—they think that government is far too important a job to be troubled with the mere consideration of Bills. This is Henry VIII at his very best:
    Everything I say shall be law.
    Indeed, we will not even vote on this because of paragraphs 3(1)(c) and (4) of the motion.
    It is pretty futile to ask the Government what they are doing in the shape and form of these motions, but I do so nevertheless. Ultimately, they are striking not just at me but at their own Back Benchers. We have seen it time and again—for example, with the debate on air traffic control. That indicates the prospect for people who may feel strongly on issues in this Bill.
    The House does not even discuss whole parts of Bills. The Disqualifications Bill that emerged from here has not re-emerged anywhere else, but we have had debates on Lords amendments in which only three and a half out of 12 groupings have been reached—what a discourtesy to the House of Lords. What does it imply when measures such as this go back to the House of Lords and it sees that we have not discussed important amendments?
    Those were the remarks that I wished to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    5.28 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and, if I may say so, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
    I oppose the timetable motion, notwithstanding the fact that I understand that it has been agreed with those on the Front Benches. That does not, from my perspective, give it any greater validity. We need first to understand how frequently this process takes place. I believe that this is
    196
    the 34th timetable motion in this Parliament. That contrasts markedly with the practice in previous Parliaments.
    Mr. Shepherd: I would suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that 35 Bills have been guillotined, with well over 50 motions to secure the objective.
    Mr. Hogg: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. The number is even greater than I anticipated. The contrast, therefore, with previous practice is even more marked. I understand that under the Government headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), there were some 17 timetable motions, while under the Government led by Lady Thatcher there were some 34 timetabled Bills in the 11 years that she was Prime Minister. We are seeing an extraordinary increase in the practice and it is wrong.
    First, I want to emphasise and endorse what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said. She clearly articulated the anxiety that ought to be felt when these timetable motions are proposed. Her first point was on the redress of grievances. All of us, as Back Benchers, have an obligation to find suitable opportunities to express the anxieties, uncertainties and grievances of our constituents. That is one of the foremost duties of a Member of Parliament, although in this legislative sausage machine it is becoming less easy to perform. One way in which one does so is by tabling amendments to Bills, which give one the opportunity to focus on individual cases. The consequence of timetable motions, which provide a tight framework for debate, is that we cannot debate the amendments that we have tabled to provide the focus for our constituents' grievances. The hon. Lady is right about that.
    The second reason why I deprecate this use of timetabling is that it is the inevitable product of too heavy a legislative programme. The reason why we have such motions—apart from the unwillingness of the Labour party to sit late—is because of the enormous legislative programmes. No one supposes for a moment, however, that this country is better governed because we have this large corpus of law; indeed, we are much worse governed. If we have to have timetable motions to get the vast body of legislation through, the solution is not to have these motions but to have less legislation.
    My third point—it was also the hon. Lady's—deals with the willingness of the Government to legislate on the hoof. The hon. Lady has much experience in government and she will forgive my saying that so do I. Both of us would agree that when we started in this place, Governments were much more disciplined about preparing their Bills in advance. That is not to say that we did not sometimes legislate on the hoof, but we tried not to.
    It is an absurdity that 115 Government amendments are tabled for discussion—I think that about 400 were tabled in Committee, which is also an absurdity. Also, the Bill has already been discussed in the Lords. What sort of government is this? It is thoroughly incompetent and bad government and we should not acquiesce in it by approving timetable motions.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred to paragraph 3 of the motion, which enables Government business to be thrust through regardless but also prevents our ensuring that we discuss and vote on other matters.

    197
    My hon. Friend also pointed out that the time that we are taking to debate the motion will be taken out of the time for the substantive discussion. If the House does its duty by protesting against the motion, the first part of the Bill will barely be discussed. The timetable motion will prevent it from being discussed. The Government's answer is simply to say, "Well, don't talk about the timetable motion." That is a scandal, but it does not surprise me because hon. Members who were in the House last night heard the Minister with responsibility for prisons say in terms in his reply, "We, the Government party, are not interested in hearing what the Opposition have to say. Why should we be?"
    The Government do not want the House to debate the matter. Indeed, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, who is in charge of the Bill, has just left. She may have fled—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No, I see that she is below the Gangway with her back to me. I suppose that is courteous enough—at least she is here.
    However, the point is that we are so constructing the timetable motions that we cannot debate the substance of the Bill. We have 50 pages of amendments. There are 16 groups for discussion. There are about 242 amendments, of which 115 are Government amendments. Any time for voting comes out of the overall time. We can be entirely certain that whole wedges of proposed legislation will not have been discussed in this place.
    Let us remember that this is the only occasion when the House as a whole has the opportunity to discuss the detail of the Bill. Second Reading is not a substitute for that. The Report stage is when the House as a whole can discuss the legislation that will bind our constituents and our fellow citizens.
    This is a scandal. I know that the Government propose to introduce more and more such motions, but it is our business, as the Opposition, to say that this is tyranny; we should play no part in it.
    5.36 pm
    Ms Oona King: I welcome this debate on timetabling, believe it or not; although I do not welcome its direction or logic. I shall speak only briefly, particularly as I do not want to do the House a discourtesy, because I cannot remain for the whole debate.
    I cannot help but pick up on the main thrust of the arguments put forward by various Members that, if we have timetabling and programming of Bills, we undermine parliamentary scrutiny. If one wants to undermine parliamentary scrutiny, the best way to do so is to scrutinise matters in the middle of the night. That is what we do all the time.
    Many hon. Members are sick to death of that ludicrous and antediluvian procedure; we certainly welcome moves to change it. I understand some of the concerns that are being expressed; they are genuine points, but my fundamental point is that they stem from the fact that, historically, opposition in this place—whether from the official Opposition or from the ranks of the Government—has only one weapon: time. Often, that results in time wasting.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: In my time, I have been known to oppose my own Government—impossible though that may seem. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a difference between carefully reading what is written in
    198
    legislation and automatically opposing it? She assumes that only those who oppose the content will want to read what is in the legislation. I assure her that that is not the case.
    Ms King: I assure my hon. Friend that that was not my assumption at all. I should like another assumption to be undermined—that there can be parliamentary scrutiny only if debates are allowed to proceed in an untimetabled fashion.
    A further assumption is that Back Benchers, too, would not benefit from more timetabling. I would be astonished if I knew what was coming up and when. My goodness, how revolutionary that would be. I could plan what I wanted to speak on and when—the parts of the debate on which I wanted to make points that were important to my constituents.
    I said that I should speak only briefly, so I shall conclude by reminding hon. Members that, earlier, it took 30 minutes to make two points. All MPs—including Back Benchers—will have to realise that we need to show a little more self-control and an ability to make our points more succinctly.
    5.39 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: The House is now in distinct danger of demeaning itself and denying its essential role in the legislative process. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who have apparently signed up to the timetable motion have not explained to me why they have done so. They may or may not do so subsequently, but it is beyond me to understand why they have connived in this grubby little parliamentary manoeuvre. That is a matter for them, but they cannot expect me to support it, and nor do I.
    The Minister boasted that the Bill had spent 40 hours in Committee. Forty whole hours—I am supposed to be impressed. Frankly, I am not. I remind the few Labour Members who have been here more than three minutes that in the good old days when they were in Opposition and they took their job seriously, in the early 1980s, it was the convention that a large Bill was in Committee for approaching 200 and certainly 150 hours before a guillotine motion was even contemplated. That expectation has come down over the years, and that may or may not be correct, but the fact that the Committee spent 40 consensual and jolly hours apparently not doing a very good job of scrutinising the Bill should not impress those of us who were not members of the Committee when we reach Report stage. So we can dismiss that as an unsatisfactory and specious argument.
    If we look in detail at this ghastly guillotine motion agreed by those on the so-called Opposition Front Bench, we see that the large number of measures contained in each group of amendments in the first set of groups gives rise to the extraordinary phenomenon that, were we to debate the first group—the structure of the guillotine will effectively diminish the time available—we would have six minutes for each of the items within that group. The group contains some important provisions about Wales, local authority powers, consultation and many matters which in normal circumstance would require proper debate and consideration.
    When I say six minutes for each item, that is six minutes for the entire House and for all Members present to make the contribution that they want to make. That is

    199
    not including the time that will be taken if the House decides to express its view in a Division. I know that Divisions are unfashionable on the Government side, but some of us still cling to the idea that casting a vote in this place as well as saying something is of some importance. The consensus between the two Front Bench teams may have eliminated that possibility, but some of us still hold it rather dear. We may want to divide the House as often as possible just to cling on to the power as long as we still have it, but I shall leave that idea to colleagues to contemplate.
    The second set of groups of amendments is even more extraordinary. By my calculation, one minute is allowed per item selected by the Speaker for debate and consideration by the House. That is one minute in total for all Members of the House present who wish to participate. Even if we accept the strictures of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) to be brief, she surely agrees that a minute to debate an entire item is just a little restrictive.
    We shall be discussing executive arrangements, overview and scrutiny arrangements, matters such as the resignation of a deputy mayor and the definition of the role of a mayor and of assembly members. I have picked just a few matters at random. Those are matters that surely justify more than a minute's debate, but apparently not. It has been agreed that a minute per item is all that is required in this ever more modern House of Commons. Those who have put their names to this measure apparently agree with that.
    For the next two groups of amendments, three minutes per item has been allowed. For the one after that, one minute has been allowed. For the one after that five minutes, and for the one after that, three minutes. Then, bizarrely, we are apparently to spend two and a quarter hours on homosexuality. I leave the world outside to make a judgment about that priority. It strikes me as odd to say the least that we should dwell on homosexuals for two and a quarter hours while skipping lightly over tribunals, membership of the standards committee, investigative procedures, proportional representation, and procedures and timing for elections. All of those will be swept aside in a matter of minutes, while we dwell on homosexuals at length in a leisurely manner.
    This cannot be serious, as one of the people I have been watching over the weekend, Mr. McEnroe, would no doubt say if he was here. I find it saddening and demeaning for the House that we are being asked to support a measure as grubby and disgraceful as this. I do not give it my support. If the House were to divide, I would want to vote against it. If the House does not divide, I want it to be very well known that I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in utterly opposing the motion and its like.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I will be very brief. I believe that in the very near future, if not during this debate, the House will have to decide whether there is any meaningful constitutional role and responsibility for the genuine Back Bencher in the House.
    I believe that the position of Back Benchers is being increasingly eroded and made more and more difficult, and more and more irrelevant. As a Back Bencher of some
    200
    standing in the House I deeply regret that, because it is not just a matter of Opposition and Government. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has so often said in the House, with great commitment and great knowledge and great experience, there are divisions within the political parties in the House; and I believe that, if the House is to have any meaningful role in the eyes of the electorate at large, those views that differ within a party, let alone those on which there are differences across the House, should have a proper opportunity for expression in this place.
    The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) spoke about wanting to be able to plan ahead as to when she was going to speak and to plan the other duties that, rightly, she has in the House. I must tell her that, given the volume of legislation—which was so well conveyed by my right hon. and hon. Friends—she is most unlikely to be called; and she was not elected to the House merely to trot through the Lobby in support of her party. Similarly, I remind those on the Conservative Front Bench that I was not elected by the people of Macclesfield to trot through the Lobby in support of everything that my party says either in opposition or in government; that is not what the House is about.
    Mr. David Davis: I just want to present to my hon. Friend evidence in support of his argument that the problem is not the fact that the Opposition's main weapon is time, but the progressive tendency of all Governments over time to compress Report stages. In the 1970s, multi-day Report stages were the norm; today, they are the exception. That is why half of all the guillotines and timetable motions in the past 15 years have occurred in the past three years, under the present Government.
    Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he, too, has much experience of the way that the House operates. He has been a Minister. He currently chairs perhaps the most important Select Committee of the House and, I believe, is well regarded from all parts of the House for the contribution that he has made to the deliberations in the House. The point that he makes is absolutely right.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was absolutely right to point out the amount of legislation that the House is being expected to deal with. In this Session of Parliament alone, we are dealing with more than 2,500 pages of legislation. That is outrageous; and for the only opportunity that the whole House has to discuss the nitty-gritty of a Bill to be constricted and to be prescribed as is proposed in the motion before us is, I believe, absolutely outrageous.
    I say to Ministers, there is also a severe problem in this prescriptive motion, because the Government could seek to persuade their own Members to speak at length on amendments, thus preventing the real, crucial issues that are of concern to the Opposition ever being debated.
    The Government are neutering the House of Commons.
    Ms Oona King rose—
    Mr. Winterton: They are raping the House of Commons. They are castrating the House of Commons.

    201
    They are doing so by denying the right of Back Benchers to contribute, virtually at any stage of the Bill's passage. I do not believe—
    Ms King: The hon. Gentleman suggested that timetabling is not necessary and that I want it because I need time to prepare for a speech. But earlier, I spoke after 30-seconds notice. He said that the timetabling motion is outrageous and that the Government are castrating the House.
    However, has he noticed that not a single woman is on the Opposition Back Benches? Unpredictability further discriminates against women. That is outrageous.
    Mr. Winterton: I have to tell the hon. Lady that, of all the people in the House, I most value the fact that the House is accessible to women Members of Parliament. I should know; I am married to one. She came into the House on her own merit and she speaks for the Conservative party on an important matter.
    As the hon. Lady is more than aware, many things take place in the House other than the debate that is currently taking place in the Chamber. I shall not comment on who is present and on what sex they are. All I can say is that Conservative Members believe fervently in genuine debate.
    The motion will deprive us of the opportunity to debate the issues and of influencing those on the Government and the Opposition Front Benches. I think that the House will rue the day that this motion is passed, as it will be because of the Government's huge majority. However, representatives of the Opposition parties are putting down markers that the purpose of the House is being undermined and destroyed.
    I regret the fact that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have agreed to the motion. It is an abuse of the House and I support the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. It might embarrass the hon. Lady, but I must say that she is a fervent and stalwart believer in democracy and parliamentary democracy. It is a pity that more Labour Members are not prepared to take the same stance. I congratulate her, as she as been congratulated by my hon. Friends. I only wish that there were more like her in the House.
    5.52 pm
    Mr. Graham Brady: It is very difficult to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) but, as ever, it is a great privilege. I endorse everything that he said.
    I want to speak briefly to underline the important warning that was given at the outset of the debate by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who raised the concern about the rights of Back Benchers. I am particularly moved to do so because of an experience that I had a few weeks ago in relation to the Transport Bill, which was also timetabled. A complete absurdity took place. I tabled an amendment which I was told had the support of Ministers, and I knew that it had the support of Members from both sides of the House and of all the major parties. However, that amendment could be neither debated nor voted on because of a timetable motion.
    202
    We are in precisely the same position this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has tabled an important amendment that merits debate and consideration. However, that amendment cannot be debated or considered, and that is bad for the House of Commons. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, it is also bad for our country and our democracy. We are not far from considering the important deliberations of the Modernisation Committee on the timetabling of legislation, so it is vital that all Members, particularly Back Benchers, understand what we stand to lose if we proceed with the further timetabling of legislation.
    The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) committed an error that is often made when making the argument for timetabling all legislation. She confused that argument with the one about the hours that Parliament sits. We are not talking about what time of day or night we hold our debates, and it is always possible to have debates on more than one day if it is necessary to do so to avoid sitting late. However, if we timetable all legislation, it is certain that the rights of Back Benchers to influence legislation and the rights of ordinary citizens to have their views and concerns expressed in the House of Commons will be vastly diminished. That will be regrettable and it will greatly damage our proud parliamentary democracy.
    I was heartened to hear the excellent contributions from those Members on both sides who warned of the consequences of what is being contemplated. I only hope that all Members start to hear those important warnings before it is too late.
    5.55 pm
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Although I accept that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have come to an arrangement with the Government, I have enormous reservations about the guillotine motion that is being discussed. It is an admission by the Government of the enormous work load that they are trying to push through this place in a short time. People will wonder why the House of Commons will rise on 28 July and return on 23 October, which is one of the longest recesses that there has ever been. That means that the time that we have to discuss, scrutinise and improve legislation will be truncated. Yet, the number of amendments that the Government have tabled shows that they believe that this Bill can be improved.
    The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) seems to believe that the Report stage exists merely for the Opposition to delay the Government getting their way. That is not what it is about. We have been sent here by our constituents to consider and to improve legislation, so that the Acts that we put on to the statute book are as good as they possibly can be.
    A full debate is not just an opportunity for Opposition Back Benchers. It also allows Government Back Benchers to scrutinise the Bill. The problem with a timetable motion is that my contribution even on this motion is being shortened. Because of the guillotine motion, I am a less effective Back Bencher than I otherwise could be. [Interruption.] No, we are all less effective. The role of

    203
    Parliament has been diminished by the motion. It is not about the Executive getting their legislation through; it is about the weakening of Parliament, and the weakening of Parliament weakens us all.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved.
    That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill [Lords]:—

    Report and Third Reading
    1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second of those days.

    Proceedings on Consideration
    2. (1) Subject to the Speaker's powers to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, the proceedings to be taken on consideration on each of the two allotted days shall be as shown in the second column of the Table in sub-paragraph (2) below and shall be taken in the order so shown.
    (2) Each part of the proceedings on those days shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the third column of the Table.

    TABLE

    Allotted day

    Proceedings

    Time for conclusion of proceedings

    First day

    New Clauses relating to Part I, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 1 to 8.

    One and one-half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

    New Clauses relating to Part II, other than Clauses relating to access to information.

    Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

    New Schedules relating to Part II, other than Schedules relating to access of information,

    Amendments to Clauses 9 to 20

    New Clauses relating to access to information, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 21 and 22,

    Four and one-half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

    Amendments to Schedule 1,

    Amendments to Clauses 23 to 40,

    Amendments to Schedule 2

    Amendments to Clauses 41 to 45

    New Clauses relating to Part III, New Schedules so relating, Amendments to Clauses 46 to 54.

    Five and one-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

    Amendments to Schedule 3,

    Amendments to Clauses 55 to 80

    New Clauses relating to proportional representation,

    Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this

    New Schedules so relating,

    Order.

    New Clauses relating to Part IV,

    New Schedules so relating,

    Amendments to Clauses 81 to 86,

    New Clauses relating to Part V, other than Clauses relating to pensions and allowances or to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,

    New Schedules relating to Part V, other than Schedules relating to pensions and allowances or to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,

    Amendments Clauses 87 to 93.

    New Clauses relating to pensions and allowances, New Schedules so relating, Remaining new Clauses other than Clauses relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,

    Six and three-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.

    Remaining new Schedules other than Schedules relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986,

    Amendments to Clauses 94 to 97

    Second day

    New Clauses relating to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, New Schedules so relating.

    Two and one-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day.

    Amendments to Clauses 98 to 101,

    Amendments to Schedules 4 and 5,

    Amendments to Clauses 102 and 103.

    Conclusion of proceedings
    3.—(1) For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are brought to a conclusion at the time appointed by this Order, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

    (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

    (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

    (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
    (3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
    (4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

    Miscellaneous
    4. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting.
    5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.
    6. If on an allotted day a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day or to Seven o'clock—

    (a) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion, and

    (b) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for the period after Ten o'clock on that day for which sub-paragraph (a) permits them to continue.

    7.—(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
    (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

    Supplementary provisions
    8. In this Order "allotted day" means today or any other day on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.
    9. If any Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order so as to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Order, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

  Local Government Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Local Government Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 8

      POWER TO MODIFY ENACTMENTS CONCERNING PLANS ETC: WALES
      '.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (6), the National Assembly for Wales may by order amend, repeal, revoke or disapply any enactment to which subsection (2) applies so far as that enactment has effect in relation to a local authority in Wales.
      (2) This subsection applies to—

      (a) section 49(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990,

      (b) section 2 of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995,

      (c) section 84(2)(b) of the Environment Act 1995,

      (d) any other enactment (whenever passed or made) which—

      (i) requires a local authority to prepare, produce or publish any plan or strategy relating to any particular matter, and

      (ii) is specified in an order made by the Secretary of State under this subsection.

      (3) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to—

      (a) all local authorities in Wales,

      (b) particular local authorities in Wales, or

      (c) particular descriptions of local authority in Wales.

      (4) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to a local authority only if the National Assembly for Wales considers—

      (a) that it is not appropriate for any such enactment as is mentioned in that subsection to apply to the authority, or

      (b) that any such enactment should be amended so that it operates more effectively in relation to the authority.

      (5) The power under subsection (1) to amend or disapply an enactment includes a power to amend or disapply an enactment for a particular period.
      (6) An order under subsection (2)(d)(ii) which specifies any enactment may provide that the power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to that enactment only if the National Assembly for Wales complies with any conditions specified in the order.
      (7) In this section "enactment" includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978).'.—[Mr. Hanson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.58 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): 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 6—Exercise of power under section 5—
      —(1) A local authority may submit a proposal to the Secretary of State that the power under section 5 should be exercised in relation to that authority in accordance with that proposal.
      (2) The Secretary of State may be regulations make provision for or in connection with the submission of an application by a local authority under subsection (1) above.

      207
      (3) Regulations under this section may include provision—

      (a) for the information required in any application;

      (b) for a local authority to show it has the capacity to give effect to the proposals;

      (c) for a timetable for consideration of a proposal;

      (d) for consultation with representatives of local government upon the proposals;

      (e) for independent assessment of a proposal;

      (f) for reasons to be given when an application is unsuccessful.'.

      Amendment No. 16, in clause 5, page 3, line 21, at beginning insert—
      '( ) A local authority may apply to the Secretary of State to amend, repeal, revoke, or disapply an enactment (whenever passed or made) which it considers prevents or obstructs it from exercising its power under section 2(1)'.
      Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 21, after "thinks", insert—
      ', whether or not on the application of a local authority,'.
      Amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—
      '( ) Before exercising the power under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult representatives of local government and such persons as he feels appropriate.'.
      Government amendment No. 100.
      Mr. Hanson: Clause 6 confers a power on the Secretary of State by order to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply any enactment, whenever passed or made, that requires a local authority to prepare, produce or publish any plan or strategy relating to any particular matter. New clause 8 and amendment No. 100 make provision for the exercise of that power by the National Assembly for Wales. In doing so, they seek to balance the Assembly's legitimate desire to have a degree of control over legislation affecting Welsh authorities while reflecting that this House and Parliament retain primacy in relation to primary legislation.
      New clause 8 states that the Assembly may exercise the powers in clause 6 in relation to the plans specified in subsection (2). That covers issues relating to air quality, energy conservation and waste disposal. The plans concern specific policy issues that have been devolved to the National Assembly, and the Government consider that the Assembly should be able to determine how local authorities in Wales should exercise their responsibilities in relation to those issues. The list in subsection (2) is not comprehensive, and subsection (2)(d) provides for the Secretary of State to specify further plans over which the Assembly can exercise powers under clause 6 in due course.
      6 pm
      Amendment No. 100 makes provision for the role of the Assembly in relation to the powers contained in new clause 6. It ensures that the Secretary of State will consult the Assembly before using his powers in clause 6 in a way that affects local authorities in Wales, and that no changes can be made to the Assembly's own legislation without its full consent. It also provides the Assembly with powers to submit proposals to the Secretary of State in order to make changes to planning requirements which are not contained in subsection (2) of the new clause. The amendments represent a sensible division of responsibility between the National Assembly and Parliament.
      208
      Grouped with these amendments are new clause 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), and amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18, which were tabled by the official Opposition. I will potentially listen to the Opposition's points but, briefly, all four amendments are, I hope, unnecessary. Local authorities can already make proposals to the Secretary of State. Indeed, my hon. Friends are actively encouraging them to do so through a range of initiatives. We have made it clear that we will look very closely at any proposals that come out of those initiatives, just as we will consider carefully and respond to proposals from any other local authority. I therefore hope that there is no question of any proposals being ignored.
      In the interests of time and given that many of the scrutineers—having argued for a considerable period about scrutiny of the Bill—have now disappeared from the Chamber, I shall commend the Government amendments and hope that the House will agree to them.
      Mr. Don Foster: We are more than happy to support the Government new clause, which gives important recognition to the work of the National Assembly for Wales. I wish to speak predominantly, but briefly, to new clause 6. I noted the Minister's rather strange use of the phrase, "I will potentially listen". I think that I am quoting him correctly.
      Mr. Hanson: I said, "I will particularly listen".
      Mr. Foster: If the Minister checks the record he will see that he said, "I will potentially listen." I hope that he will listen to the arguments and, while I suspect that I may not persuade him to accept the precise wording of new clause 6, I hope that he might be able to add some words of encouragement to the points that I shall raise.
      The House will be aware that, under part I, all local councils will be given potentially important new powers on well-being. Liberal Democrat Members welcome those powers very much indeed and, with the Government, recognise that from time to time an existing piece of legislation may get in the way of local authorities exercising those powers in the way that they think appropriate. Clause 5 therefore gives the Secretary of State the power to
      amend, repeal, revoke or disapply
      enactments that may get in the way of an individual council, all councils or particular groups of councils. We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is to have that power.
      Our concern is simply this: it is right and appropriate for an individual council that believes that a particular enactment is getting in the way of it fulfilling its new powers under the well-being clause to be able to go to the Secretary of State and seek his support for changes or revocations of that enactment. On 11 May, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), said:
      The Government have established the central-local partnership, a regular and formal meeting of local government representatives and Ministers not only from my Department, but across Government. That is the proper vehicle through which the experiences of local authorities can be discussed and brought to the attention of the Secretary of State.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 May 2000; c. 114.]

      209
      We accept that that is one vehicle which enables councils to draw their concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State. However, we believe that there should be a bottom-up approach, in which an individual council should be able to go directly to the Secretary of State and not through the central-local partnership route. New clause 6 merely gives effect to the desire that an individual council should be able to go and discuss its concerns directly with the Secretary of State and seek his support for its wish to make changes to existing enactments.
      If the Minister is not prepared to accept the particular formulation of new clause 6, I hope that he will be able to put clearly on the record that individual councils will have the opportunity sought by the new clause, regardless of whether that is included in the Bill or simply a matter of him giving that assurance.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: First, I acknowledge the fact that the Government are doing right by new clause 8, which is the correct way forward in the existing constitutional and devolutionary arrangements between the National Assembly and this House. However, there was scope for the Government to go a little further, as the Minister is well aware. He will also be aware that Members of the National Assembly shared disappointment across the Assembly Floor in response to the statement from the Local Government Secretary, Peter Law, this afternoon.
      For future reference, it is important to note some areas in which the Assembly is closely involved in local government in Wales, such as European development plans—the process for which will shortly restart in Wales—best value plans, local education plans and so on. By virtue of the fact that local government in Wales is a devolved matter and by virtue of the developing role of the National Assembly for Wales, such matters could in time—and perhaps even now, under the Bill, have come under the aegis—[Interruption.] I am pleased to hear from a sedentary intervention that those things will happen, as it is in those areas that local government most interacts with local people, and through which local people see their values and aspirations put into print in local government documents and reflected in priorities that the National Assembly for Wales may well take forward.
      Many people in Wales want and expect to see that sort of thing emerge in the fullness of time from the Bill and the new arrangements for local government in Wales. However, there is some disappointment that the new clause, as presently constituted, does not take a wider approach to some possibilities for devolution and local government in Wales. We were told that, together, the Labour Administration at the National Assembly and the Labour Government in London would always ensure the best possible co-operation at every stage of devolution. That does not always seem to be the way because, for whatever reason—and perhaps the problem is with Government Departments, rather than Government Ministers—there are entrenched ways and, occasionally, a rather slow approach to developing local government in Wales.
      The new clause is rather disappointing for what it leaves out. However, it is to be welcomed for what it includes, which is probably the minimum necessary to ensure a balanced set of powers in the Bill. However, from the Welsh perspective it is a rather poor start to consideration of the Bill. I very much hope that the power
      210
      that the Bill gives the Secretary of State—which is given to the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not a Secretary at the National Assembly—will include other plans which, when the time comes, will be used in an active and pro-active way.
      Peter Law himself said that he is under the impression that devolution is
      outside the radar of the DETR.
      On occasion, it is not so much outside the radar as that the radars, seemingly, are not pointing in the right direction. I hope that they will in future.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: I have news for the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas): DETR does not possess any radar—at least, not in my experience.
      It will not have escaped the attention of right hon. and hon. Members that the time taken by the debate on the programme motion—which is of course taken out of the time for debating these important provisions—was 53 minutes, which is well over half the time allotted for substantive debate on the first two groups of amendments.
      I shall deal first with Government new clause 8, although I shall speak primarily to the Opposition amendments. The new clause seems straightforward and is linked with Government amendment No. 100. These matters clearly arise from devolution, and I do not want to get into a debate about that. I am puzzled about why the need for the changes was not spotted before, because it seems fairly obvious.
      One loses count, but I think that new clause 8 is one of 115 new clauses and amendments that the Government have tabled on Report. The only good news is that as the Bill bounces back and forth between here and the other place, the Government will have ample opportunity to rewrite it at least a couple more times. Although I do not query the sense of the new clause, I wonder why it has been unleashed on an unsuspecting House at this late stage.
      I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will not mind if I do not speak to new clause 6, which has broadly the same thrust as our amendments—which deal with a point that we debated briefly in Committee. We have tabled amendments similar to those that we tabled in Committee simply because Ministers were not prepared to accept those amendments any more than they are prepared to accept these.
      As hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill gives the Secretary of State significant powers to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply an Act in pursuance of the new well-being power. Given that the power is meant to be a benefit to local authorities, however, it strikes us as slightly eccentric that the Bill does not make it clear that local authorities should be consulted and that they can apply to the Secretary of State for him to exercise his powers. The thrust of our amendments, like our amendments in Committee, is to allow local authorities to initiate that process and ask the Secretary of State to disapply certain enactments that are getting in the way of exercising the new power.
      That approach is supported by the Local Government Association, which said that it would
      support a procedure that would allow authorities, by declaration, to state that all or some of their statutory plans were covered by their community strategy.

      211
      It was in that spirit that we tabled the amendments in Committee.
      If that approach is not a problem, one wonders why Ministers were not prepared to accept the amendments. If they have every intention of consulting local authorities, as they say—we accept what they say, because we know that they are enthusiastic consulters—and of permitting local authorities to apply to the Secretary of State to initiate the process, why not say so in the Bill? I do not see what the problem is. As in Committee, we will not be pressing the amendments to a vote, but there are important questions that the Minister needs to answer.
      Mr. Hanson: If, at the beginning of my earlier remarks, I said that I would "potentially" listen, I must point out that I meant to say "particularly", and I apologise.
      I hope that I will be able to reassure the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Bath (Mr. Foster). I said earlier that new clause 6 and amendments Nos. 16 to 18 are unnecessary, and I meant that in a positive way. Local authorities can already make proposals to the Secretary of State; indeed, as I have said, we actively encourage them to do so, and both hon. Gentlemen recognised that.
      We shall discuss with the Local Government Association and, perhaps, the Welsh Local Government Association, formal arrangements for regular consideration of the use of the powers through the central-local partnership. It is important to highlight the availability of clauses 5 and 6 powers in the statutory guidance on the use of the well-being power and community strategies. That would provide a clear and permanent reminder to local authorities that they can apply to the Secretary of State at any time. I say to the hon. Member for Bath that there is nothing to stop an individual council making proposals to the Secretary of State at any time. I am sure that my hon. Friends will welcome that positive provision for England.
      On amendment No. 18 in the name of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, clause 8 already requires the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and local government on proposals to use his clauses 5 and 6 powers. The amendment is therefore otiose. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that explanation.
      6.15 pm
      The discussion has been interesting and I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). I welcome his positive approach to the Government new clause and amendment. As part of my duties, I watched the statement being made in the National Assembly this afternoon, and I watched with interest the important debate that followed.
      Understandably, the Assembly seeks the greatest possible scope to exercise secondary legislation powers. It is the Government's job to propose how the Assembly's wishes can be reconciled with the role of Parliament in introducing primary legislation, and that is what our amendments seek to do. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the door is not closed. The Assembly Secretary, Peter Law, confirmed in his statement that he is and will continue to be in dialogue with my right hon. Friend the
      212
      Secretary of State for Wales, myself and colleagues in DETR and other Departments with potential involvement in the powers.
      Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend said that he understood why the Assembly wanted more powers. Does he think that before it pushes for more powers, it should consider those that it already has, such as the power to make a bonfire of quangos, as it promised to do? Will my hon. Friend confirm whether there has been a bonfire of quangos? If so, when and where did it happen? If not, why has the Assembly not used the powers at its disposal to democratise government in Wales and to increase the power of local government?
      Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. In passing the Government of Wales Act 1998, there was a desire, which I share, to ensure that we democratise quangos in Wales. He and I, and the House, will have to judge in due course the extent to which the National Assembly has achieved that objective. In response to the Assembly Secretary's statement this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who is also an Assembly Member, made the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), and said that the Assembly should make good use of its existing powers before taking on new ones.
      I hope that hon. Members can accept the new clause, and that I have been able to reassure the hon. Members for Bath and for Eastbourne that the Government are willing to listen to them. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion for his welcome for the Government's steps to date. Obviously, we may return to this matter in future.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 2

      PROMOTION OF WELL-BEING
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 1, line 18, after "anything", insert—
      'including, subject to section 3(2), the raising of money.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in page 2, line 6, leave out "or present".
      No. 9, in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
      '( ) A charge may be imposed in respect of anything which is done in the course of exercising the power under section 2(1).'.
      No. 55, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
      '( ) Action taken by a local authority outside its own boundaries shall only be undertaken with the consent of the authority within whose boundaries the action is proposed to be taken.'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
      '(7) Nothing in this part shall empower a local authority to engage in trade otherwise than is provided for by the Local Authority (Goods and Services) Act 1970'.
      No. 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection 2 and insert—
      '( ) The expenditure of a local authority under this Part in any financial year shall not exceed the amount obtained by applying the relevant provisions of subsections (4), (4AA), (4AB), (4A), (4B) and (4C) of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.

      213
      ( ) All expenditure under this Part shall be subject to the accounting and inspection requirements set out in subsection (7) of section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.'.
      No. 212, in page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 96, in page 2, line 29, leave out "or otherwise".
      No. 15, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
      '(4) A local authority may require other public bodies, whether statutory or voluntary, in its area to comply with and to participate in its strategy for promoting or improving the economic social or environmental well-being of their area.'.
      No. 97, in page 3, line 20, at end insert—
      '( ) No requirement imposed by this section restricts the exercise of the power under section 2.'.
      Mr. Foster: I said earlier that Liberal Democrat Members, at least, welcome the new power to promote well-being which the Bill gives councils. There is, however, concern in many quarters about the financial arrangements for exercising that new power. The Government, rightly, are anxious to ensure that councils cannot, under the power, introduce new forms of taxation or other ways of raising money. That is covered explicitly in clause 3(2).
      That subsection says, however:
      The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to raise money (whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise).
      There is concern that the words "or otherwise" provide the Government with a catch-all arrangement whereby any possible means of raising funds to pay for activities introduced under the power of well-being may be proscribed.
      The general view is that it would be far better if the Government stated explicitly in the Bill which fund-raising activities they wish to proscribe and allowed local councils to use any other approach that they may deem appropriate. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Government are undertaking a major review of local government finance. At present, there is still considerable uncertainty about the outcome of that review and widespread concern that, although local authorities may be given a new power of well-being, they may find it difficult to raise the funds needed to carry out some of the activities that they believe are important.
      Local councils might engage in activities in partnership with other bodies in their areas. Indeed, the Government rightly wish to encourage such activities, but there is confusion about the financial implications if such a partnership were to raise money and produce a surplus. Perhaps the Minister will consider the specific example of a partnership involving a local authority and other bodies that chose to establish a shop in a rural community. Would that shop be permitted to generate a surplus under the phrase "or otherwise" in clause 3(2)?
      The purpose of amendments Nos. 95 and 96 is allow the Minister to provide greater clarification of the arrangements. She drew the Committee's attention to the powers under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and suggested that section could represent the vehicle by which councils could use such powers. It is important that she clarify precisely how she believes that section could be used to deal with the problem.
      Amendment No. 97 raises a separate point. Under the Bill, councils will be required to develop community strategies and to have regard to them subsequently in any
      214
      activity that they undertake. That makes perfect sense. However, the concern, which is best illustrated by the problems that occurred at the Rover plant in Birmingham, is that a council may wish to propose several activities that it believes are the right ones to undertake in response to a particularly difficult problem, but that they might not be covered in the strategy that the council has developed. Will the council have acted correctly if it develops activities that are not contained in the community strategy? Such activities may lead to legal challenges.
      The purpose, therefore, of amendment No. 97 is to provide some comfort to councils that propose activities that are outside the community strategy, but which they believe are in the best interests of the people whom they serve. The Minister gave an assurance in Committee that
      it is perfectly legitimate for one to deal with an issue in a way not outlined in the community strategy.
      She accepted that the Government had
      to create legislation that deals with the real world and the way in which people act…—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 May 2000; c. 96.]
      The problem is that councils may act in the best interests of the local community, but legal action may be taken against them for so doing. Amendment No. 97 would therefore provide some comfort for councils that attempt to act in the best interests of the people whom they serve.
      Mr. Waterson: I shall of course speak to amendments Nos. 8, 9, 55, 11, 10, 212 and 15. My hon. Friends and I welcome the new power, as does local government in general. However, as we argued in Committee, we think that the Government's proposal is a smoke-and-mirrors exercise because no new money attaches to the new power. Ministers have made it abundantly clear that councils will be given no extra money to exercise the new powers and that, if any of them tries to use existing methods of raising money, it could get into difficulties with the capping regime. We have serious doubts about how effective or helpful local authorities will find the new power.
      In the brief time left for this debate, I shall quickly speak to our amendments. Amendment No. 8 would remove the words "or present". As we argued in Committee, we think that councils are primarily elected to look after their local residents and council tax payers and that, under this extremely wide provision, councils would be allowed to use the power for the benefit of many different people and groups of people who happen to be in a council area at any given time.
      In Committee, the Minister made the fair point that, every day, many thousands of people travel in and out of the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). However, in more typical council areas, there may be concerns about whether such powers will extend to asylum seekers, travellers and tourists and about how they tie in with the council's other responsibilities. Commuters are one thing, but travellers may bring a series of other concerns.
      Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 deal with the vexed matter of charging. There is a strong feeling across local government that there should be greater freedom to charge for services, especially discretionary services that councils are not obliged to provide. The Minister was broadly

      215
      constructive in Committee and talked about consulting widely and drawing the matter into the process surrounding the Green Paper on local government finance. Although we are happy with that up to a point, some issues should be addressed sooner rather than later, because councils face the problem now. Both sides of the Committee accepted that it would be some time before the Government could produce proposals, consult on them and put them into law.
      A ray of sunshine is the possibility, which the Minister mentioned in Committee, of using powers under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, to which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred. The Local Government Association's latest briefing on the Bill states:
      We would welcome assurance from the Minister that, if necessary, the Section 150 powers will be used to provide a temporary solution during the interim period while we await a Local Government Finance Bill.
      It would be helpful if the Minister gave such an assurance today.
      One of the councils that has been proactive on the issue is City of Westminster. In one of its briefings, it states that
      there is a compelling and powerful argument that if a local authority is not obliged to provide a service, then it should be entitled to charge for it if it does.
      We take the view that that is a fair approach. Lest it be thought that it represents a sectional view held only by Conservative-controlled authorities, in its helpful briefing to the Committee the Local Government Information Unit said:
      The recovery of costs, or making a charge for services, will be important issues. We have concerns about the impact of this clause… We believe that councils need the assurance that they will be able to adopt suitable means of recovering their costs.
      6.30 pm
      Amendment No. 55 is self-explanatory:
      Action taken by a local authority outside its own boundaries shall only be undertaken with the consent of
      the other authority. That strikes me as perfectly unexceptional, so I was surprised that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, in an otherwise courteous and friendly reply, came up with no conclusive answer. He certainly did not say in Committee that the Government would do something about that matter, which is odd, because the Minister in the House of Lords said that he was happy to go away and look at it. Perhaps the Government's thinking has moved on.
      Although time does not permit a detailed debate now, we also touched on whether councils will be allowed to trade under the new power. The Minister's answer seemed to be that they will, but will not be able to charge for doing so. She said that
      local authorities will be able to supply goods and services to other bodies, provided that they are satisfied that that comes within the terms of the promotion of well-being. However, they will not be able to charge for them.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 May 2000; c. 76.]
      Amendment No. 212, which would leave out clause 3(2), is one of the most significant of our amendments. Again, it is important to recognise that the Minister in the Lords and Ministers in Committee made
      216
      it clear that there is no question of extra money being provided for the new power or, indeed, of allowing councils to raise more money through the council tax. There is still a question mark over charging. I shall not quote what the Minister said in Committee at length; in a nutshell, the answer is that councils that want to take advantage of the new power will be required to strip the money out of other budgets for other purposes.
      Amendment No. 15 makes it abundantly clear that councils will be the leaders in their communities in taking advantage of the new power and that other bodies will have to co-operate with them and comply with their plans. Councils across the country—of all political persuasions—want that important issue to be clarified in the Bill. I hope that the Minister can give us that assurance in the time available.
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We remain firmly opposed to the idea that central Government should dictate what authorities can spend on community well-being. That is a judgment for authorities and their communities, to which they are accountable. For that reason, we recommend that the House oppose amendment No. 10, which would impose spending limits similar to those that currently apply under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.
      The hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) suggested that the power will be effectively limited because it will not of itself allow authorities to raise finance. I can assure the House that the prohibition on raising finance in clause 3(2) is not intended to limit what authorities can do for the well-being of their areas. Local authorities will be able to finance activity under the well-being power from council tax resources, redistributive non-domestic rates, borrowing charges and revenue support grant. In other words, any legitimate income can be spent on the power, but it will not be possible for the power to be used of itself to raise new taxes. That is what we are dealing with here.
      We have already accepted that local authorities should have greater scope to charge for discretionary services, but that needs to be looked at carefully. At present, authorities cannot trade, except under the terms of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.
      It being one hour and thirty minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 6

      POWER TO MODIFY ENACTMENTS CONCERNING PLANS ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 100, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—
      '(4A) In exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State—

      (a) must not make any provision which has effect in relation to Wales unless he has consulted the National Assembly for Wales, and

      (b) must not make any provision—

      217

      (i) in relation to legislation made by the National Assembly for Wales, or

      (ii) which has effect both in relation to Wales and in relation to any enactment to which section (Power to modify enactments concerning plans etc: Wales)(2) applies,

      without the consent of the Assembly.
      (4B) The National Assembly for Wales may submit proposals to the Secretary of State that the power under subsection (1) should be exercised in relation to Wales in accordance with those proposals:.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    New Clause 13

      AMENDMENTS TO THE 1972 ACT
      '. Schedule (Amendments to the 1972 Act) which contains amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 has effect.'.—[Ms Beverley Hughes.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO INTRODUCE EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS
      '( ).—(1) A local authority may make executive arrangements for the discharge of certain of its functions.
      (2) Nothing in this Part shall have effect in respect of a local authority not making executive arrangements.'.—[Mr. Waterson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Waterson: 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: New clause 7—Application for locally developed arrangements—
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a local authority to apply to propose to the Secretary of State arrangements not provided for by or under sections 10(2) to (5).
      (2) In submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State under regulations issued under subsection (1) an authority must:

      (a) demonstrate that the proposals have the support of the local government electors for, and other interested parties in, the authority's area,

      (b) ensure that the arrangements include provision for the appointment by the authority of one or more overview and scrutiny committees,

      (c) explain why the authority considers that the proposed arrangements would be more suitable to local circumstances than a local authority executive as specified in sections 10(2) to (5) and

      (d) explain why the authority considers that the proposed arrangements would be likely to ensure that decisions of the authority are taken in an efficient, transparent and accountable way.

      (3) In issuing a regulation under subsection (1) the Secretary of State may, in particular, include:

      (a) details as to the number or class of authorities to which those regulations apply,

      (b) the criteria to which the Secretary of State must have regard in considering any proposals submitted under those regulations. In particular these criteria may include:

      (i) the population of the authority,

      (ii) the number of members of the authority,

      (iii) the nature of the communities in the authorities area, and

      (iv) the history of the authority's political control.'.

      218
      Amendment No. 1, in clause 9, page 5, line 32, after "authority", insert—
      'which determines to adopt executive arrangements'.
      Amendment No. 2, in clause 10, page 5, line 40, leave out "The" and insert "An".
      Amendment No. 3, in page 5, line 40, leave out "must" and insert "may".
      Amendment No. 57, in page 6, line 43 leave out clause 11.
      Amendment No. 58, in clause 13, page 9, line 44, after "executive", insert—
      '( ) by a committee of the authority.'.
      Amendment No. 59, in clause 14, page 10, line 29, after "executive", insert—
      '( ) a committee of the authority.'.
      Amendment No. 60, in clause 15, page 11, line 31, after "executive", insert—
      '( ) by a committee of the authority.'.
      Amendment No. 214, in page 17, line 34, leave out clause 23.
      Amendment No. 21, in clause 28, page 20, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
      Mr. Waterson: We now come to what Lord Whitty, the Minister in the Lords, called the central part of the Bill: the Government's intention to impose structures on local government. The avowed intention behind the new clause and amendments Nos. 1 to 3 is to return the Bill to the form that it took on this issue when it last left the Lords and to reflect strong feelings across local government throughout the country.
      Amendments Nos. 57 to 60 would deal essentially with what we regard as the Government's bogus fourth option, which they are peddling to local government, although I gather that they had a signal lack of success at the Local Government Association conference last week. There are three central flaws in their so-called fourth option: it still requires the production of a council executive, it seems to apply to whole categories of councils rather than to individual ones—that flexibility is absent—and, inevitably, the say-so of the Secretary of State is required. Amendment No. 214 would remove clause 23—I shall return to that—and amendment No. 21 would remove clause 28(3).
      On structures, despite having relatively pleasant debates in Committee—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not in the Chamber—we were subject to an awful lot of sloganising by Ministers. One was the famous slogan of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions: no change is not an option. The problem is that the Government purported to give local government three options for structures—although they now claim to have added a fourth—but, depending on which survey we accept, perhaps 1 or 2 per cent. of councils are remotely interested in having a directly elected mayor. Perhaps that figure will have decreased following the experience of the London mayoral elections.
      I have yet to meet any council that seems at all interested in the council manager model, but one may exist. The Minister may wish to quote it or them when she responds. However, the Minister's attitude reminds me of Henry Ford's attitude to car buyers—they could

      219
      have any colour that they liked as long as it was black. For the vast majority of local authorities, the Government intend to impose the executive or cabinet model or structure.
      A question is bound to be asked, and it has been by Conservative Members and an increasing number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches. If the Government's idea is such a good one and is so popular, why not ask people to choose? Give them a set of options. If an option really means an option, they can decide, or they can operate their status quo if that works for them. They can operate an updated version of that status quo or other models that they may be able to construct.
      I shall refer to the latest briefing on the Bill by the Local Government Association. It states in its covering letter that its main remaining concern about the Bill is the lack of flexibility in the Government's approach. It states:
      Whilst it is understandable that the government would not want to make regulations for 410 models it is the sheer diversity of local government that has led to the call for greater flexibility. The Government has stated their commitment to the operation of executives under any form of new arrangement. This amendment confirms that commitment. It does not provide for arrangements that do not include such an executive.
      The key passage reads:
      The Association remains of the belief that for some authorities, particularly smaller ones or those of a more rural nature, a separate executive is not necessarily the most appropriate way of achieving efficiency, accountability and transparency in decision taking. The LGA would support an amendment that provided for some authorities to apply to the Secretary of State to be able to introduce other models, which may not include a separate executive.
      If the Government's idea was such a good one, we might expect that Labour-controlled authorities would embrace it with enthusiasm. It is true that some have done so, but we fear that they have adopted that approach because they are attracted by the possibility of secrecy and carrying out decision making behind closed doors.
      The London borough of Camden, for example, might well have embraced these wonderful modernising ideas. However, when it came to it, Camden, which is an overwhelmingly Labour-controlled council, voted 43 to zero against the Government's proposals. It is—[Interruption.] The Minister always dissolves into paroxysms of laughter whenever I read out these figures. It is the way that I tell them. Surely it is vaguely depressing for her that Camden is so utterly unenthused by her proposals. Perhaps she finds the situation amusing because she fully intends to drive the Bill through the House and force Camden, 43 to zero or not, to put into effect the cabinet system. It is interesting that the then leader of Camden, Councillor Arthur, who I believe is now the ex-leader, was one of three abstentions.
      Another good example is that of Brighton and Hove. We had quite a detailed discussion about it in Committee. It was one of the first councils to adopt the cabinet system. The now Lord Bassam, the then leader of the council, was enthusiastic about making Brighton and Hove one of the pioneer authorities in implementing a new Labour system. Only this May, despite the fact that Labour has a 12-seat overall majority, councillors voted by 34 to 31 against changes to the current set up. They ordered a plan to be drawn up for a three or four-party committee system.
      220
      Since then, things have moved on somewhat in that the cabinet system is still being operated on an interim basis. It seems that some of the Labour rebel members were got at. I believe that an all-party task group is considering the future structure of Brighton and Hove council.
      6.45 pm
      Councillor Geoffrey Theobald, the leader of the Conservatives, said:
      The Council was one of the first to go over to the cabinet system because the then leader, Lord Bassam, now a Junior Home Office Minister, wanted to pleased his close friends—
      the Prime Minister and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions.
      It is strange that two councils that might be expected to be at the cutting edge in modernising local government would vote against the Government's proposals. [Interruption.] The Minister is keeping up her usual running commentary on these matters. I am sure that she will have the chance to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Labour local government has not exactly embraced the Government's proposals with great enthusiasm. I know that the right hon. Lady will groan, if only inwardly, at my reference to the Labour campaign for open local government. She and her right hon. and hon. Friends have succeeded in creating a sort of resistance movement within Labour local government. It is made up of about 1,000 supporters, of whom about 500 are councillors in about 90 local authorities. I understand that they include leaders, chief whips and other leading councillors.
      We heard at great length about the views of the Labour campaign for open local government in Committee, and I do not intend to repeat them now. Its views are not limited to those councillors who are members of it. These views have spilled over and are now shared by a number of Labour Back Benchers.
      When these issues were put to Ministers in Committee, their response was to rubbish the Camden operation. It was said that Camden's responses were in favour of
      white, well-heeled people from social classes 1 and 2
      and that they were "grossly over-represented." However, Camden went to far greater lengths than any other council of which I am aware to consult local residents on whether they wanted the changes proposed by the Government. It sent out many questionnaires and held 30 public meetings throughout the borough. It had focus groups representing the disabled and ethnic minorities. It made many targeted attempts to get a real view of what local people thought.
      Camden has shown the way. It has demonstrated that, with the right council taking the right approach, voters—residents—will take an interest in the structures of, and changes to, local government. It has shown also that in the real world there is no enthusiasm for the Government's proposals.
      I was at the Local Government Association conference in Bournemouth last week, and heard of the less-than-warm reception that the Minister received from local government in its massed ranks when she announced the Government's proposals. Local government gave her the Women's Institute treatment. I challenge her, as I did in Committee, to tell the House who wants the changes. Who is driving them? Apart from a small coterie of Ministers and others in the new local government network and a

      221
      few new Labour think tanks, who wants them? Going round the country as I do, talking to councillors of all political persuasions in all parts of the country, I have yet to find any real enthusiasm, except for one or two—
      Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend understates the case. Most of the local authority members to whom I have spoken are actively opposed to the proposal. They opposed it because they do not like corruption, they want democracy and openness, and they see it as an opportunity for people who want to bring in corruption, to wipe out democracy, to stop the press seeing, and to bring in secrecy and control. Local government has had a small smattering of corruption, in percentage terms. The proposed system will allow more corruption and less detection.
      Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend speaks from great experience.
      I shall summarise our main objections. The first is that no one seems to want the wonderful new structures, so why do Ministers not leave the matter up to local councillors? There is an element of compulsion. That is the thrust of our amendments. Secondly, why does the Minister insist on damning the entire committee system, which has served many councils well over a number of years? Why does she persist in speaking about an old-fashioned committee system, rather than the streamlined committee system that many councils operate?
      Thirdly, has the Minister made any attempt to estimate the total cost of the changes across local government? We know, for example, that Durham city council has budgeted £300,000 towards the cost of establishing a cabinet structure. Not a penny of that will make life any better or easier for the residents and council taxpayers.
      Fourthly, and most of all, we do not want a two-tier system for local councillors. All councillors should have equal worth. The concept of back-bench councillors should be anathema in local government. We believe that small groups of people making all the decisions is bad for local government, and that a massive split between executive and scrutiny is bad news for those who do not happen to be on the executive.
      For all those reasons, it is essential that the House, or failing that, the other place, writes into the Bill the clear right of councillors to choose another option if that is what they wish—not the bogus fourth option that the Minister has been peddling unsuccessfully, but a real, red-blooded fourth option.
      I shall touch briefly on amendment No. 214, which would delete clause 23. We do not know why the Government are so set against political balance applying to cabinets. It works very well in places such as Conservative-run Bedfordshire. However, it has been grabbed with alacrity by some old Labour councillors, and at least 60 per cent. of existing cabinets are one-party cabinets, many of which meet in secret.
      Finally, amendment No. 21 would delete clause 28(3). We call this the "abandon all hope, you who enter" provision, because, once a council has moved to an executive system, there is no way of going back to the previous system. That is harmful and unnecessary. It chimes with the general air of compulsion that surrounds the Government's attitude to local government structures.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I shall speak briefly about the argument for opening up local government to the people and the press. We have a cabinet system in my constituency which I am told is working well, although some back-bench councillors do not have the power that they would like. I suppose that that will come with time, as the scrutiny committees get down to their work.
      The cabinet minutes go out to all the councillors and the press, and anyone can attend cabinet meetings—the press, the public and local councillors who are not members of the cabinet. This week, copies of the agenda went out, and one of the items on the agenda was a matter on which the council must decide what it will do next year. I understand there are to be substantial cuts next year in Blyth Valley, due to shortage of money. Some of the suggested cuts for the cabinet to discuss involved leisure centres and other amenities.
      The paper was supposed to be private and confidential and councillors were asked to keep it to themselves, because it had not yet been discussed with the work force. Unfortunately, as it went out to all the councillors, the local press—the Newcastle edition of The Journal—got a copy, and printed it this morning. The trade unions and the work force were at the door of the council, demanding to know what was going to happen. Of course, the matter has not yet been discussed. That is the role of the cabinet—to discuss such matters, then go to the work force and tell them.
      That example shows that openness goes two ways. Openness is right and I believe in it. My council has done right by being open, but the press showed disregard for an item in a cabinet paper that should have remained confidential until it had been discussed. I do not know what we can do about the matter but, after today's furore, I believe that it should be raised on the Floor of the House.
      Mr. Don Foster: During the 18 years of Conservative Governments, both as a local councillor and then with the opportunity provided to me as a Member of the House, I railed strongly against the centralising tendency of those Governments. I suspect that many Members of Parliament and many members of the public looked forward to a new dawn for local government, following the election in 1997. Unfortunately, in respect of centralisation, the sun has yet to rise.
      From various measures, it is clear that the Government continue to be a centralising Government. That is best demonstrated by their insistence on imposing on all local councils a requirement to change their decision-making arrangements to one of three models selected by the Government.
      In response to that challenge from the Government, different proposals have been made from the those on the Conservative Benches and our Benches. I shall speak predominantly to new clause 7, which is an entirely different response from that offered by those on the Conservative Front Bench, and I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to have a separate vote on new clause 7.
      It was a great privilege to represent my party in the House on education and employment matters for quite some time. I vividly recall the challenge made by the current Secretary of State to all of us to deal with standards, not structures, in education. That phrase applies equally to local government. We are all concerned about

      223
      the lack of public interest in local government, and we all want to find ways of involving the public more. The solution lies not in structural changes, but in giving local councils greater opportunity to do the things that are most likely to benefit local communities, and to have a voting system that would enable people to feel that when they voted, they could truly make a difference.
      That is not the Government's approach. They have decided that three options are to be foisted on local councils. I am the first to acknowledge that the Government have been prepared to make some concessions, following our deliberations in Committee. There is now greater flexibility in those three options, but all three of them and any of the flexibility that is offered still require the fundamental model of a single executive.
      It is vital that a genuine alternative approach also be offered to local councils. However, I do not take the Conservative Front-Bench view that the fourth option should be merely the status quo—indeed, without even any possible checks with the local community as to whether it supports the continuation of the status quo. I tabled new clause 7 because I believe it is important that whatever option a local council brings forward in the current climate should be tested for local public support.
      7 pm
      The new clause would provide the opportunity for an individual council to make its own proposals, different from the three that the Government insist on, but with certain caveats. First, it must ensure that the proposed arrangements would make the council's decisions efficient, open and accountable. Secondly, the new clause would require that as part of the package there should be effective means of scrutinising council decisions. Thirdly, it would require that the proposal be demonstrated to have wide-scale popular support.
      In the form of those three provisions, and also the provision that the proposal be presented to the Secretary of State for approval, the Government are given a genuinely acceptable fourth option meeting all their requirements—the inclusion of scrutiny, efficiency, effectiveness, openness and accountability, the Secretary of State's having the last word, and a requirement that the public demonstrate their support for the model. We have even gone further and made it a requirement that the council making such a proposition shall have to demonstrate why its proposals will be better than those made by the Government.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: To reinforce what my hon. Friend says, in the part of Wales that I come from, the county of Powys, which has an excellent formula for the administration of local government, is 120 miles long. The cabinet system is not appropriate there. In terms of distance, it is the equivalent of Bristol controlling what goes on in London. We must have flexibility of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.
      Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He strengthens my argument by making the simple point that no two councils are the same. There are about 450 councils in the land. What will best suit one council
      224
      may not best suit another. Even the requirement that there be an executive or cabinet may not suit all councils. Therefore, we suggest a way of moving forward that meets many of the Government's concerns. The new clause does not merely say that the status quo can continue willy-nilly. Even if a council like my hon. Friend's wishes to continue the status quo, as it may well do, it will be required to demonstrate that it has popular support.
      Of course, Conservative Front Benchers are perfectly entitled to propose the status quo as their way forward, but it was rather rich of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to pray in aid the briefing document from the Local Government Association and to read out various sections, without giving a full reading. To put the record straight, I should also read out what the LGA says in its document sent to all of us. It said:
      The Association supports the removal of clause 9, which would have allowed authorities to "opt out" of Part II of the Bill without any consultation with local communities and their stakeholders.
      It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to pray in aid the LGA for his new clause, when it is absolutely clear that the LGA is not supporting it. Having read all the LGA document very carefully, I suspect that I could with integrity pray it in aid to support new clause 7.
      Mr. Waterson: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away with that line of argument, I would point out that I was not necessarily suggesting LGA support for the precise wording of our new clause; but it is clear that the Government have still failed to persuade the LGA or any significant local government body that their so-called fourth option is really anything of the sort.
      Mr. Foster: I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman and I are at one in believing that the Government are wrong to impose on all councils three options that, in the main, have very similar features anyway. Both he and I believe that local authorities should be given much greater freedom to decide how they are to operate. Nevertheless, we have a different approach to how that should be achieved.
      I end by suggesting to the Minister that there are many rumours, as there always are, about the Government's proposals. There is undoubtedly one category or group of councils that the Government's proposals fit least easily—the shire district councils, those particularly small councils with relatively limited powers. The rumour is that the Government may at least allow them to opt out from having the three models imposed on them. I should welcome hearing from the Government whether the rumour is true. If it is not, it should be.
      Mr. Llew Smith: I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 7. In doing so, I know that I have the support of not only my constituency Labour party but the Labour council. Unlike Camden, it had no abstainers, I am pleased to say. There was total opposition to the cabinet system and the mayoral system from the Labour group in Blaenau Gwent.
      However, I disagree with the Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson's explanation of why so many local authorities have already brought the cabinet system into being. He said that it was because they welcomed secrecy. I do not think that that is so. Most have introduced it not because they support it, but because they see a degree of inevitability about the whole process.

      225
      When the Government came to power, they told us that they were committed to devolving power. We all welcomed that. The Government will argue that acts of devolution were the setting up of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Some of us in the House did not think that that had anything to do with devolution, but a great deal to do with nationalism. However, if we take the Government at their word, and accept that the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament were created as acts of devolution, it is sad that they have not applied the same logic to local government.
      With both the mayoral system and the cabinet system, the Government are not devolving power but centralising it in the hands of the mayor or the cabinet. My local authority, my constituency party and I find that politically unacceptable. We also find it sad, because we regard local government as probably the most democratic arm of government and, indeed, of the United Kingdom state.
      Putting power in the hands of the mayor has nothing to do with devolving power; it is centralising power in the hands of one person. Unless his or her agreement can be obtained, the things that one wants for one's community will not happen, because that one person will not accept them. If in place of the mayoral system we have the cabinet system, instead of one person taking the decisions 10 people will take them. Once again, that is unacceptable, because those who are not in the cabinet are not part of the decision-making process and cannot reflect the aspirations of the community that they represent. They cannot have a say in making policy for that community.
      The reason for going on a council is to involve oneself not only in the debates but in the votes, in a way that will affect one's little community in a positive way.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, looking at local government in Wales, that the cabinet system in local government was unacceptable per se. Will he confirm that that is what he was saying?
      Mr. Smith: I am saying that I, my constituency party and the Labour group on the council unanimously oppose the cabinet system and the mayoral system because we are committed to devolution. We believe that the proposed system has nothing to do with devolution, but that it has a lot to do with centralisation, to which we are opposed.
      I know that some will pray in aid scrutiny committees. We welcome those bodies, but we know that their creation has nothing to do with devolving power. Those who are not members of the cabinet will have no say in decisions, and the job of those who are members of the scrutiny committee will be merely to scrutinise. I see little role for councillors who are not members of the cabinet—many of them will be able to go home because they will have no say in the decisions that affect their communities. That is sad. We will have lost an opportunity to devolve power and to make councillors more accountable to the communities they represent, and we will have made it more difficult for the electorate to perceive the relevance of councillors and to exert some control over them.
      For those and many other reasons, my position, that of my constituency Labour party and that of the Labour group on the council is one of opposition to both the cabinet system and the mayoral system, but of support for the committee system. Local government is probably the most democratic arm of the British state.
      Mr. Thomas: I find myself in agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)
      226
      said in support of new clause 7, but in total disagreement with his approach to local government in Wales. I support the principle of separating out the executive functions of local government, because that is a progressive and modern approach to local government management functions. The system can succeed and has been seen to do so in several areas in England and Wales.
      None the less, I fear over-centralisation in local government. I believe that local government is truly devolutionist in that decisions are made at local level. I have serious doubts about the Government's current approach to local government—the imposition of a rigid template, a one-size-fits-all executive structure that local authorities must adopt. On those grounds, both Opposition new clauses—especially the Liberal Democrats' new clause 7—have much to recommend them.
      I should have liked to avail myself of the Back-Bench privileges that were much discussed during the hour-long debate on the guillotine motion, but I was taken ill with food poisoning and thus prevented from tabling my own amendment, which would have cast the National Assembly for Wales in a central role. New clause 7 offers a way forward: at least in Wales, the Assembly could be the body that considers different arrangements and, in consultation with local authorities and local people and with the support of local people, enables a committee system to continue in Blaenau Gwent, for example, while a cabinet system is adopted elsewhere.
      Let me set out some of the difficulties peculiar to Wales and the reasons why the one-size-fits-all approach will not necessarily work. For a start, there are the unitary authority areas, especially the large rural areas such as Powys, which has already been mentioned. There is the somewhat anomalous position whereby two of our unitary authorities—Powys and Gwynedd—have area committees. Where does an area committee fit into a cabinet system? That has not been addressed.
      Ms Armstrong indicated dissent.
      Mr. Thomas: Well, I do not think that it has been fully addressed.
      We in Wales have independent councillors—I should say that they are not crusty old Tory councillors. Independent councillors in Wales are curious beasts: many are members of Plaid Cymru or the Liberal Democrats, and one or two might even be members of the Labour party; however, the majority who stand as independents do so in rural areas because they are, in effect, the voice of the local community, often closely allied with farming interests. We have found that independent councillors fit ill into the cabinet system that has just been set up in my area.
      We in Wales have limited options. Whatever happened in London, the mayoral option was ruled out for Wales when Russell Goodway adopted his course of action in Cardiff. The role of executive manager has never been tried in Wales and has no track record, so I doubt that any local authority will opt to have such a beast.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Why are elected mayors in Wales ruled out by the example the hon. Gentleman cites, given that it involves a non-elected mayor?
      Mr. Thomas: The fact that it also involves a mayor taking too much executive power to himself will provide

      227
      a warning to many areas. There are other reasons why mayors would not work in many rural areas, but, for brevity's sake, I shall not pursue that matter now.
      If the Bill is passed in its current form, the cabinet system will become the de facto system of local government in Wales. That will lead to considerable local unhappiness and discontent.
      Mr. Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cabinet system will wholly exclude people living in the vast rural areas of Wales that we represent, which will be wholly excluded from the decision-making process?
      Ms Armstrong indicated dissent.
      Mr. Thomas: The Minister evidently disagrees with the hon. Gentleman's observation, but that is what local people have told me. The Government must listen to the views of local people.
      We in Ceredigion held a wide-ranging consultation on the cabinet system. Local community councils were dumbfounded and bemused by the way things were going; they did not understand how they would now relate to what they regarded as a local-member-led council. My council might be regarded as extremely old fashioned in that respect, but it achieves the best education results in Wales, so there must be something to be said for the traditional methods of carrying out council business in Wales.
      We in Plaid Cymru favour the principle of establishing an executive, but we recognise the need to gain local people's support for any change, especially in rural Wales and other areas. However, so far the Government have singularly failed to persuade the majority of people in Wales and in England that their proposals offer the best local solution.
      There is no doubt that people want to have a greater say in how their local government works—they might even want to shape their local government executive. However, the Bill imposes on that executive a shape that fails to give local people—and, in Wales, the National Assembly—a strong enough voice. In Wales, the way forward could legitimately involve the National Assembly to a greater extent. I hope that, in another place and at another time, close scrutiny will be given to this part of the Bill.
      There should be an opt-out, perhaps along the lines of new clause 7, whereby, if local people working with the local authority come up with an alternative arrangement, they will be allowed to adopt it as their local government structure. Local government will not succeed without the encouragement and full support of its local community, but there are elements within the proposed structure that fly in the face of that principle.
      Mr. John McDonnell: We are engaged in a century-old debate between centralisers and devolvers about centralisation and decentralisation. In the late 1970s, those working in local government were told by Anthony Crosland that the party was over. Then, we got dragged into the monetarist debate and we were told that part of our public expenditure was causing an economic crisis. The Tories tried to undermine both local government powers over public expenditure through rate capping and local government structures.
      228
      During that 20-year period, members of the Labour party worked to develop policies that would reinvigorate local government when a Labour Government were elected. That renewal was to be based on the return of powers and of resources. Then, within months of the general election, the debate was hijacked into discussion of structures: the argument was suddenly about the need for new structures, such as mayors, cabinets and so on. The thrust of our policy had held good for 15 years, and it is true that the current Government are releasing new resources and giving local government new powers; this Bill forms part of that. However, the Bill does not set councils free, but imposes on them a structure that none of them and no single major local government association wants.
      Until months before the general election, most of our Front-Bench colleagues rejected the system. We criticised the previous Government's proposals with their mayoral options as ludicrous. However, the pressure from some groups in the Labour party with no experience of local government has led to the potential loss of democratic freedom that we are considering.
      I support new clause 7 because it tries to re-establish some form of local freedom. We were told about the advantages of the mayor and cabinet option. We recently had a test of that system in London. It did not increase turnout, which remained roughly the same as for the Greater London council elections. It did not increase effectiveness. I have served in the new structure for the past six weeks and while I do not criticise the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who has to work with the existing structure, it is not a model of effectiveness and efficiency. It was argued that the system would enhance the quality of the candidates and the elected mayor. It is ironic that, after 18 years, the same person is running London under the new system as under the old system.
      The system's drawbacks are clear. It undermines local choice. New clause 7 seeks to re-establish at least the potential for retaining the option of a streamlined committee structure. The Government's proposals have the potential to establish a local oligarchy, which works in secret and is prone to corruption. From the Webbs onwards, the Labour party has argued that the committee structure enabled training in local democracy.
      The Government's proposals establish two classes: the deciders and the spectators. We are wishing the parliamentary system on local government. What arrogance. It demonstrates on the part of the Labour party leadership contempt for local government and contempt for local councillors, in the same way as some have contempt for our party and our rank and file activists.
      We are throwing away the opportunity of retaining all the options. The Government's proposals do not constitute modernisation, which allows organic growth of democratic systems at local level. They are a step back to a system that has failed elsewhere, and will fail in this country. At the local government conference, the Minister argued that there was a fourth option that would allow the flexibility that local government required and demanded. I ask the Minister to clarify in the brief time available whether the fourth option allows for the streamlined

      229
      system of committee government for which Labour local government has argued. If not, I shall vote for new clause 7.
      Mr. Alan Simpson: I follow on from the last point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) made. I welcome the proposals in new clause 7, especially the tough tests for which it would provide. I would opt for that, but I would also settle for local government having the right to make the choice if it could pass the tests. I am not sure whether that was the view that the Minister expressed when she addressed the local government conference. She said that a fourth option existed. However, the Bill does not make clear the nature of that option and whether it includes the possibility of a reformed committee system. If not, we are closing down local government rather than opening it up.
      I congratulate the Nottingham Evening Post on its responsible campaign in my area against the secret society. It has campaigned to open up local government to proper accountability and for the ability of local people to hold local government to account. If we do that, we have many options for inclusion and local choice, some of which are set out in new clause 7. One area in the county has already begun to follow that path. Newark and Sherwood has set out proposals for broadcasting its council meetings. The public can phone in directly to pose questions during committee meetings.
      There are many ways in which to open up local government. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether we will present local people with a revised committee system as one of the options that they can choose for themselves. If we do not, we shall tie ourselves to the presumption that local government cannot lead, but must be led down a path of openness. That is a tragedy. The three options for which the Bill provides will sadly guarantee less openness.
      Ms Armstrong: I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends did not attend some of the earlier debates because some interesting ideas have been presented. Much misunderstanding continues to exist; I am sorry about that, and I take some responsibility for it.
      In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I say that we have rehearsed the arguments often. I tell him and some of my hon. Friends that we have not suddenly discovered a problem with the committee system; it was identified by the Maud committee and, in 1993, by a joint Government and local government working party, which included all the local government associations. That joint working party stated:
      Most major policy decisions in practice are not taken by the full council, its committees or subcommittees but elsewhere within the ruling group—where there is a majority group—or in consultation with the leadership of other groups where there is a minority administration or coalition… Formal authority may rest with the full council, or with the committee, but the real authority rests with individuals.
      The Local Government Management Board, which was established by local authority associations to deal with support, training and negotiations, stated:
      A concentration of decision making powers in small groups outside the formal arenas
      characterised the committee system and that that had increased over the years. However, the pretence is maintained that the full council makes the decisions. As we all know, the reality is that it does not.
      230
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) claims that he is not enjoying the experience of serving in the Greater London Authority cabinet. My hon. Friend is not in the cabinet as an elected Member, but as an adviser and supporter. However, the public have the right to know that he is an adviser and that he is not giving advice secretly or without it being made public. That is a better system than the previous one.
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I share an ambition to find ways in which to reflect the integrity of the aims of accountability, scrutiny and better contact with the public in the broad framework that we are trying to establish in the Bill. We are working in the same way on many matters. However, we are divided on one substantive issue. The new clause proposes that each council should have a separate method of doing things. That would mean that the statute book would have to recognise that, and uphold the individual constitutions of every single authority. That would lead to too much parliamentary interference. The new clause would provide for too much central control rather than the much looser framework that we seek.
      I believe that the hon. Member for Bath is not paying sufficient attention to scrutiny and that several executives mean that fewer people are left to scrutinise. That is a key point for local government: there has not been substantial scrutiny in the past. Much greater scrutiny is required. Not only decisions, but their effect on individuals need to be scrutinised. I hope that the House will reject new clause 1 because it will take local government back to the problems that the Maud committee and the local government associations considered: decisions by small, unaccountable cabals. Nobody knew what those cabals were talking about. We are trying to move away from that. I believe that our fourth option will take us in the same direction as the hon. Member for Bath. I hope that hon. Members will reject the amendments.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Waterson: We are not happy with what the Minister has said. It is the same tired old stuff. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to press the motion to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 314.

      Division No. 249]

      [7.30 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Amess, David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Clappison, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baldry, Tony

      Collins, Tim

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Cran, James

      Bercow, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Blunt, Crispin

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Body, Sir Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brady, Graham

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Brazier, Julian

      Fraser, Christopher

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gale, Roger

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Garnier, Edward

      Burns, Simon

      Gibb, Nick

      Butterfill, John

      Gill, Christopher

      231

      Gray, James

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Green, Damian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Greenway, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Grieve, Dominic

      Norman, Archie

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Pickles, Eric

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Prior, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence

      Hayes, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Heald, Oliver

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Ruffley, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Horam, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shepherd, Richard

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spring, Richard

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Syms, Robert

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Leigh, Edward

      Townend, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tredinnick, David

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Trend, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Loughton, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Luff, Peter

      Wilshire, David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Yeo, Tim

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Madel, Sir David

      Mr. John Randall and

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Mr. Stephen Day.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Browne, Desmond

      Alexander, Douglas

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Allan, Richard

      Burden, Richard

      Allen, Graham

      Burgon, Colin

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Burnett, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Burstow, Paul

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Austin, John

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Baker, Norman

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Barron, Kevin

      Cann, Jamie

      Beard, Nigel

      Caplin, Ivor

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Caton, Martin

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Chidgey, David

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clapham, Michael

      Benton, Joe

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clelland, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clwyd, Ann

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Borrow, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Brake, Tom

      Cotter, Brian

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      Breed, Colin

      Cox, Tom

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cranston, Ross

      232

      Crausby, David

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Hurst, Alan

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hutton, John

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

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

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Efford, Clive

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keetch, Paul

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kemp, Fraser

      Fearn, Ronnie

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

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kidney, David

      Flint, Caroline

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Flynn, Paul

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Follett, Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Lammy, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fyfe, Maria

      Levitt, Tom

      Galloway, George

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Livsey, Richard

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lock, David

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Love, Andrew

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCabe, Steve

      Goggins, Paul

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Macdonald, Calum

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Gunnell, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Harvey, Nick

      Martlew, Eric

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Healey, John

      Meale, Alan

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Merron, Gillian

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Heppell, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Moore, Michael

      Hill, Keith

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hoey, Kate

      Mountford, Kali

      Hope, Phil

      Mudie, George

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      233

      Oaten, Mark

      Stevenson, George

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Olner, Bill

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pearson, Ian

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Pendry, Tom

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pickthall, Colin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pike, Peter L

      Taylor. Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pound, Stephen

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Todd, Mark

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Touhig, Don

      Purchase, Ken

      Trickett, Jon

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rooney, Terry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Tyler, Paul

      Rowlands, Ted

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Roy, Frank

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ruane, Chris

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Watts, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      White, Brian

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Salter, Martin

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sanders, Adrian

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Sawford, Phil

      Willis, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wills, Michael

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Winnick, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wood, Mike

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 7

      APPLICATION FOR LOCALLY DEVELOPED ARRANGEMENTS
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a local authority to apply to propose to the Secretary of State arrangements not provided for by or under sections 10(2) to (5).
      (2) In submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State under regulations issued under subsection (1) an authority must:

      (a) demonstrate that the proposals have the support of the local government electors for, and other interested parties in, the authority's area,

      (b) ensure that the arrangements include provision for the appointment by the authority of one or more overview and scrutiny committees,

      (c) explain why the authority considers that the proposed arrangements would be more suitable to local circumstances than a local authority executive as specified in sections 10(2) to (5) and

      234

      (d) explain why the authority considers that the proposed arrangements would be likely to ensure that decisions of the authority are taken in an efficient, transparent and accountable way.

      (3) In issuing a regulation under subsection (1) the Secretary of State may, in particular, include:

      (a) details as to the number or class of authorities to which those regulations apply,

      (b) the criteria to which the Secretary of State must have regard in considering any proposals submitted under those regulations. In particular these criteria may include:

      (i) the population of the authority,

      (ii) the number of members of the authority,

      (iii) the nature of the communities in the authorities area, and

      (iv) the history of the authority's political control.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 43. Noes 273.

      Division No. 250]

      [7.44 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

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

      Baker, Norman

      Ballard, Jackie

      Livsey, Richard

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Brand, Dr Peter

      McDonnell, John

      Breed, Colin

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Burnett, John

      Moore, Michael

      Burstow, Paul

      Oaten, Mark

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Öpik, Lembit

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Rendel, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Chidgey David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cotter Brian

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Tyler, Paul

      Gidley, Sandra

      Webb, Steve

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Willis, Phil

      Harvey, Nick

      Wood, Mike

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Keetch, Paul

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Mr. Tom Brake.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Berry, Roger

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Best, Harold

      Alexander, Douglas

      Blackman, Liz

      Allen, Graham

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ashton, Joe

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Borrow, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Austin, John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Barnes, Harry

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Barron, Kevin

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Beard, Nigel

      Browne, Desmond

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Burden, Richard

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Burgon, Colin

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Benton, Joe

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      235

      Cann, Jamie

      Healey, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Caton, Martin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Heppell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hill, Keith

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hope, Phil

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cousins, Jim

      Hutton, John

      Cox, Tom

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cranston, Ross

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Crausby, David

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cummings, John

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

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

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Denham, John

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Doran, Frank

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dowd, Jim

      Khabra, Piara S

      Drew, David

      Kidney, David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Edwards, Huw

      Lammy, David

      Efford, Clive

      Laxton, Bob

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ennis, Jeff

      Levitt, Tom

      Fisher, Mark

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Flint, Caroline

      Lock, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Love, Andrew

      Follett, Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McCabe, Steve

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Fyfe, Maria

      Macdonald, Calum

      Galloway, George

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gardiner, Barry

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McWalter, Tony

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Mallaber, Judy

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Meale, Alan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Merron, Gillian

      Grogan, John

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Gunnell, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mountford, Kali

      236

      Mudie, George

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stevenson, George

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Olner, Bill

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pearson, Ian

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Pendry, Tom

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pike, Peter L

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pond, Chris

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pope, Greg

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Todd, Mark

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Trickett, Jon

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Rooney Terry

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wareing, Robert N

      Roy, Frank

      Watts, David

      Ruane, Chris

      White, Brian

      Ruddock, Joan

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Salter, Martin

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wills, Michael

      Sawford, Phil

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Woodward, Shaun

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Woolas, Phil

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 10

      PRIOR DISCUSSION BY POLITICAL GROUPS
      '.—(1) No later than the commencement of the meeting of any overview or scrutiny committee, the leader of each political group with at least one member on the committee shall inform the Head of the Paid Service in writing whether or not any matter on the agenda has been the subject of prior discussion at any meeting of the relevant group or of part of it and of whether or not the judgment of any relevant member is likely to be constrained by the rules of the relevant group or political party.
      (2) The terms "political group" and "leader" shall have the same meaning as in sections 15 and 16 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and in regulations made under Schedule I to that Act.
      (3) In the discharge of his duties each member of an overview or scrutiny committee of a local authority shall act independently of any party political interest.'.—[Mr. Waterson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Waterson: 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 amendments: No. 61, in clause 20, page 14, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
      'arrangements for the overview and scrutiny of the executive (such arrangements referred to in this Part as overview and scrutiny arrangements).'
      No. 62, in page 14, line 18, at end insert—
      '(1A) Overview and scrutiny arrangements may provide for the discharge of functions and the exercise of powers by—

      (a) a committee,

      (b) a sub-committee,

      (c) a member, or

      (d) an officer

      of the authority (in this Part referred to as overview and scrutiny bodies).'.
      No. 66, in page 14, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
      'arrangements make provision so that the powers of overview and scrutiny bodies include powers, between them'.
      No. 63, in page 14, line 36, at end insert—
      '(f) to require that the implementation of any such decision as is referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection is deferred until a decision has been made whether or not to exercise the power conferred by subsection (3).'.
      No. 67, in page 14, line 37, leave out "committee" and insert "body".
      No. 64, in page 14, line 43, at end insert—
      '( ) Unless the matter is certified by the authority's monitoring officer to be urgent, no decision by an executive, a member of an executive or a committee of an executive, under its executive arrangements, shall be implemented within less than five working days after the decision is published.'.
      No. 68, in page 14, line 44, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 69, in page 14, line 45, leave out "may not discharge any" and insert—
      'may by resolution of the authority discharge'.
      No. 70, in page 15, line 6, leave out—
      'committee of a local authority'
      and insert—
      'body of a local authority which is a committee of the authority'.
      No. 71, in page 15, line 9, at end insert—
      'or by a single member or officer of the authority.'.
      No. 72, in page 15, line 15, leave out "committee of the authority" and insert—
      'body of the authority which is a committee of the authority'.
      No. 65, in page 15, line 22, at end insert—
      '( ) Where a member of a relevant overview and scrutiny committee finds that a decision by or on behalf of the executive ought to be subject to immediate review he may, with the agreement of two members of the relevant overview or scrutiny committee, cause the decision to be delayed until that overview and scrutiny committee has considered the matter.'.
      No. 73, in page 15, line 23, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
      '(9) Overview and scrutiny arrangements shall include provision ensuring that members of the local authority's executive do not discharge any functions or exercise any powers under those arrangements.'.
      238
      No. 74, in page 15, line 26, leave out—
      'committee of a local authority'
      and insert—
      'body of a local authority which is a committee of the authority.'.
      No. 75, in page 15, line 32, leave out "committee of the authority" and insert—
      'body of a local authority which is a committee of the authority'.
      No. 76, in page 15, line 44, leave out "committee" and insert "body".
      No. 77, in page 15, line 47, after "before", insert "him, her or".
      No. 78, in page 16, line 1, at beginning insert—
      '(in the case of a committee)'.
      No. 79, in page 16, line 3, at end insert—
      '(15) The authority shall appoint officers to assist the overview and scrutiny committee in discharging their functions, and such officers may not also report to the executive.'.
      Mr. Waterson: I shall not read out the amendments in this group. If I did, I would run out of time entirely—[Interruption.] I am glad that the Government Whip finds it all so funny—but, then, I suppose that it is quite funny when one is at the steering wheel of such a programme motion.
      One of the curious, almost theological issues that the Committee examined was whether there is whipping in scrutiny committees. We had a fascinating debate on that subject, in which the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), assured us that the Labour party national executive had issued a decree that whipping should not occur in scrutiny committees. So, that is all right then. However, sometimes, what the Labour party national executive decrees and what happens in the real world are as different as day and night.
      The purpose of new clause 10 is to make it absolutely clear that, as subsection (3) provides, those who serve on scrutiny committees should behave in a wholly non-partisan fashion, and that, if there has been prior discussion in a group meeting or some type of whipping, it should be notified to the local authority's head of the paid service in advance of the relevant meeting.
      If Ministers are so confident that Millbank's writ runs throughout Labour-controlled local government, there could be no harm at all in including that provision in the Bill. Of course, the only reason why Ministers might be reluctant to accept new clause 10 is that they have a sneaking suspicion that such practices are indeed going on in Labour-controlled local government.
      The most debated example that has come to light so far—it is in the nature of these things that they rarely come into the public domain—is that of our old friends at the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which, as I said in Committee, seems to have fallen into every elephant trap conceivable in this legislation. That borough is one of the great pioneers of the modernised local government system.
      The Hammersmith and Fulham cabinet decided to introduce charges for home helps. However, three Labour councillors took the view that that was not a good idea and, in a scrutiny Committee, voted against it. By way of background, it is worth remembering—I think that my

      239
      arithmetic is right, but the figure may have increased since I last checked—that, in its brief life, the Hammersmith and Fulham cabinet has made 607 decisions, only one of which has been overturned as part of the scrutiny process. The process is, therefore, not really biting in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
      As the Fulham & Hammersmith Chronicle reported, the three hapless Labour councillors were
      banned from speaking to the press while they face disciplinary action after voting against the proposal to charge elderly and vulnerable people for home help services…
      A Labour spokesman said no decision had been made yet but disciplinary action could include the withdrawal of the whip.
      That sounds suspiciously like whipping to me.
      Coincidentally, on that same day, as reported in the local government press, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, in a debate on this Bill, told the House:
      We, as a party, have already made it absolutely clear that no whip will be allowed on scrutiny committees.
      However, Mayor Andrew Slaughter—who draws a substantial salary for being the so-called executive mayor in Hammersmith and Fulham, but who has managed to retain his day job—was reported as insisting that councillors could be whipped without the scrutiny process being undermined. He said:
      It's only reasonable that the party expects adherence to policies agreed at group meetings.
      It would be fascinating to hear what the Minister has to say about Councillor Slaughter's interpretation of the Bill.
      8 pm
      Amendments No. 61 and 62 deal with scrutiny. We believe that there need not be a split between cabinet or executive committees and scrutiny committees. In Committee, we had a long and constructive debate on the experience of Wiltshire county council under Councillor Peter Chalke. There, the best of the committee system has been retained, even though there are completely independent scrutiny committees. So impressed was the Minister by what is happening in Wiltshire that she dispatched officials there the other day to find out how it works. I hope that she tells the House the results of that visit. It would be interesting to see whether the Wiltshire approach could be a fourth or even a fifth option in this regard.
      Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 68 and 65 deal with deferring decisions, delays in implementation, attempts to restrict the function of the scrutiny committee and immediate review. They are designed to improve the scrutiny process, if that is the road down which we are going.
      Amendment No. 79 touches on an important issue that deserves a whole debate in itself—the role of officers. The second consultative draft of the proposed guidance published by the Government stated:
      Where the same officers are supporting both the executive and overview and scrutiny committees, there is the potential for conflict—overview and scrutiny committees will be questioning the executive's decisions which should be based on officer advice.
      It is clear that the guidance recognises that there is some need to protect officers whom the new system might place in an invidious position.
      240
      We believe that it is artificial to rely on the scrutiny system as the answer to everything. Nowhere is it more artificial than in Hammersmith and Fulham, where scrutiny committees are clearly being whipped on a regular basis. Elsewhere, Newham has 59 Labour members. The one other member is an independent Labour member. How on earth can there be independent scrutiny by other political councillors if there are no members from other parties?
      Those are important questions, to which there were few answers in Committee. I hope that our luck is better this evening.
      Mr. Adrian Sanders: As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) explained, new clause 10 would place a duty on the leader of each political group to disclose whether any matter on the agenda had been subject to prior discussion by that group. It is an admirable proposal, and a worthy attempt to prevent the whipping of members, but I suspect that it is unworkable. Whether or not the new clause is accepted, the system will probably encourage group members who want promotion to the executive not to rock the boat. That is the fundamental flaw in the split between executive and scrutiny committees, as it sets up two classes of councillor.
      The other amendments in the group would water down the Government's explicit split between executive and scrutiny committees, and give councillors more flexibility over the arrangements. That would destroy what the Government are intending to do, but we have some sympathy for making the arrangements more flexible.
      The really important amendment is No. 79, which the hon. Member for Eastbourne said deserved a debate in its own right. It would require separate officers to serve the executive and scrutiny committees. Clearly, if scrutiny is to work, that is a good idea, but there is a resource implication. The amendments do not cover the question of whether the paid head of service should line-manage the officers of both committees—
      It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    New Schedule 1

      AMENDMENTS TO THE 1972 ACT
      1.— (1) Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1972 (constitution of principal councils in England) is amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
      "(2A) Where a council mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above are operating executive arrangements which involve a mayor and cabinet executive or a mayor and council manager executive, the council shall consist of an elected mayor, a chairman and councillors."
      2.—(1) Section 21 of that Act (constitution of principal councils in Wales) is amended as follows.
      >(2) After subsection (1) there is inserted—
      "(1A) Where a council falling within subsection (1) are operating executive arrangements which involve a mayor and cabinet executive or a mayor and council manager executive, the council shall consist of an elected mayor, a chairman and councillors."
      3.—(1) Section 25A of that Act (title of chairman or vice-chairman of county borough council) is amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
      "(3) This section does not apply where a county borough council are operating executive arrangements which involve a mayor and cabinet executive or a mayor and council manager executive."
      4.—(1) Section 245 of that Act (status of certain districts, parishes and communities) is amended as follows.
      (2) After. subsection (1) there is inserted—
      "(1A) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply where the council are operating executive arrangements which involve a mayor and cabinet executive or a mayor and council manager executive."
      5.—(1) Schedule 2 to that Act (constitution and membership of London borough councils) is amended as follows.
      (2) After paragraph 5 there is inserted—
      "5A. Where a London borough council are operating executive arrangements which involve a mayor and cabinet executive or a mayor and council manager executive—

      (a) the council shall consist of an elected mayor, a chairman and councillors,

      (b) for any reference in paragraphs 2 to 5 above to 'mayor' (except in the expression 'deputy mayor') there is to be substituted 'chairman',

      (c) for any reference in paragraph 5 above to "deputy mayor" there is to be substituted "vice-chairman".".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

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

    Clause 12

      FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF AN EXECUTIVE
      Amendments made: No. 101, in page 9, line 1, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      '( ) may be discharged only in accordance with any provisions made by or under this Part which apply to the discharge of any such function by that form of executive.'.
      No. 102, in page 9, line 3, at beginning insert "Accordingly".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    Clause 14

      DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: LEADER AND CABINET EXECUTIVE
      Amendments made: No. 103, in page 11, line 10, after "makes" insert "or has made".
      No. 104, in page 11, line 11, leave out—
      'at that or any subsequent time'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    Clause 15
      DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MANAGER EXECUTIVE
      Amendment made: No. 105, in page 11, line 34, leave out "exercise" and insert "discharge".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
    Clause 17

      DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY AREA COMMITTEES
      Amendments made: No. 106, in page 12, line 23, leave out from "authority" to end of line 33 and insert—
      'which satisfies the conditions in subsection (4),'.
      No. 107, in page 12, line 34, at end insert—
      '(4) A committee or sub-committee of a local authority satisfies the conditions in this subsection if—

      (a) the committee or sub-committee is established to discharge functions in respect of part of the area of the authority,

      (b) the members of the committee or sub-committee who are members of the authority are elected for electoral divisions or wards which fall wholly or partly within that part, and

      (c) either or both of the conditions in subsection (5) are satisfied in relation to that part.

      (5) Those conditions are—

      (a) that the area of that part does not exceed two-fifths of the total area of the authority,

      (b) that the population of that part, as estimated by the authority, does not exceed two-fifths of the total population of the area of the authority as so estimated.'—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    Clause 18
      DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF AND BY ANOTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY
      Amendment made: No. 108, in page 13, line 22, leave out "(3) and (4)" and insert "(3) to (5)".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
    Clause 20

      OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES
      Amendments made: No. 109, in page 14, line 34, leave out "and" and insert "or".
      No. 110, in page 14, line 35, leave out "their inhabitants" and insert—
      'the inhabitants of that area'.
      No. 208, in page 16, line 3, at end insert—
      '( ) A person is not obliged by subsection (14) to answer any question which he would be entitled to refuse to answer in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    New Clause 9

      ACCESS TO INFORMATION; BACKGROUND PAPERS
      '.—(1) In section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 (inspection of background papers) for subsection (1) there is substituted—

      "(1) Subject, in the case of section 100C(1), to subsection (2) below, if and so long as copies of the whole or part of a report for a meeting of a principal council are required by section 100B(1) or 100C(1) above to be open to inspection by members of the public—

      (a) those copies shall each include a copy of a list, compiled by the proper officer, of the background papers for the report or the part of the report, and

      (b) at least one copy of each of the documents included in that list shall also be open to inspection at the offices of the council."

      243

      (2) In subsection (2) the words "of the list, or" are omitted.'.—[Ms Beverley Hughes.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): 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 11—Meetings and documents: notice etc.
      New clause 5—Decisions made by individuals—access to information—
      '.—(1) A prescribed decision shall not be taken by a decision taker unless public notice containing the details specified in subsection (2) has been given by him at least five clear days in advance of the date on which it is proposed to take the decision by posting it at the offices of the local authority.
      (2) The details referred to in subsection (1) are

      (i) the name of the individual taking the decision

      (ii) details of how he may be contacted

      (iii) a short description of the decision to be taken

      (iv) the date on which the decision is to be taken

      (v) a list of the reports and background papers relevant to the decision.

      (3) The provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to any report relating to the proposed decision and to any background papers used in preparing that report, as if the report were to be considered at a meeting of a principal council.
      (4) Nothing in subsection (1) shall prevent a decision being taken without giving such notice where by reason of special circumstances, which shall be specified in the written record of the decision, the decision taker is of the opinion that it should be taken as a matter of urgency.
      (5) In this section—
      "prescribed" has the meaning given by section 21(11).
      "decision taker" means

      (a) an individual member of a local authority executive or

      (b) an officer of the authority discharging functions of the executive delegated to him.'.

      Amendment No. 82, in clause 21, page 16, line 4, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      '—(1) Meetings of

      (a) a local authority executive

      (b) a committee of such an executive

      (c) a sub-committee of such an executive

      (d) a joint committee

      (e) a sub-committee of such a joint committee

      shall be open to the public subject to the provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972.'.
      Amendment No. 19, in page 16, line 5, leave out "or held in private" and insert—
      'unless necessary to exclude the public for individual items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 (all reports) of Part of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.'.
      Amendment No. 83, in page 16, line 6, leave out subsection (2).
      244
      Amendment No. 20, in page 16, line 7, leave out from "decide" to end of line 9 and insert—
      'which parts of its meetings, and which part of any committee of the executive are to be held in private.'.
      Amendment No. 84, in page 16, line 11, leave out from beginning of line 11 to end of line 12 and insert—
      'any meetings referred to in subsection (1).'.
      Amendment No. 85, in page 16, line 20, at end insert—
      ', and where such reports, background papers or other documents relate to a decision which is to be taken they must be made available at least five clear days before the date on which the decision is to be taken'.
      Amendment No. 86, in page 16, line 21, leave out subsection (7).
      Amendment No. 87, in page 16, line 25, leave out subsection (8).
      Government amendment No. 111.
      Amendment No. 88, in page 16, line 42, leave out subsection (9)(a).
      Government amendment No. 112.
      Amendment No. 89, in page 17, line 20, leave out subsection (10).
      Government amendment No. 220.
      Amendment No. 90, in clause 99, page 74, line 25, after "10(5),", insert "21,".
      Amendment No. 91, in schedule 4, page 87, line 34, at end insert—
      '. In section 100A of that Act (Admission to meetings of principal councils), in subsection (6)(a), for "three" there is substituted "five".'.
      Amendment No. 92, in page 87, line 34, at end insert—
      '. In section 100B of that Act (Access to agenda and connected reports)—
      (a) in subsection (3), for "three" there is substituted "five"
      Amendment No. 93, in page 87, line 34, at end insert—
      '. In section 100D of that Act (Inspection of Background Papers)—

      (a) in subsection (1) leave out from "members of the public—" to the end and insert—

      "(a) a list of the background papers for the report or the part of the report shall be attached to or included in the report, and

      (b) at least one copy of each of the documents included in that list shall also be open to their inspection at the offices of the council.",

      (b) in subsection (2) omit the words "of the list, or",

      (c) in subsection (2) after "included in the list" omit ",".'.

      (b) in subsection (4)(a), for "three" there is substituted "five"'.

      Amendment No. 94, in page 87, line 34, at end insert—
      '. In section 100I of that Act (Exempt information and power to vary Schedule 12A), after subsection (2) insert—
      "(2A) The Secretary of State may by order substitute for the reference to 'three clear days' in sections 100A and 100B such greater number of days as may be specified in the order.".'.
      Government amendment No. 205.
      Ms Hughes: Throughout this Bill's passage through the House, the issues relevant to these amendments have been the basis of an informed and constructive debate on access to information. I am sure that that will be the case this evening, too.

      245
      I hope that both sides of the House will agree that we all start with one aim in mind—to ensure that the new structures are as accountable and transparent as possible. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the third aim of the executive arrangements, as identified by the Joint Committee, was to improve efficiency and establish a more modern approach to decision making. The debate has been concerned with how we strike that balance.
      During debates in Committee, we identified that the central issue to ensure access and transparent decision making is public access to information. First and foremost, local people need to know what decisions are going to be taken, and also when and how they are to be taken. They need to know what information, analysis and ideas will be available to decision makers, and what will influence them. Above all, local people need and deserve to know how they can make their input into the decision-making process. Decisions that affect people should not come as a surprise to those affected. Equally, once a decision has been taken, the public need to know what that decision was and the reasons for it.
      It is through this public access that, to a considerable extent, the accountability that we all seek will be delivered. It is unfortunate that the Opposition should diminish the role of overview and scrutiny, as it is vital to this matter and to the proposed structures. All the new structures, with their separate, identifiable executive and powerful overview and scrutiny committees, will contribute significantly to ensuring that future decisions by the council are made in an open and inclusive process that involves local people in deciding local issues.
      Central to building the framework to deliver that ready access will be a requirement for executives to maintain a public forward plan of decision making, as set out in our guidance. People will see what decisions are going to be taken over coming weeks and longer. They will also see how the executive is planning to consult and involve them, and how they can participate. Amendment No. 112 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring such a forward plan. For the information of the House, draft regulations were yesterday made available showing how we intend to use the powers, should clause 21 be amended as we propose.
      I recognise that there remain genuine concerns about whether the access regime really will bring about a culture of openness and transparency. I accept that these concerns have been fuelled by recent experiences, referred to earlier by right hon. and hon. Members, of the experimental new working arrangements being tried by some councils. Councils are already making significant progress in trying new and innovative ways of working that will involve local people far more readily and significantly in their decision making, but not every experiment has achieved the kind of openness that we want to see and will be required under this measure. Indeed, some have fallen well short of the spirit of our proposals.
      I remind right hon. and hon. Members that these shortcomings, where they exist, have arisen before councils can adopt fully the new structures that the legislation will put in place. They are, therefore, not yet compelled to adopt the regime of public access that we are introducing; they are instead using existing legislation not to promote openness but, on occasion, to increase secrecy.
      246
      To achieve our aims, there must be change. Not only must there be a tough regime for access, there needs to be a culture of openness, and public confidence that such a culture exists. It is important that all right hon. and hon. Members accept that we are talking not just about structures but about mechanisms and levers to try and drive a new culture into local government. That is what we are putting in place, and the proposals need to be seen in that light.
      We are therefore taking one further measure which I believe will dispel some of the proper concerns that have been raised and build that public confidence. Amendment No. 111 will allow the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the circumstances in which a council's executive must meet in public. If the House accepts that amendment, we intend to make regulations requiring that when a decision is being taken collectively by an executive, and is one of the key decisions that will be of the kind contained in the forward plan, the executive will have to meet in public to make that decision. The draft regulations placed in the House yesterday make that clear.
      Mr. Waterson: What is the logic of having meetings in public to discuss key decisions and still having the possibility of meeting in private, or in secret, to discuss decisions that are not key and are, by definition, probably rather unimportant?
      Ms Hughes: That is no different from what happens currently. I do not think that anyone would argue that every decision, such as those currently delegated to an officer, for example, should have to be taken in the formal arena of a public meeting. That is not in the spirit of the point that I made at the outset of my speech about the balance that needs to be struck between openness and transparency on the one hand and efficient decision making—which is also in the interests of local people—on the other.
      As I was saying, the draft regulations will make it clear that such decisions will have to be made in public. In addition, to ensure that openness and accountability are a reality, we shall make it clear in our guidance accompanying the Bill that it is not just when a formal decision is being taken that the meeting should be in public. People should not be able to get around our clear intentions for access by, for example, questioning officers in private about their advice one week and, the following week, formally taking the decisions without a debate in that public arena. One could argue that that has been one of the problems with the committee system, and it should not be carried over into the new regime. We shall therefore make it clear that we expect that when the executive is having a collective discussion with officers, pertinent to any key decisions, the public should have access to those discussions.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend has made an important and welcome statement that goes beyond regulation 3 on page 5 of the draft regulations to which she has just alluded. Will she confirm that the wording of regulation 3 will need to be revisited again to make it clear that a meeting of a council executive will have to be open when matters pertinent to key decisions are being discussed, not just when those decisions are being determined?

      247
      Secondly, regulation 15 seems to leave the definition of key decisions to individual local authorities. Would it not be more sensible to have national parameters to help define key decisions?
      Ms Hughes: I remind my hon. Friend of what I said. We will make it clear in the regulations that we expect that when an executive is having a collective discussion with officers, pertinent to any key decisions, the public shall have access to those discussions. The regulations will reflect that commitment.
      On my hon. Friend's second point about the definition of key decisions, the draft regulations are, as he knows, out for consultation. What constitutes a key decision is a specific question that councils are being asked in that consultation. In fact, that was drawn to the attention of the local authorities when the draft regulations were published. We will take cognisance of the responses that we receive on that issue before firming up our views on how a key decision should be defined. Certainly, the responses of local authorities will be very germane.
      Dr. Alan Whitehead: My understanding of the process that is being sought, and my view of an ideal process, is of a seamless mesh of access to information prior to a decision being made, while a decision is being made, and after it has been made via the scrutiny process when a key decision is in question. Is it the Government's intention that the new clauses will allow for scrutiny when a decision is being entertained but has not yet entered the decision-making process? That is what happens in Select Committees in this House, even though no legislative process is being undertaken at that particular moment.
      Ms Hughes: We have already made it clear during extensive discussions in Committee that key decisions announced in the forward plan that we envisage will be weeks—possibly up to three or four months—in advance of a decision being taken, and that overview and scrutiny committees can call the executive members responsible to account before the decision is taken. That is already provided for in the draft regulations.
      Mr. McDonnell: On the definition of key decisions, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to consult local authorities. Does that mean, therefore, that these regulations will be brought before the House for debate for potential amendment and approval?
      Ms Hughes: In terms of the outcome of the consultation, there will be the opportunity to discuss the regulations.
      We are very comfortable about moving in this direction and with responding to some of the issues that have been expressed. I hope that no one would argue that there should be no opportunity for early discussion in private among executive members about issues likely to lead to key decisions. It is in the interests of local people that members, with officers, are able to explore options and think through the implications of potential decisions before they make a decision.
      248
      Certainly, in terms of the concerns that are being expressed, we are also clear that when an executive is meeting to discuss issues that are pertinent to key decisions with officers, those should be in the public domain. I hope that that reassures some of my hon. Friends and hon. Members about the concerns that they have raised.
      Mr. Alan Simpson: I am grateful for that clarification, but will my hon. Friend confirm what will be covered as regards advance disclosure? The timetabling is not clear. How much advance disclosure should there be? Would draft reports be covered by advanced disclosure requirements? Technically, it would seem that under the regulations a draft report could be the subject of a subsequent decision without any advance disclosure. Is it clear that the regulations will cover draft reports as well as the formal reports?
      Ms Hughes: Yes, I think that our policy is clear on that. Under the Bill as it stands, where a member of the executive receives officer advice the report must be disclosed at least three days before a decision is taken. We are not saying that an executive member must have officer advice before taking a decision, although, as the guidance makes clear, in most circumstances we would expect that to be the case.
      Our aim is to start from the position that too many councils have excluded the public from decision making for too long. That is a hallmark of the committee system. The desire to change that system is at the root of our proposals. Public access must be the norm. If people are elected to represent their communities, they must be seen to be delivering the best possible deal for those communities and to be accountable for that.
      We shall carry over into our new provision the existing concept that certain matters, such as those relating to individuals or commercial contracts, are exempt information, on which, notwithstanding any general requirement for open meetings, decisions should properly be made in private. While we will carry across that concept, as I said in Committee, we shall review those categories to find out whether they are too widely drawn and should be reined in. Again, we will be consulting on that.
      Mr. Waterson: As it might save time later, will the hon. Lady explain now what is the difference between what she is proposing to accept and applying the existing system of openness, as contained in the Local Government Act 1972 and elsewhere—subject always to confidentiality—which applies to council and committee meetings, to cabinet or executive meetings? Would that not be far simpler and achieve much the same result?
      Ms Hughes: No, it would not. We are talking about an entirely different system. The hon. Gentleman has a complete blind spot about scrutiny and cannot see the advantages of a separation between executive decision making and scrutiny. Precisely because that is the structure that we are talking about, which we believe is preferable to the moribund process of the committee system, we need different arrangements to ensure access to information. Those are the arrangements that I have put before hon. Members today in our amendments.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Eastbourne said that his aim on access to information was to hold the line and that is what he just said. He asked why things could

      249
      not stay as they are. Holding the line is not good enough. We want to move that line decisively towards better access, greater openness and greater accountability for local people. The arrangements that we propose will achieve that aim much better than the present arrangements.
      Ms Margaret Moran: On the issue of greater openness and accountability, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the media have expressed concern about access to information and the openness that the executive will allow for reporting. Is she also aware that at the first executive meeting of Luton borough council, Luton on Sunday, usually the scourge of the council, expressed amazement at the openness and accountability that is now available? It is far in excess of what was previously available. Also, the three days prior notice of information from the executive needs to be reconsidered if we are truly to be more accountable not merely to the media, but to citizens who want to be more involved and informed about the important work of the executive.
      Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am aware of developments in Luton because I was there last week to talk to council members, as she knows, and I was impressed by what they are doing and the spirit in which they are trying to implement their new arrangements in advance of the Bill becoming law. If she will bear with me a little longer, I will deal with the number of days notice.
      In addition to our robust access regime, our amendment for open executive meetings and the review of exempt information—the outcome of which we can implement through an existing order-making power when the consultation is complete—we are also putting some other provisions before the House. New clause 9 will ensure that background papers are now listed with reports. New clause 11 will allow us to increase the minimum number of days that papers are available in advance of decisions, to which my hon. Friend referred, and we shall consult on whether we should use that power in the near future. Finally, amendment No. 112 allows us to make regulations for the forward plan.
      In addition, we will for the first time bring key officer decisions into the access-to-information fold. All of those provisions taken together represent a considerable advance on the status quo that the Conservatives want so dearly to maintain.
      On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others, I am sure that the spirit of their and our objectives is the same. I believe that the regime and the measures that I have outlined will more than meet the concerns from which the amendments sprang. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the regime that we are putting in place will ensure that decisions are not only taken accountably, following rigorous local debate, but that they are seen to be so taken, and that where an individual member of the executive is taking a decision, she or he does so after proper debate and only once people know all the facts. My hon. Friend's new clause 5 would achieve just that and our draft regulations deliver those aims. Therefore, I think that we are in agreement in wanting proper access and accountability. I hope that he shares my view that our package of measures will deliver that.
      250
      Finally, the Conservative amendments speak for what they are. In contrast to our regime for access and for reforming, modernising and extending existing provisions and significantly improving public access to them, the Opposition's amendments reflect their stance of holding the line, staying put and not recognising that local government in this century is a far cry from local government two centuries ago when the system that we still have was designed. Indeed, it is a far cry from the local government of the 1960s, when the then Member for Finchley, now Baroness Thatcher, introduced her private Member's Bill. Time has moved on, we have moved on, local people have moved on in terms of what they expect, but the Opposition and their amendments have not. In short, I cannot accept the amendments.
      We can all agree, however, that we want a proper, transparent and accountable system that really allows local people to know who is taking the decisions, and when and how they can influence those decisions. The framework put in place by our provisions will deliver that. I commend new clause 9 to the House.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: The speech made by the Under-Secretary of State was a tour de force; it was remarkable. She accused the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) of wanting to hold the line. She said that the Government did not want merely to hold the line, but to move beyond it. To hold the line was not good enough, she said; they want better access. In effect, she accused the hon. Gentleman and his party of looking backwards, while the Government are looking forward. She said that the Government are making progress.
      According to her pronouncements tonight, we certainly are making progress. Indeed, during the past few months, we have made much progress. However, it would be somewhat disingenuous of the hon. Lady to pretend that all forward movement has occurred so easily. Even her hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) found out only a few moments ago that obtaining concessions from the Government on the issue is like getting blood out of a stone.
      The hon. Gentleman pointed out—helpfully, his words planned and ready—that there were surely two improvements that we could make. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman knows that I too wanted to raise those issues. He asked the Minister whether it would not be a good idea to revisit both draft regulation 3 and the definition of "key decisions". All he needed from the Minister were two short words: "yes" and "yes". However, the hon. Gentleman did not receive those answers; instead, the Minister made a longwinded attempt to arrive at "yes" and "maybe"—even the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that.
      Ms Beverley Hughes: Not fair.
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman made it clear that a clear statement was needed in the regulations on the definition of a key decision. If the Minister checks the record, she will find that she referred only to what would be placed in the guidance. In a moment, I hope that she will confirm that she intends to ensure that the change of definition appears in the actual regulations.
      For the many people who care about freedom of information and openness in government, a long and weary road has been travelled. Both sides of the House

      251
      can claim credit for the progress that has been made. They share that credit with many organisations: the Society of Editors, the Newspaper Society and, not least, the Campaign for Freedom of Information, whose members have worked tirelessly on the issue. Credit is deserved by those organisations and Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who is even now rising to his feet and to whom I give way.
      Mr. Waterson: I am not so extravagant as to ask the hon. Gentleman to include me in his list, but he might think of including Baroness Thatcher.
      Mr. Foster: On this one occasion, I am delighted to include the right hon. and noble Lady. The House will recall that she and another former Conservative Member of the House, Robin Squire, promoted measures on the matter.
      Progress has been made. However, it is worth reflecting on the genesis of the matter. For example, when the draft Bill was considered by the Joint Committee, it recommended that
      the agenda of the executive be published in advance, together with all papers relating to items which are on the agenda for decision.
      Advance publication of the agenda is hardly a major request.
      However, paragraph 2.99 of the Government's response to the Committee, published in December 1999, stated:
      The Government is concerned, though, that a requirement to publish papers before a meeting might once again drive majority groups into private discussions outside the structures of the council and the purview of the overview and scrutiny committees.
      At that time, the Government were not even prepared to consider advance publication of agendas.
      That is where we started. Since then, with pressure from many organisations and from Members on both sides of the House, the Government have come to believe that we need the production of a forward plan that details
      the matters in respect of which the decision is to be taken…the name of the decision ta…by when the decision will be taken…who will be consulted…the means by which any such consultation is proposed to be undertaken…how, and by when, people should make representations to them…a list of the documents, other than documents that are [then] available only in draft form, submitted to the decision-taker for consideration in relation to the matter in respect of which the decision is to be taken.
      That represents good progress.
      Furthermore, there must be three days advance access to reports, agendas, and background papers for decisions that will be taken at meetings held in public. The finalised reports on which decisions are taken by individual executive members must, apparently, be publicly available in advance. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified that point, as there is some confusion in the draft regulations that we saw yesterday.
      Other progress has been made. After a meeting, individuals must produce a record of the decisions, including the reason for the decisions and the alternative options considered and rejected. The Government have agreed to undertake a review of the exemptions from public rights of access to meetings and information in schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. They have also
      252
      agreed to amend the Act to require officers to list the background papers to their reports in the reports themselves.
      That is a pretty impressive list of the changes that we eventually managed to get out of the Government. I suspect that, tonight, all that many of us want to persuade them to do is to state categorically that they are willing to take one more, final step.
      I should like the Government to do one more thing, although I accept that they are unlikely to do so—I should like many of the issues that we have successfully debated to be included in the Bill. I should prefer them to take that route instead of dealing with such matters in separate regulations. However, I accept that that is probably a step too far for the Government at this stage.
      The hon. Member for Bedford identified the two key issues on which we seek a clear statement from the Government. The first relates to key decisions. We need to be clear that the Government are willing to reconsider and widen the scope of the definition of "key decision" and, after consultation, to ensure that it is included in the regulations. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear "yes" on that matter.
      The second issue relates to meetings that may or not take place in secret. Currently, it is the Government's intention to allow a group of members of the executive, if they want to do so, to hold in private a meeting to discuss a particular issue before a decision is taken. As I understand it, we have tonight heard a clear intention to change that arrangement. Unfortunately, the current draft regulations state:
      Subject to regulation 4, a meeting of the executive of a local authority, or of a committee of such an executive, shall be held in public if it is a meeting at which consideration is to be given to a matter in relation to which a decision taken at the meeting would be a key decision.
      The important phrase is "at the meeting". There is a real possibility that members of the executive may meet—on an agenda item, with papers in advance—to discuss the pros and cons of a proposal, perhaps the proposed closure of a school. It may well be that the decision on the issue will be taken at a later meeting, or delegated to an individual executive member. In those circumstances, under the current draft regulations, it would be possible for the meeting to be held in private, if the executive so determined. That would mean that members of the press and the public did not have the opportunity to listen to the arguments for and against that decision. It is certainly my belief, and that of the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the other organisations to which I have referred, that that needs to be changed, so that there is a clear statement of what is meant.
      Dr. Whitehead: For the avoidance of doubt, will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to me that, wherever his party forms the executive in a local authority, he will use the best endeavours of his national party machinery to ensure that that local authority abides by the laudable sentiments that he has expressed this evening?
      Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his comments in a non-provocative way. It would have been possible to have been slightly more provocative.
      Mr. Waterson rose—
      Mr. Foster: Now the hon. Member for Eastbourne is going to be provocative, just when I was hoping that for once we could all come together and agree to move forward positively.
      Mr. Waterson: I am tempted to say, "You rang?" Does the hon. Gentleman not think that this is a problem that will shortly solve itself?
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has now got me puzzled. The example to which I was referring was certainly one that would not easily solve itself. Perhaps he knows of another.
      I take the spirit of what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) says. He will be aware that it is very much the view of the Liberal Democrats that decisions that are entitled to be made at local level must be made by people at that level. It is not for those at national level to tell them what decisions they should take. I nevertheless give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that my party will take steps to encourage all Liberal Democrat councils to operate with maximum openness.
      I suggest a form of words to the Minister for draft regulation 3. I shall read it slowly so that the Minister can take it in. It might say something like: "Subject to regulation 4, a meeting of the executive of a local authority, or of a committee of such an executive, shall be held in public if it is a meeting at which (a) a key decision is to be taken or (b) discussion is to take place concerning a matter about which a key decision is to be made or may be taken in the future, whether by the executive or by any other decision-taker." From what the Minister said in response to the hon. Member for Bedford, I think that that is in line with what she has in mind.
      I seek a clear assurance about the definition of key decisions, and an absolute assurance that, where discussions about key decisions are taken in a meeting of the executive for which there is an agenda item and for which papers have been prepared in advance, the meeting will be held in public, whether or not the decision is taken on that occasion. If I can obtain those two assurances, I will not urge my hon. Friends to press our new clause and amendments to a vote, and we shall support the Minister's new clause.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Mark Fisher: Like the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I welcome what the Minister had to say this evening. She was helpful in addressing the genuine concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the effect that the new structures for local government should be at least as open and transparent as they were in the past. We should all recognise that the Minister and the Government have moved very far from the Bill as it was originally printed and from the discussions in Committee that I read in Hansard. It is a tribute to the Government that they
      254
      have listened to the case put by hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and by other members of the Committee. It is to Ministers' credit that they have done so.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that one or two matters still need clarification, and the hon. Member for Bath has identified them. It is important that any discussion on a key issue, whether or not a decision is to be made on that occasion, is open to the public and that they are notified in advance. That is what members of the public want. They want to see what their councillors say, how they address the issue, and on what information they base their decisions. Those are the determinants—not whether or not a decision is taken. I am sure that the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Minister said takes that into account. I hope that that spirit will be reflected in her reply and in the draft regulations. That similarly goes for the definition of a key decision.
      There are greater difficulties in defining a key decision. It is difficult to define them, and in a way I regret that we are going down that path. I would like to say all important decisions—but perhaps "important" is equally open to definitional difficulty. I cannot say that I envy the Minister the job of wording regulation 15, but it needs to be wider, and we need to hear something in the spirit of what she said in opening the debate, but clearer and firmer than that.
      There are still one or two further matters that need clearing up. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) raised the question of draft reports. I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, and she appeared to be making a different point rather than answering my hon. Friend's point about draft reports. Draft reports do not lead immediately to a decision, but they can be crucial. The drafting of an original report for a local authority will determine the tone and parameters of any important decision about, for example, the closure of a school or an old people's home, or anything else. So the issue of draft reports needs to be considered. I hope that the Minister will answer that point a little more clearly in her reply to the debate.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Bath that, ideally, the provisions should be written into the Bill rather than into regulations, but perhaps that is difficult for the Government to accept at this late stage in proceedings. No one will press the Minister tonight to put the provisions in the Bill. The progress that we have made on the regulations is sufficiently encouraging, and it shows the spirit in which the Government are dealing with the issue. There are issues on which we need the greatest possible legislative clarity. This is a difficult area.
      Most hon. Members are sympathetic to what the Government are trying to do, which is to release local authorities and their decision making from the impenetrable, slow and cumbersome committee structure. However, in doing so, the Government inadvertently went down a much less transparent route in the original Bill. The Minister has saved the legislation and the Government tonight from that unhappy and probably unintended route, and has retrieved the situation; but she must recognise that significant decisions will still effectively be delegated to members of the executive—cabinet members, as they call them in my local authority in Stoke-on-Trent—and made in conjunction with the chief officer. It will be difficult to achieve transparency

      255
      in those decisions. Any one of those decisions may not come within the definition of a key or important decision, but cumulatively they have a great effect on all our constituents.
      We are pursuing a difficult route which will lead the Government to keep a very close eye on matters. I hope that, quite apart from these regulations, the Government and the Ministers will revisit this piece of legislation over the coming months and in a year or two's time, to see how it is working and whether members of the public—and of the local press—are worried about a lack of transparency.
      It was very encouraging to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) say that the local newspaper found that the present arrangements as demonstrated in Luton were actually more open than the legislation would require. That is to the credit of her local authority and the way its councillors and officers are operating in the spirit of the legislation, but we all recognise that it is perfectly possible to operate in a different spirit. Moreover, when decisions are very contentious and difficult, and a local authority feels itself beleaguered—as happens all too often—there is always a tendency for any local authority to smuggle things through and take decisions which, once they are a fait accompli, people will have to accept. Those of us who have been councillors in the past and have been chairs of committees understand that tendency only too well; it crosses all party divides and is simply a human tendency.
      It is thus very important that we get this aspect right tonight, because whether we get it right or not along the lines that we are talking about, this will be difficult legislation to put into practice, and it will be difficult to ensure that there genuinely is openness; so the greater the clarity we get from the Government—in what the Minister says in winding up, and in the drafting of the regulations, and in the monitoring of the operation of the legislation—the better.
      The spirit of what the Government are doing is right. Since Committee, the Government have moved an enormous distance in addressing these problems of openness and access to information, but we still have some way to go. I hope that, when the Minister winds up, she will recognise that advice in the spirit in which it is offered to her.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has just said. He summed up the problems that we face succinctly and clearly. Where I disagree with him is that I would not be so sanguine that we have found the solution to the problem—although he is cautious about it.
      I always feel extremely wary when we send a Bill to the other place in a sense incomplete, with a key area of it lying around as draft regulations on which the Government will consult. Our final destination on this vital issue remains so uncertain.
      We have been considering the Bill since April, when it had its Second Reading. We have had hundreds of amendments and here we are, in July, at its last knockings in this House, still fiddling with a vital section of it. That is a great indictment of the Government. The Minister, in
      256
      the little tirade at the end of her speech, said that Conservative Members were a bunch of old-fashioned neanderthals. [Interruption.] Of course we probably are—at least, I probably am, but not my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). However, that little diatribe hid the fact that each and every one of the concessions that the Minister has made tonight has had to be wrung out of her bit by bit; the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was quite right about that. Every gesture that has been made in this respect has been resolved by trench warfare waged not only by the Opposition but by Labour Members.
      We are about to agree to the amendment—my hon. Friends would not wish to agree to it, but we are about to do so because the Government have a large majority on it—even though we still do not know the definition of the key word. What is a key decision? We still do not know that. We do not know what can be interpreted as a key word. As I understand the regulations, the decision as to what a key decision is will ultimately be decided by the local authority concerned, with some guidance from the Minister in some manner, which we have not seen—[Interruption.] I am sorry. It has been seen, but it has not been agreed. That is an extremely dangerous thing. I cannot believe that journalists and editors throughout the country will be satisfied by that.
      The old committee system was described as slow and cumbersome. In many respects that is true, and those of us who have been councillors know what it is like to sit through some endlessly boring committee stages, but they are open to the public and to the press, and the arguments that flow back and forth can be heard by everyone. If decisions are not key decisions, but are nevertheless important decisions—the discussions before the closure of a school, perhaps—they will be taken in private and will not be properly explained and challenged until the scrutiny procedure starts, as I understand it.
      I believe that we now have an intensely bureaucratic set of regulations, which are out to consultation. We do not know what they will be like in the final analysis. I believe that the House will be asked tonight to nod through a very significant provision that could bring about a substantial diminution of press freedom and public freedom—without our seeing the detail, which, in my view, should be in the Bill.
      Mr. Neil Turner: I very much welcome the changes that have been made to the Bill in regulations. We have moved an awfully long way from the first drafting. As I said, that is a tribute to the work that has been done by Members on both sides of the House and by other organisations.
      The Government had to balance the need to allow councils thinking time to get together with their officers and discuss things that are in the air before they take key decisions, with the need for a clear, transparent, decision-making process. We now have what is probably approximately the right balance. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on the need to monitor the working of the legislation. The regulations are obviously quite complex and will be difficult for authorities to operate. We need to monitor, to ensure that the regulations are complied with. There is a clear need for Government, and for ourselves as Members representing people, to ensure that our councils do the proper thing.

      257
      We need to be aware that the legislation is only part of the process of modernising local government; the other part was the Local Government Act 1999, which provided for the creation of community plans. The community plans involve the community in the way local government takes its decisions. The regulations make it absolutely clear that the community, local businesses, voluntary groups and individuals must be involved in that process. When those elements are combined in the decision-making process, the result will be that the transparency, the openness and the involvement of the public in local government will be very much better, once the Bill becomes an Act.
      I therefore welcome these moves by the Government, and hope that the House will approve them tonight.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I share some of the reservations that have been expressed by my hon. Friends about the journey that the Bill has made on openness and on its provisions for access to information. I gladly pay tribute to the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which has been a beacon of light, has monitored progress, and has demonstrated benchmarks.
      In an earlier reading of what seemed to be almost another Bill from another world, one took the view that it had been drafted by the Home Office. It had all the magnificent over-defensive reactions that reflected the thought that dangerous talk cost lives and that local electorates should not have the same standard as is suggested for the Bill. It seemed inconsistent that a Government who were taking steps to advance open government were also permitting a situation that denied the residents of my local authority, for example, the access to information that they had traditionally had. The fact that the regime is now looser than was originally conceived in the Bill is to be welcomed.
      9 pm
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made two valid points. First, if terms such as "key decision" are not properly defined, that gives rise to anxiety. The standard in one place may well be different from that in another, and I know that the Minister is mindful of that fact. However, if a constituency covers two local authorities, two different standards of access to information might apply. That would give rise to conflict and would reduce our ability to participate. After all, openness of information is the greatest incentive to participation and to involving people in local government. They feel more involved if they know what is going on and, if they are sufficiently interested, they may participate in the process.
      All political parties are trying to reach out and increase participation and the sense of validation of the decisions taken. I am naturally cautious about executive-style mayors such as we have in London, but I am a Conservative and one would expect me to view change with caution to some extent. Therefore, the first point that the hon. Gentleman raised was the variable standard between authorities.
      The hon. Gentleman made another important point on the issue of regulations. The House drowns under regulations and we have very little say over them. They are not even properly scrutinised. I was going to whisper, but I do not have to do so in the House because most of
      258
      the information traded here is not relayed anywhere else. Therefore, I will mention the Child Support Agency. We all agreed with the concept, so it bears some relation to what the Minister is doing here. However, on a quiet summer's afternoon, when we were busy and our concentration was elsewhere, a raft of regulations was passed. As a Parliament, we caused great hurt to many of our constituents.
      For many years, we have had to sit—I certainly have—in our surgeries wondering how such an outcome could have come about. It is difficult to put right a wrong. Although regulations have the effect of primary legislation, they are not primary legislation in the sense that we can take up the House's time to try to satisfy ourselves—this is what the process is about—that they are fair and reasonable.
      The hon. Gentleman said that he was bit cautious about regulations, but that he accepts the good intent of the Government. I am very concerned about regulations, however, because 2,500 of them flood through as statutory instruments each year, and that is in addition to the 2,500 pages of legislation that existed even before the Home Secretary announced yet another Bill for this Session. I hope that the Government take that point on board, because it is disappointing to think that we shall not see the regulations before the Bill is returned to the House of Lords.
      I want to give a cheer to amendments Nos. 82 to 87, which were tabled under a distinguished collection of names, to which mine was also appended. I commend to the Government a more vigorous approach when the matter is considered in the Lords. I hope that they will enable us to discuss the regulations in detail without the constraints that apply to most regulations.
      Dr. Whitehead: I shall add my brief comments to those who have said that the measures that the Government have introduced on Report will lead to a culture of openness in the new form of local government. That is important, because when we consider the past and the future of local government we should be honest. The idea that there was a golden age of openness in local government that the Government first ignored, and then had to be dragged kicking and screaming back towards, is not true.
      In the past, local government has, in some circumstances, operated in admirable conditions of openness. However, there have also been instances in which local authorities have operated in shocking conditions of secrecy. There have also been occasions, even after the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 was passed, on which local authorities subverted the requirements of such legislation by various means, including caucuses, pre-meetings, half-group meetings and half-group and officer meetings and so on.
      In circumstances in which it is clear that a major decision is to be made, a seamless web of information should be made available to the public before it is made. That is the order of the day when that decision is being entertained and discussed and once it has been made and implemented. The Government have suggested changes to the Bill. I was a member of the Joint Committee of both Houses that scrutinised the draft Bill and, as hon. Members have reflected today, it is right that considerable moves have been made from some thoughts that came before that Committee.

      259
      The circumstances that will exist after the Bill is enacted will be a challenge to any local authority that wishes to pursue its activities in secret. The assumption will be that a good reason must be put to the public if items of any major importance to that local authority are to be decided in private. That does not mean that there are not circumstances in which certain decisions should be discussed in private. Certainly, there are circumstances in which decisions should be taken privately, such as those relating to tendering of contracts, in which a third party can get an advantage from those contracts, or cases relating to employees or disclosure of information which, in certain circumstances, may be prejudicial to individuals. However, I can think of only a few occasions when that is relevant, and there is an overwhelming case for openness in local government, which the changes will advance. I commend the Government amendments for the way in which they engender that culture.
      Finally, there is now an onus on those in all political parties who purport to speak for local government at national level to make sure that excuses are not made for local authorities that are run by their parties in a majority, if those parties fail to live up to the culture of openness that the Bill will introduce. I certainly hope that what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said and what Conservative Members said in support of that greater openness will be backed by action in future. If local authorities do not do that, those parties should take action themselves.
      Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman said that he could see good reasons why certain matters are confidential, and cited tendering as an instance. That relates to the commercial confidentiality argument which goes right through whole areas of British government. Why should a tender, which is an open market transaction, be protected by secrecy? In the United States, that would considered an outrageous suggestion, as people, including the public at large, want to compare open tenders. One might not take the cheapest tender, but one is forced to give the reason for that, such as quality of goods, service or reliability. I am nervous about starting to cocoon areas on the ground that they may require confidentiality.
      Dr. Whitehead: Of course that must be constrained very scrupulously, but I am concerned that the playing field might not be level. If a private company wants to gain some advantage, for example, in a land transaction and the local authority is required to give it access to information that enables it to take advantage of the tendering process, the public might be deprived of money that might otherwise have gone their way if that information had not been available to the private company.
      Such a requirement would be necessary if we had a regime in which everyone—whether a public, private or voluntary body, or whatever—were always required to disclose exactly the same information. Unfortunately, private companies have been able to take advantage of the openness of public bodies to make deals to the disadvantage of the public interest. We should be aware that that is possible and ensure that, in that instance and that instance only, the public interest is not compromised by the fact that the playing field is not level in those circumstances.
      260
      I hope that the spirit of openness heralded by these amendments is made a reality. One political party has recently introduced an ethics committee to its own internal proceedings. I imagine that that party would want to ensure that its ethics committee looked into any local authority, on which its representatives were in a majority, that proceeded secretively. Hon. Members from all parties have signed up to an important principle tonight. We should now ensure that, in future, the reality of local government conforms to the principles that we have enunciated.
      Mr. Waterson: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, the Government have got themselves into a terrible mess. They have twisted, turned and tried every way to save their face, but it will not wash. We have heard all the usual guff about openness, transparency and so on, and we must all learn a new theology about key decisions. The Minister had the temerity in her opening remarks to boast about the fact that the draft regulations were put out for discussion. Yes, they were, but only since yesterday—talk about legislating on the hoof. The Government have rushed out the draft regulations. [Interruption.] I shall take no lessons from Ministers; they have the great panoply of the civil service at their disposal and have been preparing all this stuff for years.
      We are having this discussion only because we pressed the matter in Committee, because the Minister has been greatly embarrassed in the media—we know how important they are to the Government—and because a bunch of brave Labour Back Benchers have tabled amendments.
      The Government have rushed out the draft regulations and guidance because they are in an absolute panic, trying to buy off a Back-Bench rebellion—apparently, successfully for the moment. They have made an embarrassing climbdown, but to avoid the appearance of having done so, at least to anyone below the age of five, they have produced an incredibly contorted system of new regulations and guidance on key decisions that hapless local authorities will have to work their way around—as if they have not got enough on their plates with best value, cabinets and all the other weird and wonderful stuff, and with the odd directly elected mayor thrown in. It is as if Ministers' memories have been erased. If all that is so clear, obvious and straightforward, why did not they do it at the outset?
      Why were these proposals not in the Bill when it was printed? Why were they not set out in the 400-odd amendments that the Government tabled in the other place? Why were they not in the nearly 400 amendments that the Government tabled in Committee? Why have they appeared only in the 115 amendments that the Government have tabled at this late stage of the Bill's progress through the House?
      9.15 pm
      If everything was so clear, obvious and self-explanatory, why did the Government resist the Opposition's amendments and the amendments tabled by other parties in Committee? Our proceedings this evening have turned into a face-saving exercise. There has been the occasional coached intervention from trusties on the Government Back Benches to make it seem that we are engaged in a natural, organic process. The Government's

      261
      first instinct at all stages of the Bill's passage through the House has been to resist a movement to keep the regulations, rules and practices that applied under the previous Conservative Government. That has not been a movement towards greater openness.
      Let us leave all that to one side, however. Let us take it that we are where we are. If these matters are so important and significant, why are we debating regulations in a vacuum? My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made the point clearly. There will be consultation and eventually regulations will be produced. One wet afternoon, they will pass through some part of the House. By then, the spotlight will have turned on something else. Who knows in what form the regulations will eventually appear? If these issues are so important, they should be set out in the Bill.
      By way of semi-explanation, the Minister responded to the old adage that the best line of defence is attack. She made the usual attack on the committee system. She alleged that the committee structure excluded people. No, it did not. People had a right to go to council meetings and committee meetings except where there was something properly confidential to be discussed. That is the point.
      The clear purport of the Opposition's amendments has not changed throughout the progress of the Bill, as the Government have twisted and turned. It has been straightforward. We wish simply to ensure that the position that applies to council meetings and committee meetings will apply to meetings of executives or cabinets.
      The Minister derided a phrase that I used in Committee, but I make no apology for using it again. We have been seeking throughout to hold the line. The right hon. Lady said that that was not good enough. That is absurd. She went on and on about the moribund committee system and the status quo, for example. However, our position could not have been clearer, simpler or easier to understand for those in local government.
      Baroness Thatcher, as she then was not, introduced a private Member's Bill that set out the original provision of openness. It became an Act in 1960. We opened up the meetings of councils and committees to the public and the media. Further legislation was introduced, not least the measure that was brought before the House by my former hon. Friend, Robin Squire, which cemented the approach of openness and introduced some details, quite properly. I see no reason why that system—it was simple to understand and was operated over many years—cannot be applied to the Government's proposals.
      The Minister mentioned scrutiny. What relevance does that have? We are talking about meetings of cabinets or executives and whether they should be in public. In a desperate attempt to solve problems of their own making, the Government have produced an intensely complex and bureaucratic regime, against which I would happily contrast our common-sense approach, which is based on experience. That is why I shall invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Government new clause 9.
      Our two amendments are straightforward, and they were debated in Committee. One refers to part I of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, which enshrines the rules that I have already discussed, which currently apply. The other would amend clause 21 and put the onus on an executive which wants to meet in private.
      262
      Not surprisingly, the Liberal Democrats, as is their wont, are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to run with the hare and the hounds. They push for amendments, but are happy to accept the bizarre results that the Government have come up with. It is no surprise, therefore, that last week at the local government conference, when the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) was asked whether he was optimistic or pessimistic about the future of local government, he replied, "Both."
      Mr. Adrian Sanders: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I said that I would be optimistic, were the Liberal Democrats in government.
      Mr. Waterson: I am not sure that I remember the hon. Gentleman's comment quite that way, but let us not fall out about it.
      If the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) can engage in drafting on the hoof, let me do the same. I shall provide the clause that Ministers are looking for. They do not need a lot of clever parliamentary draftsmen. The wording, subject to all the confidentiality provisions that ordinarily apply, should be something like this:
      Meetings of the cabinet or executive should be held in public when

      (a) members are making a key decision, and

      (b) members are not making a key decision.

      Is that simple enough for Ministers?
      I do not understand the logic of producing all sorts of regulations, under which one must first establish what is a key decision. A series of criteria must be met. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), or possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, pointed out, the same people must make the decision as to what a key decision is, but let us leave that on one side for the moment.
      When it has been decided what is a key decision, which must be discussed in the usual way in public. Fair enough, but why not apply that to all decisions, key and non-key? Why not continue the present practice, whereby a council meeting or a committee meeting has a full agenda, and apart from items of confidentiality, which are usually taken at the end of the meeting, the meetings are open to members of the public and the media?
      I do not understand the problem that Ministers perceive, except that they are trying to pretend that the current proposal was the idea all along, and that they have not been driven to that expediency by pressure from the Opposition, the Liberals and their Back-Bench colleagues.
      Let me give the Minister a warning. Why does she think that her cabinet ideas have been embraced with such alacrity by certain Labour-run councils, even before the Bill passes into law? Does she agree with Councillor Brendan Bird of Hammersmith and Fulham, a leading member of the Labour Campaign for Open Local Government, and someone who may be advised not to walk in any dark alleys on his own at present? With reference to the Government's proposals, he asked:
      If this is modern, why do all the good ol' boys love it so?
      I will tell him. For many of them, the secrecy was the attraction—the ability to hold meetings behind closed doors, as they did in the past, but to be approved for doing it and seen as part of the modernising agenda.

      263
      I warn the Minister that some of her dwindling band of supporters in local government may well melt way if the attraction of being able to meet in private—in secret—without public or media being present, is not available to them.
      On the mechanics of the Government's proposals, we received the draft regulations only yesterday. Of course, I was grateful for my copy. Is it not remarkable how fast a Government can move when they are up against a Back-Bench rebellion? The accompanying letter makes the obvious point that the draft does not incorporate any comments received in consultation. That would be an achievement, given that that started only yesterday.
      Regulation 15 contains the definition of a key decision. Such a decision must be an executive decision which,
      in the opinion of the decision taker—
      that may be somewhat subjective—
      is likely to result in
      something that
      has a material effect beyond the internal workings of the local authority
      or
      has a significant effect on the authority.
      We discussed in Committee how one would define those terms and the incurring of expenditure. I wonder whether that definition includes decisions about councillors' expenses and allowances, for example. There are other cases involving special urgency and other ways in which one can avoid the strict requirements of the regulations.
      At the end of the day, there are still three major objections. One is that these are regulations; they are not in the Bill. Secondly, they still require people in a given authority to put decisions into a particular category, and it is for them to interpret those regulations. Thirdly, as I have already indicated, the problem is much simpler to resolve than that.
      The House does not need to be reminded at too great a length, but it may need reminding to some extent, of the problem we have been trying to address. It took up quite a bit of time in Committee. It seemed to me that the burden of proof was firmly on Ministers who wanted to change the existing system, which seemed to me to work well, and that they should make a good and convincing case if they felt that there was any reason not to apply the regulations to the new cabinet system. We wanted to stop the Government effectively retreating from the Conservative legislation that I have already described.
      Mr. Andrew Ecclestone of the Campaign for Freedom of Information put it rather well when he said:
      We are now finding a Labour Government removing the rights Mrs. Thatcher gave us.
      That is absolutely spot on.
      Perhaps the most appalling example of the kind of thing we are trying to tackle was described in an article in The Guardian by Mr. Peter Hetherington, referring to Cardiff council where fat-cat councillors gave themselves huge pay rises. They included the then lord mayor, who was initially paid a package of £58,500. The local council was so irritated by media criticism of that that it decided to cancel all council advertising in the local press and set
      264
      up its own 140,000-circulation newspaper. The really awful part of it is that those decisions were made by the cabinet in secret.
      I have a final illustration of why 1 think the Government are trying to persuade us that they have throughout had a certain mindset which is simply wrong. Very recently, as Mr. Hetherington pointed out, the Labour national executive described current campaigns against the cabinet system as "naive, misinformed or mischievous". The fact is that a whole range of people have come forward to oppose the Government's proposals: Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Charter 88, newspaper editors, main television channels, the National Union of Journalists, the Council for the Protection of Rural England—the list goes on and on and on.
      But the reason we are here today discussing these tortuous amendments is very simple. It is nothing to do with any of those organisations, or even with me or my hon. Friends. It is because Labour councillors and Labour Back Benchers were not prepared to put up with what the Government are trying to impose. I say, "Good for them!" I do not mind their having the credit if that is where the credit is due. Good for them, if they are heading in the right direction. We could be dealing with this problem in a much simpler, clearer, crisper way. That is why we shall vote against the Government's new clause.
      9.30 pm
      Ms Beverley Hughes: Despite the regulation churlishness from some quarters, I detected some warmth from some hon. Members for the provisions that we are bringing forward tonight. I welcome that very much. In the short time that I have I shall try to deal with some of the residual issues that hon. Members have raised.
      The definition of key decisions will be enshrined in regulations. Contrary to the view of regulations expressed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), and as his hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) acknowledges, regulations are legislation and are binding on local authorities. I agree that the definition contained in draft regulation 15 is incomplete; it is imperfect, but we are working to improve it in close co-operation with local government and others. We commit to change it if that is the outcome of the consultation—that is why the regulations have been published in draft. Hon. Members may want changes to be made to the definition, but we expect key decisions to be the sort of decisions that traditionally would have gone to a committee for agreement, that the local community wants to know about and that are properly the concern of elected members.
      We shall consider the form of words suggested by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), but I have to tell him that it goes too far. I shall explain why, because it relates to an important point that we have skirted around in our debate. A degree of ambiguity lies at the heart of some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members tonight: on the one hand, they express a desire to decentralise and to give as much discretion and decision-making power as possible to local councils, local councillors and local people; on the other, they appear to challenge the integrity of councillors by attempting to constrain them.
      We are consulting on the definition of a key decision and we shall analyse the responses. However, I should like hon. Members to acknowledge that there must be a

      265
      degree of local discretion on whether a decision is significant. A decision that would be significant to a small shire council might be a small matter to a large metropolitan authority. We must have confidence in local councillors' ability to make decisions with integrity and to discuss them in the public domain. I hope that the House accepts and acknowledges that point.
      Mr. David Winnick: Will there be any monitoring of the way in which local authorities allow in the press, and will cases of abuse be taken up? That is an important matter about which many people are concerned.
      Ms Hughes: Yes, not only will there be monitoring of those practices, but they will be open to challenge. If decision takers are making decisions about what needs to be discussed and decided in the open, those decisions can be challenged through the structures that we are creating; people will have to account for decisions about what needs to be in the public domain, as well as for the substantive decisions they make in their role as councillors.
      The reassurances I have given do not encompass draft reports, because such reports are not meant to be made public. We need to acknowledge the need for officers and members to be able to think the unthinkable: they need to be able to set down a series of options early in the process of decision making, at a stage when options have not been finned up, but a decision is imminent. Having said that, there is provision against abuse—for example, the possibility of reports remaining in draft form until immediately before a meeting. The provisions for prior publication of reports and our undertaking to review whether three days are enough—
      It being four and one-half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 124.

      Division No. 251]

      [9.35 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Alexander, Douglas

      Borrow, David

      Allan, Richard

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ashton, Joe

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Brake, Tom

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Austin, John

      Breed, Colin

      Ballard, Jackie

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Barnes, Harry

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Barron, Kevin

      Browne, Desmond

      Bayley, Hugh

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Beard, Nigel

      Burden, Richard

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Burgon, Colin

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Burstow, Paul

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Benton, Joe

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Berry, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Best, Harold

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Betts, Clive

      Cann, Jamie

      Blackman, Liz

      Caplin, Ivor

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Caton, Martin

      266

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chidgey, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clapham, Michael

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Gunnell, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Harvey, Nick

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clelland, David

      Healey, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Hesford, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hill, Keith

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoey, Kate

      Cox, Tom

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Cranston, Ross

      Hope, Phil

      Crausby, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      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)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Darvill, Keith

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hutton, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

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

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Jamieson, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jenkins, Brian

      Denham, John

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Doran, Frank

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dowd, Jim

      Drew, David

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Efford, Clive

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ennis, Jeff

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Kemp, Fraser

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Fisher, Mark

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kidney, David

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Flint, Caroline

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Flynn, Paul

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Follett, Barbara

      Lammy, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fyfe, Maria

      Levitt, Tom

      Galloway, George

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Livsey, Richard

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lock, David

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Love, Andrew

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCabe, Steve

      Goggins, Paul

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Macdonald, Calum

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      267

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McNulty, Tony

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWalter, Tony

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McWilliam, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Merron, Gillian

      Spellar, John

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miller, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mountford, Kali

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mudie, George

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Norris, Dan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Oaten, Mark

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Timms, Stephen

      Olner, Bill

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pearson, Ian

      Todd, Mark

      Pendry, Tom

      Touhig, Don

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Trickett, Jon

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pike, Peter L

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pond, Chris

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Pope, Greg

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pound, Stephen

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Watts, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Webb, Steve

      Primarolo, Dawn

      White, Brian

      Purchase, Ken

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Rendel, David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rooney, Terry

      Wills, Michael

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winnick, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Roy, Frank

      Wood, Mike

      Ruane, Chris

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ruddock, Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Worthington, Tony

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Salter, Martin

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sanders, Adrian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Amess, David

      Bercow, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Baldry, Tony

      Body, Sir Richard

      Beggs, Roy

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      268

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Leigh, Edward

      Brady, Graham

      Letwin, Oliver

      Brazier, Julian

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lidington, David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Burns, Simon

      Loughton, Tim

      Butterfill, John

      Luff, Peter

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chope, Christopher

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Madel, Sir David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Collins, Tim

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cran, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Norman, Archie

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Pickles, Eric

      Evans, Nigel

      Prior, David

      Faber, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence

      Fallon, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Flight, Howard

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Ruffley, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fraser, Christopher

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gale, Roger

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Garnier, Edward

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gibb, Nick

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gill, Christopher

      Spring, Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gray, James

      Swayne, Desmond

      Green, Damian

      Syms, Robert

      Greenway, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Grieve, Dominic

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hammond, Philip

      Townend, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tredinnick, David

      Hayes, John

      Trend, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Viggers, Peter

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Horam, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Hunter, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Key, Robert

      Yeo, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Mr. Stephen Day and

      Lansley, Andrew

      Mr. John Randall.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    New Clause 11

      MEETINGS AND DOCUMENTS: NOTICE ETC.
      '.—(1) In section 100K of the Local Government Act 1972 (interpretation and application of Part VA), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
      "(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend sections 100A(6)(a) and 100B(3) and (4)(a) above so as to substitute for each reference to three clear days such greater number of days as may be specified in the order.
      (4) Any statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      (2) In Schedule 12 to that Act (meetings and proceedings of local authorities), after paragraph 4 there is inserted—
      "4A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph 4(2) above so as to substitute for the reference to three clear days such greater number of days as may be specified in the order.
      (2) Any statutory instrument containing an order under subparagraph (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 21

      ACCESS TO INFORMATION ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 111, in page 16, line 42, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
      '( ) as to the circumstances in which meetings mentioned in subsection (2), or particular proceedings at such meetings, must be open to the public,
      ( ) as to the circumstances in which meetings mentioned in subsection (2), or particular proceedings at such meetings, must be held in private,'.
      No. 112, in page 17, line 19, at end insert—
      '(9A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with requiring prescribed information about prescribed decisions made in connection with the discharge of functions which are the responsibility of a local authority executive to be made available to members of the public or members of the authority.
      (9B) The provision which may be made under subsection (9A) includes provision—

      (a) requiring prescribed information to be made available in advance of the prescribed decisions mentioned in that subsection,

      (b) as to the way or form in which prescribed information is to be made available.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Schedule 1

      EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS: FURTHER PROVISION
      Amendents made: No.195, in page 77, line 13, after "he insert"—
      'resigns as deputy mayor or'
      No. 196, in page 77, line 31, at end insert—
      '( ) The exective arrangements may include provision with respect to—

      (a) the election and term of office of the executive leader, and

      (b) the appointment and term of office of members of the executive appointed under section 10(3)(b)(ii).'.

      No. 197, in page 77, line 42, at end insert—
      '( ) The executive arrangements may include provision with respect to the appointment and term of office of the council manager.'.
      No. 198, in page 78, line 4, after "he" insert—
      'resigns as deputy mayor or'
      No. 199, in page 78, line 46, leave out paragraph (a).
      No. 220, in page 79, line 6, after "executive,", insert—
      'which is held in private'.
      No. 200, in page 79, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
      No. 201, in page 81, line 37, at beginning insert—
      'Except for the expression "local authority",'.
      No. 202, in page 81, line 37, leave out "9" and insert "10".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 26

      REFERENDUM IN CASE OF PROPOSALS INVOLVING ELECTED MAYOR
      Amendment made: No. 113, in page 19, line 12, leave out—
      '(within the meaning of section 30)'
      and insert—
      'of a particular type permitted by regulations under section 30'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 27
      APPROVAL OF OUTLINE FALL-BACK PROPOSALS
      Amendment made: No. 114, in page 20, line 12, leave out "made" and insert "given".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Clause 30

      ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 115, in page 21, line 19, leave out "by or under" insert—
      'under either or both of the following—
      ( )".
      No. 116, in page 21, line 20, leave out "or" and insert "and
      ( )".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 32
      REFERENDUM FOLLOWING PETITION
      Amendment made: No. 117, in page 22, line 35, leave out "the proper" and insert "an".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Clause 35

      INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 118, in page 24, line 21, leave out—
      'with respect to the discharge of their functions'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Clause 37
      ELECTED MAYORS ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 119, in page 25, line 9, leave out "and" and insert "or".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Clause 39
      TIME OF ELECTIONS ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 120, in page 25, line 43, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Clause 42
      POWER TO MAKE PROVISION ABOUT ELECTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 121, in page 27, line 13, leave out "Act" and insert "Part".—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Clause 45

      INTERPRETATION OF PART II
      Amendments made: No. 122, in page 28, line 30, at end insert—
      ' "alternative arrangements" has the meaning given by section 30(1),'.
      No. 123, in page 28, line 42, at end insert—
      ' "fall-back proposals" and "outline fall-back proposals" are to be construed in accordance with section 26(1) and (2),'.
      No. 218, in page 29, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      '( ) in the case of a London borough, is a reference to the person who (disregarding paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1972) is referred to in Part I of that Schedule as the mayor of the borough,'.
      No. 219, in page 29, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
      '( ) in the case of a London borough, is a reference to the person who (disregarding paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1972) is referred to in Part I of that Schedule as the deputy mayor of the borough,'.
      No. 124, in page 29, line 34, at end insert—
      '( ) Any directions given by the Secretary of State under any provision of this Part—

      (a) may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions given by him under that provision, and

      (b) may make different provision for different cases, local authorities or descriptions of local authority.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    New Clause 3

      RESTITUTION ORDER
      '.—Where matters considered by an interim tribunal or a case tribunal are or become the subject of criminal proceedings in a court, it shall be open to that court, in considering any penalty resulting from a verdict of guilty, to apply a requirement, as part of any penalty, that a restitution order be made so that any loss to the local taxpayer is repaid.'.—[Mr. Loughton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Tim Loughton: 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. 34, in page 33, line 26, at end insert—
      '(5) The code of conduct shall also apply to councillors in their capacity as local authority-nominated representatives to outside bodies.'.
      Amendment No. 35, in page 33, leave out line 38.
      Amendment No. 36, in page 33, line 40, after "authority", insert—
      '(referred to in this Part as an independent member)'.
      Amendment No. 37, in page 33, line 40, at end insert—
      272
      '(4A) The membership of the Standards Committee shall be such that the number of independent members exceeds the number of members of the authority (if any).'.
      Amendment No. 39, in page 33, line 43, leave out from "leader" to end of line 44.
      Amendment No. 38, in page 33, line 44, leave out—
      'a member of the executive'
      and insert—
      'any member or officer of that or any other relevant authority'.
      Amendment No. 40, in page 38, line 24, leave out from "three" and insert "five".
      Amendment No. 41, in page 38, line 25, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Standards Board for England must be comprised of persons possessing such qualifications as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
      (2B) Qualifications under subsection (2A) shall include not less than four years' continuous service as either a member or officer of a relevant authority.'.
      Amendment No. 42, in page 40, line 17, leave out'—
      ', within the period of five years ending with that time,'.
      Amendment No. 43, in page 40, line 18, leave out "five" and insert "ten".
      Government amendment No. 150.
      Amendment No. 44, in page 44, line 5, after "investigation", insert—
      'of the outcome of the investigation, and provide any such member with a copy of any report under this section before it is made available to any other person'.
      Government amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 155.
      No. 45, in page 57, line 30, and insert—
      '( ) Pending the verdict of the High Court on any appeal under subsection (15), the appellant shall not be disqualified, other than in exceptional circumstances set out in writing by the Standards Board.'.
      Government amendment Nos. 209, 203 and 204.
      Amendment No. 4, in page 91, leave out lines 20 and 21.
      Government amendment No. 211.
      Mr. Loughton: Having sat here for the past four and a half hours and seen trashed by the guillotine great lines of amendments for which I was responsible, it is a relief to be able to move and speak to new clause 3 and to some of the amendments in this group.
      New clause 3, which deals with standards of conduct, was discussed briefly in those halcyon days when the Bill was considered in Committee. I think that the new clause's purpose is quite clear: to give protection to local taxpayers if the criminal actions of one or more councillors or officers results in costs to the authority as a whole. The effect of the new clause would be that, when a miscreant was found guilty of a criminal offence, it would be at the judge's discretion to impose a restitution order on the guilty party, to order him to pay a sum to a council to cover some or all of the costs resulting from his actions.
      As we also discussed in Committee, there is a broad consensus that surcharging has passed its sell-by date. However, there is a sound principle behind surcharging—that local taxpayers should not have to foot the bill when a few rotten apples abuse the position of trust in which they have been placed.

      273
      As the new clause would apply only in cases in which there had been a successful criminal prosecution, a high standard of proof would be required before the axe could fall on individuals. The risk of unjust or unduly severe penalties would be minimised both by that fact and by the fact that the penalty would be at the discretion of the judge in the individual case, who, having heard all the evidence, beyond the straight guilty verdict, would be able to make an informed judgment on intent and degree of responsibility.
      During the debate in Committee, the Under-Secretary said that she was sympathetic to the spirit of the new clause, but believed that the courts already had powers in that regard. However, an authority would have to pursue a separate action to recover its costs. The new clause would ensure that the same court considering the criminality of a person's actions would also be able to determine the penalty. That would mean that the courts would not become clogged, and that authorities would not have to gamble potentially large sums in lawyers' fees for further court action to recover relatively small amounts.
      It is slightly disappointing that the Government have not chosen to follow up the idea, given the sympathy for the idea expressed in Committee. We feel that the proposal would reassure local council tax payers that councillors and officers who abused their positions would be sufficiently punished.
      Amendment No. 34 deals with the duty to comply with the code of conduct. In Committee, I raised the potential problem of whether councillors should be covered by the model code of conduct for activities outside those involved in being council members. I gave the example of councillors who are appointed as school governors, as members of community health councils or of economic partnerships, and so on.
      The Minister assured the Committee that councillors nominated by their respective councils to outside bodies should be covered by the model code of conduct. However, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised the subject of indemnification. He asked whether such councillors would be covered by their councils for any indemnities that they might have.
      The question of indemnification has not been addressed by the Government, which is why we are relaunching the amendment today. I should be grateful for a response on that matter from the Under-Secretary of State.
      Amendments No. 35 to 39 deal with standards committees. In Committee, we discussed this matter at some length, although the role of standards committees remained unclear. We appreciated some of the intentions behind the committees, but it was not clear how they would carry out the functions that had been described. The amendments would bolster the integrity of the members of the standards committee in the eyes of council tax payers and the electorate at large. They would therefore strengthen the Bill, rather than weaken it.
      Councillors themselves have raised the points contained in the amendments. At present, the Bill requires that only one independent member must be appointed to a standards committee. We propose that standards committees should contain more than three people. In addition, we propose that, to be truly independent and to carry out properly their role of overseeing the conduct of councillors and the training and conduct of councillors referred to them, they should have a majority of independent members.
      274
      We also propose that standards committees should not be chaired by members of the executive, and that they should not even contain such members. We believe that a standards committee investigating questions of potential misconduct, or queries from the public involving members of the council executive, would be in an anomalous position under the Bill as it stands. The amendments would prevent possible conflicts of interest if standards committees have to deal with breaches of the code that involve members of the executive.
      Some people have suggested that all the members of standards committees should be independent, others that they should consist of members of neighbouring authorities. That would allow them to play the sort of twinning, overseeing role that takes place at the moment, for example, when audits are conducted. Still others have suggested that several authorities should pool together for a single standards committee, as I gather already happens in west London. In that way, they could not only share best practice, but cut down on costs. That would seem a good, practical suggestion, but as the Bill stands, such a sensible procedure would not be permissible.
      10 pm
      The Minister was also vague about what powers will be available to members of the standards committee, in particular their role in those cases referred back to them by the national Standards Board for England. It was a feature of the report by the Joint Committee, which asked whether it was appropriate for members of the executive to be members of the standards committee as well.
      In Committee, the hon. Lady accused me of being inconsistent and, now, prescriptive in making these suggestions. However, we are merely trying to maintain the integrity of the new committees that the measures are establishing. The hon. Lady also said that local authorities and their members should have ownership of the standards committees and their own code of conduct, although I cannot think of other areas, such as politics or financial services, in which the Government have been so keen on self-regulation. Does the Minister not think that our amendments would actually strengthen the role of the standards committees, and what is the point of them otherwise?
      Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 deal with the standards boards. As presently constituted, they would have a minimum of three people. We propose that their membership should consist of at least five people and that those people should have appropriate qualifications. The new standards board is potentially immensely powerful; it will have the power to make or break the careers of councillors whose misdemeanours come before it. To have just three members of the national standards board also seems rather unfair; one has been designated as chairman, one as deputy chairman and the poor third one will be left out as an ordinary member.
      There are other examples of committees fulfilling and overseeing scrutiny and disciplinary roles which have far more members. The Neill committee, for example, consists of 11 members. What was most bizarre when we discussed these measures in Committee was that, rather late in the day, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions suddenly said that it was not the Government's intention that those committees should consist of three people, but that the quorum was made up of three people.

      275
      Nowhere in the Bill is that mentioned. It says quite clearly that the Standards Board for England is to consist of not less than three members.
      We invited the Minister to make it clear in the Bill that the membership of the Standards Board for England would be rather greater than three, such as five or more. Alas, the Government have again failed to address this anomaly. It was absurd; we asked the Minister when was a quorum not a quorum—apparently when it is called a standards board. I genuinely think that this had not been thought through when the Bill was drafted. That is why our amendment is a sensible and strengthening measure.
      As part of this group of amendments, we suggest that members of the standards board should have at least four years' experience as councillors or officers of local authorities. That, surely, is not demanding—four years is a normal term of office for a councillor. Because this is a new committee, with immense powers over many thousands of councillors up and down the country, it seems only appropriate that its members should have had some experience in the bodies that they are overseeing.
      Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 deal with the conduct of investigation. This is where we discussed ethical standards officers who are potentially very powerful individuals. They have the power to instigate investigations of councillors, to suspend councillors and to recommend penalties against councillors.
      Given the immense powers that ethical standards officers will have—powers of investigation and to summon various documents—there should be better safeguards against such officers not having connections with the councils that they are investigating. In the amendment, we suggest that ethical standards officers should have had no link with councils that they are investigating, either as a councillor or an officer, for at least 10 years, rather than five. That seems a sensible period of time.
      Mr. John Bercow: To whom exactly will the ethical standards officers be accountable?
      Mr. Loughton: That is an interesting question. Although, on the face of it, they will be accountable to the standards board, the exact terms of their operation are still to be defined. In Committee, we asked many times for a definition of their roles and powers and whether those powers could be capped. We were not given answers.
      I served on the Standing Committee that dealt with the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which provides for similar regulatory officers with immense powers. In this Bill, we are setting up another phalanx of investigation officers, whose accountability is questionable. Certainly, the link between their accountability and the local electors has not been established.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman referred to the immense powers conferred in the Bill. Does he agree that the essential prerequisite is, therefore, an adequate appeals system? That is now a prerequisite under human rights legislation. To what extent does he feel that that aspect has been covered by the Bill?
      Mr. Loughton: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If he had been a member of the Standing
      276
      Committee, he would have heard me mention the European convention, in particular article 6, and whether it applies to these activities. We are talking about a body that has the power to levy uncapped penalties—fines or suspension from a council role—and there are potential implications for conflict with the European convention on human rights. In Committee, I asked the Minister to clarify that matter, but she was unable to do so and promised to come back to me. I fear that she has not yet done so. The matter is as relevant today as it was then. The functioning of the regulatory procedure of ethical standards officers and the standards board—the powers of tribunals—could conflict with the ECHR, in which case the Bill will be undermined.
      I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and I reiterate his question to me to the Minister. What is the role of these officers and of the other powers in the conduct of investigations as regards article 6 of the convention?
      To get back to the point, a 10-year lapse is necessary because officers may have been with a council for many years before that. The world of local government is relatively small. Surely 10 years is the minimum safeguard. That is the basis of amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
      Amendment No. 44 deals with reports from ethical standards officers. As it stands, they can inform virtually everyone about the outcome of an investigation and give them a copy of the report, other than the person against whom the investigation was launched. It would seem to be a grave injustice if the target of the report is the only person not to be able to see it. In Committee, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions described a similar Opposition amendment as a worthy ambition that would produce some difficulties. Again, she promised to come back to us on Report. I notice, however, that the Government have tabled no amendments on that subject.
      The right hon. Lady offered the excuse that the report might contain sensitive information about the perpetrators of a complaint and that, if the matter was not referred further—if the person was cleared of any misdoing—it might damage the person who made the allegations. Surely, the person who was sneaked against—to put it mildly—is due some human rights protection from potentially vexatious complainants.
      There is no detail about any compensation that might be due to someone who was the victim of such vexatious complaining. A person who was the subject of inquiry might even have been penalised along the way for not complying with the handover of documents and so on, even if it was found that there was no case to answer. It appears that there is a presumption of guilt until proven innocent. That too seems to breach the European convention.
      The amendment provides that the ethical standards officer must inform the subject of the investigation of the outcome and that that person is entitled to see a copy of the report. In Committee, the right hon. Lady said that she would continue to consider the matter and that she would try to ensure that the framework was right. I should like to see some evidence of that, because it is not apparent in any of the 115 Government amendments before us.
      Amendment No. 45 deals with the decisions of case tribunals and with appeals—a matter to which the right hon. Member for Caernarfon referred. When a councillor

      277
      has been accused by the Standards Board, has taken the case to appeal—a facility added by the Government—and the case is pending, we suggest that the councillor should not be suspended, given that the period of suspension could be lengthy.
      In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), said that the Government would introduce the right of appeal and that she was willing to reconsider the matter, given that a by-election could be triggered when councillors were disqualified from standing while an appeal was pending. While the appeal had still not been heard, a councillor could lose his or her place on the council; a by-election could be held and, as he or she would not be entitled to stand, someone else could take the seat. If the Court of Appeal found that the person was not guilty—that the charge did not stand up—there would be no compensation. That accused councillor would have lost his or her seat. Thus, it is only right that, while an appeal is pending, a councillor should not be disqualified. The amendment would provide that safeguard.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in arguing that case—with which his right hon. and hon. Friends will assuredly agree—he can invoke the precedent of experience in the House? The hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) was rightly able to prove at appeal her innocence, and thereby remain a Member of the House. That prevented a situation in which, otherwise, a by-election would have been triggered. She was properly able to exercise her rights. Councillors, too, should be afforded such rights.
      Mr. Loughton: My hon. Friend offers an interesting and helpful example. I should be interested to hear the Under-Secretary's response. The ethical standards officers and the standards board seem to have been afforded heavy investigatory powers. Those powers suggest too great a presumption of guilt.
      We were promised further information from the Minister and from the Under-Secretary, but it has not been forthcoming in the Government amendments tabled on Report. Will the Under-Secretary address those matters in the few minutes left for debate on this group?
      10.15 pm
      Ms Beverley Hughes: We have had a rehearsal of many of the issues that were raised in Committee. I shall deal with them as comprehensively as I can in the time that I have left for this section.
      On new clause 3, it was made clear to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) in Committee that, although we were in sympathy with the spirit of what his new clause sought to achieve—that councils should be able to pursue losses arising to the authority from criminal misconduct by councillors—we felt that sufficient provision was already available to courts considering criminal cases that might arise from misconduct to issue a compensation order or provide for financial restitution. That still stands; we have not changed our view.
      I can offer the hon. Gentleman reassurance on the particular point that he made. Separate action by a local authority will not be necessary to invoke any of the
      278
      powers in cases involving a criminal conviction. The court hearing the criminal case can order that restitution be made to the local authority. So the Bill does not impose on the local authority the additional burden of seeking compensation or restitution. The courts have those powers available to them. There is therefore no need for any special provision for such cases other than that which already exists and is available to the criminal courts.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham tabled a raft of amendments on the size and composition of local authority standards committees. We believe in striking a balance between setting appropriate parameters and allowing councils of different sizes and with different functions some flexibility in the composition of their standards committees. We think that the balance of representation between independent members and members of the council is about right. It is after all right that councils should have some discretion.
      The hon. Gentleman reminded me that I had used the term "ownership". I make no apology for that. It is important that councils should own the local body that is entrusted with establishing its ethical framework and code of conduct. The hon. Gentleman is confused about the responsibility for the code of conduct, as opposed to the investigation of specific allegations. Local authority standard committees will not be responsible for investigations, so the hon. Gentleman's point that we are introducing self-regulation is not one that stands up to scrutiny. Local authorities will not be regulating themselves. The standards committees will have a different function. It is important that members of the council should own that function and be part of the apparatus that sets in place the code of conduct and ensures that the council's procedures for enforcing it are robust, but investigation of issues will be a matter for the ethical standards officers.
      Mr. Loughton: I think that the phrase "self-regulation" was one that the Minister herself used in Committee. Given that time is running out, I should be grateful for her response on the European convention; she promised to come back on that point. Has her confusion been resolved?
      Ms Hughes: I was not confused in Committee, and I am certainly not confused now. We are convinced that the provisions for appeal against the findings of a case tribunal, which are contained in clauses 75(10) and 76(15), are robust. It is our view and in line with the advice that we have received that the provisions in part III are compatible with the European convention on human rights. We are proceeding on that basis.
      The hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment on the standards board. He is confused about the difference between a quorum and a constitution. The Bill sets in place the minimum for the board to function constitutionally. That is different from a quorum, which is the number needed to take a particular decision. That will be for the board itself to decide, in terms of its operational procedures. We have already told the hon. Gentleman that we envisage a standards board of five or six members.
      In the few moments that I have left—
      Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
      Ms Hughes: No, I will not.

      279
      In relation to amendment No. 45, we have produced Government amendment 203—
      It being five and one-quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put and negatived.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should not have been talking while I was putting the question. It is not the done thing.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 46

      PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 125, in page 29, line 42, at end insert—
      'and police authorities in Wales'.
      No. 126, in page 29, line 45, at end insert "(other than police authorities)".
      No. 127, in page 30, line 7, at end insert—
      '( ) Before making an order under this section so far as it relates to police authorities in Wales, the Secretary of State must consult—

      (a) such representatives of police authorities in Wales as he considers appropriate,

      (b) the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, and

      (c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

      No. 128, in page 30, line 30, leave out—
      'established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

    Clause 47

      MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT
      Amendments made: No. 129, in page 30, line 46, after "England" insert—
      'and police authorities in Wales'.
      No. 130, in page 31, line 3, after "Wales" insert "other than police authorities".
      No. 131, in page 31, line 15, leave out from "section" to end of line 16 and insert—
      ' 46, before an order is made under that section'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

    Clause 48

      DUTY OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES TO ADOPT CODES OF CONDUCT
      Amendments made: No. 132, in page 32, line 19, leave out "their principal office" and insert—
      'an office of the authority'.
      No. 133, in page 32, line 30, after "England" insert—
      'or a police authority in Wales'.
      No. 134, in page 32, line 31, leave out "or.—[Mr. Touhig.]

    Clause 50

      STANDARDS COMMITTEES
      Amendments made: No. 135, in page 33, line 34, after "England" insert—
      'or a police authority in Wales'.
      No. 136, in page 33, line 36, after "England" insert—
      'or a police authority in Wales'.
      No. 137, in page 33, line 47, at end insert—
      'and police authorities in Wales'.
      No. 138, in page 34, line 16, after "England" insert—
      'and police authorities in Wales'.
      No. 139, in page 34, line 18, after "England" insert—
      'or a police authority in Wales'.
      No. 140, in page 34, line 21, after "England" insert—
      'and a police authority in Wales'.
      No. 141, in page 34, line 24, after "England" insert—
      'or a police authority in Wales'.
      No. 142, in page 34, line 30, after "Wales" insert "other than police authorities".
      No. 143, in page 35, line 6, after "Wales" insert "(other than police authorities)".—[Mr. Touhig.]

    Clause 51

      FUNCTIONS OF STANDARDS COMMITTEES
      Amendments made: No. 144, in page 35, line 32, at end insert—
      'and police authorities in Wales'.
      No. 145, in page 35, line 35, at end insert "(other than police authorities)".
      No. 146, in page 35, line 38, at end insert—
      'and police authorities in Wales'.
      No. 147, in page 35, line 41, at end insert "(other than police authorities)".—[Mr. Touhig.]

    Clause 54

      STANDARDS BOARD FOR ENGLAND
      Amendments made: No. 148, in page 38, line 35, after "England" insert—
      'and police authorities in Wales'.
      No. 149, in page 38, line 38, after "England" insert—
      'and police authorities in Wales'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

    Clause 61
      REPORTS ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 150, in page 43, line 25, at beginning insert "subject to subsection (4)(b)".—[Mr. Touhig.]
    Clause 65

      LOCAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSION FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN WALES
      Amendments made: No. 151, in page 46, line 38, after "Wales" insert "(other than police authorities)".
      No. 152, in page 46, line 41, after "Wales" insert "(other than police authorities)".—[Mr. Touhig.]

    Clause 66
      INVESTIGATIONS BY LOCAL COMMISSIONER IN WALES
      Amendment made: No. 153, in page 47, line 31, leave out "inform" and insert "give written notification to".—[Mr. Touhig.]
    Clause 68
      REPORTS ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 154, in page 48, line 44, at beginning insert "subject to subsection (4)(b)".—[Mr. Touhig.]
    Clause 69
      INTERIM REPORTS
      Amendment made: No. 155, in page 49, line 45, after "suspend" insert "or partially suspend".—[Mr. Touhig.]
    Clause 70

      MATTERS REFERRED TO MONITORING OFFICERS
      Amendment made: No. 156, in page 51, line 21, at end insert—
      '( ) In its application to police authorities in Wales, subsection (1) has effect as if for the reference to the National Assembly for Wales there were substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

    Clause 78

      DISCLOSURE AND REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 157, in page 59, line 11, leave out "Wales" and insert—
      'standards committees of relevant authorities in Wales (other than police authorities)'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

    Clause 79

      CODE OF CONDUCT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
      Amendments made: No. 158, in page 59, line 17, at end insert—
      'and police authorities in Wales'.
      No. 159, in page 59, line 20, at end insert "(other than police authorities)".
      No. 160, in page 59, line 31, at end insert—
      '( ) Before making an order under this section so far as it relates to police authorities in Wales, the Secretary of State must consult—

      (a) such representatives of police authorities in Wales, and of employees of such authorities, as he considers appropriate,

      (b) the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, and

      (c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

      No. 161, in page 59, line 34, leave out—
      'local government, and of local government employees, in Wales'
      and insert—
      'relevant authorities in Wales, and of employees of such authorities,'.
      No. 209, in page 59, line 44, leave out from "means" to end of line 4 on page 60 and insert—
      'an employee of the authority other than an employee falling with any description of employee specified in regulations under this subsection
      282
      ( ) The power to make regulations under subsection (7) is to be exercised—

      (a) in relation to England, by the Secretary of State, and

      (b) in relation to Wales, by the National Assembly for Wales.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

    Clause 80

      INTERPRETATION OF PART III
      Amendments made: No. 162, in page 60, line 16, leave out—
      'in relation to a relevant authority to which Part II of this Act applies'.
      No. 163, in page 60, line 24, at end insert—
      ' "police authority" means a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996,'.
      No. 164, in page 60, line 36, at end insert—
      '( ) Any reference in this Part to a member of a relevant authority, in the case of the Greater London Authority, is a reference to the Mayor of London or a London Assembly member.'.
      No. 165, in page 61, line 8, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
      No. 166, in page 61, line 20, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
      No. 167, in page 61, line 29, at end insert—
      '(b) if the authority is one to which Part II of this Act applies, for being or becoming a member of an executive of the authority.'
      No. 168, in page 61, line 43, at end insert—
      '( ) Any functions which are conferred by virtue of this Part on a relevant authority to which Part II of this Act applies are not to be the responsibility of an executive of the authority under executive arrangements.
      ( ) Any functions which are conferred on the Greater London Authority by virtue of this Part are to be exercisable by the Mayor of London and the London Assembly acting jointly on behalf of the Authority.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

    New Clause 4

      PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      '( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a form of proportional representation for elections to local authorities in England and Wales.
      ( ) No statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) above shall be made unless it has been approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Members present who served on the Committee that considered the Bill will be well aware that a considerable amount of our time was spent debating what measures could be taken to improve the public's interest and involvement in local government, and in particular what measures could be taken that would improve turnout at local government elections.
      It became increasingly clear that it is the Government's view—erroneous, in my opinion—that turnout at local elections is likely to be increased as a result of their measures to change the decision-making structure of local government. The view that was expressed from the

      283
      Liberal Democrat Benches, to some extent supported by Conservative Members, was that such moves were unlikely to make any change in the turnout at local elections, but that two measures might go some way to achieve that much desired aim. The first, as I said earlier, would be to increase the power of local government to ensure that it could take steps to respond to the concerns of the people that it sought to serve; the second would be to change the electoral system.
      Mr. Michael Thrasher of Plymouth university, an expert in these matters, has estimated that where a form of proportional representation for local government elections is introduced it will be likely to increase turnout by about 7 per cent. That may not seem a particularly significant increase, but given that the starting point is in the order of about 30 per cent., that is a rather more significant increase than it might at first appear.
      It was not merely to increase turnout at local elections that we tabled the new clause, however. We did so because we believe that in local government, as in all other spheres of government, the electors have a right to ensure that their voice is heard, and heard in the sense that the parties that they represent, and seek to represent by their votes, are appropriately represented in that particular governing body. The House is well aware that, at present, there are, up and down the land, a number of local councils that are, in effect, one-party states. There are a number of examples where that one-party state is a Labour one-party state, examples where it is Conservative, and even examples where it is Liberal Democrat.
      I was speaking only the other day to the leader of Richmond upon Thames council, who pointed out that he has on his council something like 80 per cent. of the seats, having achieved for Liberal Democrats fewer than 50 per cent. of the votes.
      Confronted with the problems of an unfair electoral system, it is interesting to note that the Government have already responded. They have seen to the introduction—perhaps not in the form that Liberal Democrats would like—of proportional representation for the European elections, for the Greater London Assembly elections, for the elections for the National Assembly for Wales and for the Scottish Parliament. Of course, for elections to the Assembly and for local government in Northern Ireland, there has been a form of PR for some time. Shortly, we shall see Labour party support in Scotland for the introduction of PR for local government.
      Mr. Wigley: In the normal run of events, I would very much want to support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman referred to the National Assembly for Wales, so why would the new clause provide for orders to be introduced by a Secretary of State, but make no provision whatever for the power to be used by the National Assembly for Wales in the way other measures in the Bill make such provision?
      Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Perhaps, he rightly shows a possible deficiency in the package of measures that we have introduced. It is up to him to introduce additional proposals to rectify that possible omission, but I am
      284
      delighted that he said that we would have his support for the measures, subject to the further provision being made. I remind him that there will be a further opportunity in another place to attend to that matter. Were he to arrange for that to be done, he would have the support of my colleagues in another place. I am grateful to him for raising this point.
      Having seen the Government's interest in moving towards PR in a number of the tiers of governance in this country, I merely seek to give them the opportunity to introduce it for the tier of local government. As I have said, there are many good reasons for doing that. One would certainly be to bring to an end the problem of the many councils—about 90—that are run by a single party with 80 per cent. or more of the seats. Indeed, there is a further problem with the nature of the current system. It does not very often lead to changes in political control. Some 55 local authorities have been under the same political control for more 20 years.
      Most fair-minded Members of the House would accept that there are problems to be addressed and might accept that the introduction of PR may go some way to solving them. If they do not wish to be fair-minded in that sense and are merely concerned with their own party political interest, it is worth reflecting that continuation of the first-past-the-post system may lead to significant problems for some of the parties represented in the House.
      Research shows that, following the most recent local government elections, a continuation of the first-past-the-post arrangement could lead to a significant reduction in the Labour party's representation in local government in subsequent years. If there is merely a concern about party issues, the Labour party at least might wish to do something about the electoral system. Again, according to the research, first-past-the-post systems were primarily responsible for the dramatic fall in the number of Conservative councillors from 1979 to 1997. Their number more than halved.
      10.30 pm
      The question then is what support there might be for such measures. Interestingly, support is very wide ranging. The Local Government Association—whose chairman I shall return to in a moment—the Local Government Information Unit, the New Local Government Network, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Scottish Council Foundation and others have spoken of the merits of moving to PR for local government.
      Politicians of all parties have expressed support for PR. It will come as no surprise that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have, over the years, made comments in support. However, it is perhaps more instructive to note the views of those such as Sir Jeremy Beecham, who said in 1998:
      In too many town halls today there is no effective opposition. The introduction of a reformed local electoral system, which will give representation to opposition parties and which more accurately reflects their electoral performance, is needed.
      The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), in a document that he wrote with Mr. Andrew Adonis, advocates the introduction of PR to break up single-party states and to make sure that decisions are scrutinised by a viable opposition. The Minister of State has continually expressed concern about scrutiny.

      285
      On the Conservative Benches, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has spoken a number of times about his support for PR. On one occasion he said:
      What I don't understand is why the government hasn't simply opted for proportional representation.
      He went on to argue that PR is far simpler than holding referendums, and that as we are beginning to have PR in other tiers of government, we should introduce it to local government.
      Turning to the Labour Benches, while it is well known that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Home Secretary, rejects the introduction of PR for Westminster, at least at present, he has said:
      But I've also always said that there's a very different case when it comes to the voting systems at a local level.
      I also have quotes from various members of Plaid Cymru, the party of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and from members of other parties.
      That is instructive, but is also useful to know what the media are saying about PR. The Mirror has argued in favour of it so that
      no party can ever totally dominate for years.
      Mr. Peter Riddell in The Times has argued that
      without PR, Labour will continue to be embarrassed by its one-party local states.
      Support has come from the Local Government Chronicle, Mr. Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer, editorials in The Independent and various writers in The Guardian.
      Again, that is all very well, but academics who see the matter in a different light have also provided support for the argument. Professors George Jones and John Stewart are among those who have argued in favour of PR. Interestingly, support also comes even from the world of business and commerce. For example, Lord Haskins, chair of Northern Foods, said:
      Strong local government needs the backing of the local community, and the best possible people as councillors. Proportional representation is one of the best ways to achieve this.
      There is growing support on both sides of the House, throughout the media and among the population at large for the introduction of PR.
      Proportional representation at local government level would ensure a fair voting system in this country in which people's votes really would count. Only when people feel that their votes will count are they likely to even bother to go out to vote. To those who are concerned about turnout and the involvement of local people in local government, I strongly suggest that the introduction of PR would go a long way to resolve their concerns.
      Although my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have a clear view as to our preferred option—the particular form of PR that we want—I stress that we have not incorporated that in the new clause. We have left the matter open for wide-ranging debate before the House discussed the regulations that we propose and before the Secretary of State introduced them. By its very nature, the new clause is enabling. It would enable much wider debate before the introduction of a form of PR, but PR is what local government and local people need and deserve.
      Mr. Neil Turner: I am not opposed to proportional representation per se. [Interruption.] We need to look at an institution before deciding whether PR is particularly
      286
      relevant to it. I would oppose PR for institutions that legislate or deliver services because the stability, clarity and transparency of strong government are important to them.
      Proportional representation clearly goes against the whole history and tradition of government in this country. Each of us holds a constituency surgery, and people want to see their Member of Parliament or councillor. They want to be able to confront us and to have the comfort of saying, "I'll withdraw my vote if you don't do what I want you to do." That might not be a particularly strong threat to some of us, but we would all be personally affronted by such a remark. It would be no good thing if we were able to say, "I'm third on the list, so you can withdraw your vote to your heart's content. It will make no difference to me."
      The argument has been made that PR would increase turnout, but the evidence is mixed at best. The Greater London Authority elections this year produced no increase, yet they were held under a form of PR. Equally, it is arguable that the form of PR used in last year's European elections reduced turnout. If there is no evidence that PR would increase turnout, would it increase effectiveness? Again, we can look at the evidence.
      Audit Commission performance indicators show whether hung councils or those with strong representation from one party are more effective. Hon. Members should look at the graphs for low-cost, high-delivery councils and for high-cost, low-delivery councils and put a spread over them. They show no correlation whatever between performance and status, whether councils are hung, strongly controlled or marginal. There is no correlation between a council's effectiveness and the type of control.
      Mr. Don Foster: Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's most recent document, "Findings"? If not—it was circulated to all hon. Members only in past few days—may I suggest that he would be well advised to read it before continuing with that line of argument?
      Mr. Turner: I have not seen the document, but I will look at it. My experience in the Greater Manchester area is that authorities such as Stockport, which is largely a hung council, and my own, which is strongly Labour, both provide effective services at low cost.
      The argument for proportional representation by the fair votes campaign confuses equality with equity. There is no doubt that proportional representation would produce a lot more councils where there is no overall control—hung councils. That will mean that the least popular party will effectively become the most powerful, because it is that party, rather than the electorate, which will decide the form of administration. The third party will always have power because it will decide whether to join the second or the most popular party to become the administration.
      The way that the electorate decides in this country means that the third party is usually the Liberal Democrats, so it is no surprise that they support a fair votes campaign that would give them access to power by the back door, when they are so consistently rebuffed at the front door.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) may not be against

      287
      proportional representation per se, but he advanced some powerful arguments against the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
      It is important that people should be strongly motivated to vote in local elections. From my experience, the most important aspect is that, when they vote, they know that they can change those who control the council or local government. Low turnouts in local elections are usually associated with elections by thirds, which mean that, even if everybody in all the council wards voted for a particular minority party, they still would not be able to achieve a change in the control of the council.
      Councils for which there are all-out elections every four years tend to have a higher rate of voter participation than councils that are subject to elections by thirds, quarters or halves, as the Government propose. The way to make people feel that their vote counts is by means of a system where, through the ballot box, they can change the control of their own local government.
      Mr. Tom Levitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If 40 per cent. of people voted in an election once every four years, and if 40 per cent. voted in an election by thirds one year, one year and one year, rather more people would vote for that council at least once over a four-year period than in an all-out election once every four years. Splitting the election into thirds increases the number of people who vote over a four-year period.
      Mr. Chope: If everyone is allowed to vote once a year for four years, rather than once every four years, they will be able to vote more frequently and their collective votes will be more numerous.
      That misses the point that I am making, which is that, when people vote, they know that their vote can change the control of their local government. If they do not feel that their vote will be able to change the control, they are less motivated to go out and put their vote in the ballot box. That is why the experience of local government in this country shows that local authorities where there are all-out elections tend to have a much higher turnout than authorities that have elections by thirds.
      In my constituency, there are two district councils, East Dorset district council and Christchurch borough council. Last year, there were all-out elections and people realised that they could defeat the Liberal Democrats and change control of those two councils. That is what they did, both in East Dorset and in Christchurch, and now both those councils are run by the Conservatives.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Loughton: The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) seems to be under the illusion that if people vote every year and the turnout is 40 per cent., it is a different 40 per cent., each year, making a total of 120 per cent. It is, of course, the same 40 per cent. who are likely to vote each year. The evidence suggests, if anything, that voter fatigue means lower turnouts if people have to turn out for many elections. Hence the turnout on a four-year basis tends to be higher, as my hon. Friend says.
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point.
      288
      If we need to get more people involved in local government, why do we not keep the system simple? Nothing could be simpler than a system whereby the candidate who receives the most votes wins. Everybody understands that. The Liberal Democrats seem to want to change the system so that it is far more complicated. We need to attract people to vote in local elections. If we keep the system simple, we are more likely to be able to attract their interest. Therefore, I strongly oppose the new clause.
      Mr. Loughton: During the Committee stage, alas, time constraints prevented us from being regaled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) with the regular feature that the Liberals trot out, that of proportional representation, so the hon. Gentleman has been slightly indulged here this evening, but his case has been no more forceful.
      The hon. Gentleman spoke of one-party states where the party had been in power for 20 years, and when people turned up to vote it made no difference. The conclusion was that a PR system would mean more seats, particularly for Liberals, and that more Liberal councillors would be a good thing for him.
      The hon. Gentleman also tried to tempt our support by saying that the dramatic fall, as he put it, in the number of Conservative councilors—by some 50 per cent between 1979 and 1997—which has largely been reversed in the past three years, I hasten to add, was due to the voting system working against us. We are not complaining about it. If anybody should be in favour of PR purely for their own reasons, it would be us, but we are not, because we do not believe that it brings about a strong result. The hon. Gentleman was flailing around, quoting all sorts of unknown professors. I am sure they have produced all sorts of wonderful treatises to back up his argument.
      Then the hon. Gentleman made another great, sweeping statement, that there is growing support from all sections of the public at large for what he inevitably calls "a fair voting system"; that only if the public feel that their votes count will they vote, but there is no evidence to suggest that, where the experiments have taken place, that is happening.
      The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) quite neutrally, as he put it, made a very good case that we have had the experiments with the devolved Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland, which have produced low turnouts, with only 25 per cent of the population of Wales voting in favour of the Assembly. There is a hung Parliament and a hung Assembly, and the turnout was no greater than would be expected in any normal election, despite a form of PR being used. In the European Parliament elections, where we had a form of PR for the first time ever, there was a record low turn-out.
      The hon. Member for Wigan also mentioned the London Assembly. The turn-out there was a derisory 33 per cent., and we have a hung Assembly. As the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), said in a written answer last week:
      Almost 300,000 people did not use their second preference vote for the Mayor… About 130,000 did not cast a vote for a constituency assembly member and about 70,000 did not cast a vote for a London assembly member.—[Official Report, 29 June 2000; Vol. 352. col. 599W.]
      Now the hon. Member for Bath is suggesting that we should extend this failed system, which has certainly done anything for increased turn-outs. One of the biggest

      289
      bugbears for the Government, shared by all sides of the House, is how we can increase turn-outs at elections. There is no proof that any proportional representation systems have done anything to improve the turn-out.
      Our fear is that the creeping experimentation with PR that is getting into every sphere of new forms of governance, such as the new assemblies and local government bodies, has Westminster as its next and ultimate target. Apparently, as part of the deal stitched together between the minority Labour Administration and the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Parliament has commissioned a report into using PR for Scottish local elections. Leaks of the report have started to emerge and I wonder whether the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is in a position to provide a progress report and tell us when its findings will be made available.
      We have heard nothing from the hon. Member for Bath to tempt us to experiment with further forms of PR in local government. I can perceive no evidence that there is growing support for it from all sections of the public. As for the whole business of having more elections, we have found time after time that election fatigue contributes to lower turnouts: we saw that last year, when we had European Parliament elections, local elections and elections in Scotland and Wales. The result of the hon. Gentleman's proposals would be that the least popular party became the most powerful. Backdoor merchants that they are, the Liberal Democrats want to promote PR, but we should have none of it.
      In the few minutes that the Minister has left to respond to the debate, I hope that she will take on the subject of the findings of the Scottish report.
      Ms Armstrong rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will not do as the hon. Gentleman asks, seeing as the amendment is narrowly drawn and refers only to England and Wales. If the hon. Gentleman wants a report, he will have to ask for it some other time.
      Ms Armstrong: I was going to tell the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) that the whole report was made public last week, so I do not know where he has been. Perhaps he does not understand that Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom; therefore, what is published in Scotland is available to everyone in England and Wales—indeed, everyone in the world. If he had looked at the websites or in newspapers, he would have seen the report, but, once again, he has failed to keep up with events.
      I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) tabled the new clause, and he will not be surprised to learn that the Government have not changed their view since debating the issue in Committee. Our position on proportional representation for local government elections is well documented, having initially been set out in the local government White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People". The Government do not propose to change the voting system for local government, other than in the introduction of the supplementary vote system for the election of directly elected mayors. We believe that local government modernisation requires more fundamental change than simply changing the voting system. Our debates on the provisions of this Bill and the Local Government Act 1999 bear that out.
      290
      In Committee, I said that no Government close down debate. There is a debate going on within the Labour party about the principles of PR, especially in relation to elections to this House. A similar debate is going on in Scotland on the suitability of using PR for local government elections. However, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's proposal helps the debate.
      The Government do not believe that there is any point in including in the Bill an enabling provision for a system of elections by proportional representation. Furthermore, I am not sure whether an enabling clause is the right way in which to introduce such an important constitutional change. Although the new clause provides for any order to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, it would essentially leave the decision to the Secretary of State. The House would not find that acceptable. Much more debate would be required outside and inside the House before we considered such proposals.
      The Government's position is clear, and consistent with our comments in the White Paper. I believe that the House's position is also clear. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will withdraw the new clause, although I suspect that he will not.
      Mr. Don Foster: Let me put the Minister out of her misery immediately: I have no intention of following her final piece of advice. I confess that this evening's contributions have contained no surprises. I acknowledge that I have placed the Minister in a rather difficult position. Like her, I am conscious that the Labour party will hold a major debate on proportional representation this weekend. I suspect that the Minister no longer has any idea of its outcome.
      Mr. Levitt: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the debate is not only about PR versus the status quo? Electoral reform is a much wider issue. Is he not being disingenuous by limiting the new clause to PR, when we should hold a much wider debate on electoral reform? PR is only one option.
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. However, it is a little rich of him to accuse me of being disingenuous by not including wider matters in the new clause. A Bill that addresses some of those issues has only recently been passed. My party supports some of the experimentation that would increase the opportunities for people to vote. I accept that there is a wider issue to consider, but we are confining ourselves to PR in the new clause.
      I acknowledge that the Minister is an especially difficult position, given that the Labour party's view on PR is ebbing and flowing. She clearly did not want to upset any apple carts. I am therefore delighted that she said that the Government would at least not close their mind on the matter.
      I strongly recommend to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) the recently published Joseph Rowntree Foundation document, which is entitled "Political behaviour under proportional representation". I shall read two brief extracts from it. It states:
      The current first-past-the-post voting system in local government elections often results in major discrepancies between the proportion of votes cast and the proportion of seats parties win on the council. Inflated majorities resulting in long periods of effectively

      291
      unchallenged one-party rule can often generate a sense of complacency in the dominant party, with electoral success regarded as a foregone conclusion.
      That is especially apposite, given the Minister's claim that the purpose of the Bill is to sort out the mess in some of the one-party councils by undertaking what she describes as modernisation of local government. One of the best ways in which to modernise local government is to give it the opportunity provided by proportional representation.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 284.

      Division No. 252]

      [11 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Baker, Norman

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

      Ballard, Jackie

      Brake, Tom

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Livsey, Richard

      Breed, Colin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Burnett, John

      Moore, Michael

      Burstow, Paul

      Öpik, Lembit

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Rendel, David

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Chidgey, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Tyler, Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Webb, Steve

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Gidley, Sandra

      Willis, Phil

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Harvey, Nick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mr. Adrian Sanders and

      Mr Mark Oaten.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Ashton, Joe

      Cann, Jamie

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Caplin, Ivor

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caton, Martin

      Austin, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Chope, Christopher

      Barron, Kevin

      Clapham, Michael

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Beggs, Roy

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Benton, Joe

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clelland, David

      Best, Harold

      Clwyd, Ann

      Betts, Clive

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blackman, Liz

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coleman, Iain

      Blizzard, Bob

      Colman, Tony

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Borrow, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cox, Tom

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cranston, Ross

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Crausby, David

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Browne, Desmond

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cummings, John

      Burden, Richard

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Burgon, Colin

      292

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

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

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kemp, Fraser

      Denham, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Doran, Frank

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dowd, Jim

      Kidney, David

      Drew, David

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lammy, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Laxton, Bob

      Efford, Clive

      Lepper, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ennis, Jeff

      Levitt, Tom

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lock, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Love, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Follett, Barbara

      McCabe, Steve

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Foulkes, George

      McDonnell, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Galloway, George

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gardiner, Barry

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      McNulty, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McWalter, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      McWilliam, John

      Goggins, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Meale, Alan

      Grogan, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hanson, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Moffatt, Laura

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Healey, John

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mountford, Kali

      Heppell, John

      Mudie, George

      Hesford, Stephen

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hill, Keith

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hinchliffe, David

      Norris, Dan

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Olner, Bill

      Hope, Phil

      Pearson, Ian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pendry, Tom

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Plaskitt, James

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Pond, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pope, Greg

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pound, Stephen

      Hurst, Alan

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Illsley, Eric

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jamieson, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Jenkins, Brian

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      293

      Robertson, Laurence

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rooney, Terry

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Timms, Stephen

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tipping, Paddy

      Roy, Frank

      Todd, Mark

      Ruane, Chris

      Trickett, Jon

      Ruddock, Joan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Salter, Martin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sawford, Phil

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wareing, Robert N

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Watts, David

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      White, Brian

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Winnick, David

      Spellar, John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wood, Mike

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stevenson, George

      Woolas, Phil

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Worthington, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mr. Don Touhig.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 88

      ADVISORY NOTICES
      Amendments made: No. 169, in page 65, line 1, after "take" insert—
      'or has begun to take'.
      No. 170, in page 65, line 6, after "section" insert "and section 19B".
      No. 171, in page 65, line 21, after "taking" insert "or continuing to take".
      No. 172, in page 65, line 23, leave out—
      'specified in the notice under paragraph (b)'
      and insert—
      '(as the case may be)'.
      No. 173, in page 66, line 7, leave out—
      'a copy of a notice or statement'
      and insert "any document".
      No. 174, in page 66, line 10, after "at" insert—
      'or sending it by post to'.
      No. 175, in page 66, line 11, leave out "revoked" and insert "withdrawn".
      No. 176, in page 66, line 14, leave out "order" and insert "notice".
      No. 177, in page 66, line 15, leave out "revocation" and insert "withdrawal".
      No. 178, in page 66, line 19, leave out from beginning to second "the" in line 23 and insert—
      '( ) where the notice relates to a decision, to make or implement the decision,
      ( ) where the notice relates to a course of action, to take or continue to take the course of action, or
      ( ) where the notice relates to an item of account, to enter the item of account,
      unless and until'.
      No. 179, in page 66, line 27, leave out "reasons" and insert "statement".
      No. 180, in page 66, line 28, leave out from "19A(6)" to end of line 30 and insert—
      'the consequences of doing the thing mentioned in the paragraph of subsection (1) which is relevant,'.
      No. 181, in page 66, line 31, after "body" insert "or officer".
      No. 182, in page 66, line 32, after "auditor" insert—
      'of the accounts of the body'.
      No. 183, in page 66, line 43 leave out "revoked" and insert "withdrawn".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    Clause 89

      PAYMENTS IN CASES OF MALADMINISTRATION ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 184, in page 67, line 25, at end insert—
      '( ) Any function which is conferred on the Greater London Authority under this section is to be exercisable by the Mayor of London and the London Assembly acting jointly on behalf of the Authority.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    Clause 90

      GRANTS FOR WELFARE SERVICES
      Amendment made: No. 210, in page 68, line 23, at end insert—
      '( ) Before making any determination, issuing any guidance or giving any directions under this section relating to all local authorities in England or Wales or any description of such authorities, the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the National Assembly for Wales must consult—

      (a) such local authorities or representatives of local authorities as appear to him or it to be appropriate,

      (b) such recipients, or representatives of recipients, of welfare services as appear to him or it to be appropriate, and

      (c) such providers, or representatives of providers, of welfare services as appear to him or it to be appropriate.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

    New Clause 12

      INDEMNIFICATION OF MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for or in connection with conferring power on relevant authorities in England and police authorities in Wales to provide indemnities to some or all of their members and officers.
      (2) The National Assembly for Wales may by order make provision for or in connection with conferring power on relevant authorities in Wales (other than police authorities) to provide indemnities to some or all of their members and officers.
      (3) An order under this section may apply—

      (a) to all relevant authorities, or

      (b) to any particular description of relevant authority.

      (4) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the National Assembly for Wales must consult—

      (a) such representatives of relevant authorities,

      (b) such representatives of employees of relevant authorities, and

      (c) such other persons,

      as he or it considers appropriate.
      (5) In this section—
      "member", in relation to a relevant authority, includes—

      (i) a member of any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or

      (ii) a person who is a member of, and represents the authority on, any joint committee or sub-committee,

      "police authority" and "relevant authority" have the same meaning as in Part III of this Act.'.—[Ms Beverley Hughes.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 12 addresses the issue of indemnification which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) mentioned earlier, but obviously had not spotted on the amendment paper. The new clause will allow the Secretary of State by order to confer a power on local authorities in England and police authorities in Wales to provide indemnities to their members and officers. It will give an equivalent power to the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Welsh local authorities.
      The new clause responds to an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that attempted to confer a power of indemnity on local authorities. In response, I pointed out to him that such a power raised many complex issues, but I also offered to see whether a suitable enabling provision could be introduced to enable the Secretary of State to confer an indemnification power on those local authorities once those issues had been discussed with local government.
      The enabling power in new clause 12 covers all local authorities to which part III applies, including principal authorities, town and parish councils and single-purpose authorities. Before making an order under the power, the Secretary of State is required to consult representatives of local government and their employees.
      The introduction of the power will enable the removal of an unhelpful ambiguity in the current powers of local authorities, and I am sure that hon. Members will welcome it.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: I shall be very brief. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary has been able to introduce new clause 12 in response to a request that we made in Committee. She was not convinced that it would be possible to hold the consultation process in the short period between the end of the Committee's deliberations and now. I advised her that members of local government were ready and waiting for her telephone call, and she may wish to know that I called
      296
      the Local Government Association immediately after our Committee deliberations were complete and said that it should expect a telephone call from her.
      I am delighted to hear that that call was made within less than 24 hours, and that agreement was sought with such speed. I wish that that was always the case, but I am delighted with the new clause.
      Mr. Loughton: Conservative Members are delighted with the new clause too, of course, although I am a little surprised that the Under-Secretary did not refer to it when I raised the question of indemnification in connection with the previous group of amendments.
      The Under-Secretary has already confirmed that any councillor or council appointee who sits as a councillor, a school governor, as a member of a community health council or of an economic partnership, for example, is covered by the model code of conduct. Will she further confirm that the new clause means that such an individual will be fully indemnified by the council if they take on any activities such as I have set out?
      Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have read the new clause very clearly. He is confusing two matters. We are no longer dealing with the code of conduct, but have moved on to indemnification.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the extent of indemnification. That will be the subject of the consultation to which I referred earlier.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    Clause 94

      ALLOWANCES AND PENSIONS
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 70, line 31, leave out "pensions,".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47.
      Amendment No. 217, in page 71, line 9, leave out subsection (7).
      Amendment No. 48, in page 71, line 13, leave out—
      'which are operating executive arrangements'.
      Amendment No. 49, in page 71, line 14, leave out "of the executive".
      Government amendments Nos. 187 and 188.
      Amendment No. 31, in page 71, line 18, leave out "pensions,".
      Amendment No. 32, in page 71, line 24, leave out "pensions,".
      Amendment No. 50, in page 72, line 9, leave out—
      'which are operating executive arrangements'.
      Amendment No. 51, in page 72, line 10, leave out "of the executive".
      Government amendment No. 189.
      Amendment No. 33, in page 72, line 11, leave out "pensions,".
      Amendment No. 52, in page 72, leave out lines 26 and 27.

      297
      Government amendment No. 191.
      Mr. Atkinson: The amendments have the particular purpose of reversing the trend towards professional, full-time councillors, and of preventing the substantial increase in the power of patronage that will result from the Bill.
      Amendment No. 217 would remove the proposals relating to allowances, and the requirement to pay pensions to councillors. In Committee, we opposed the Government's proposal to pay pensions to executive members in the cabinet system. We did not consider that any councillor should be entitled to a pension, but the complaint to the Government was that it is was unfair to pay pensions only to executive members, rather than to all councillors. The Government have decided, therefore, to extend the pension regime to all local councillors.
      We oppose the provision, as we believe that being a councillor is a matter of public duty. We do not consider it an activity that deserves large-scale reward, as the Government propose. In addition, the proposal has unleashed a host of headlines in various local newspapers about fat-cattery, especially in Labour councils.
      No sooner was the idea of cabinets mooted than councillors throughout the country, particularly Labour councillors, began to award their leaders substantial sums of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said in Committee, Hammersmith and Fulham was the first in this respect, with the council leader becoming, at that time, the most highly paid in the country. Hot on the heels of that award was the leader of Cardiff city council with an allowance of between £35,000 and £40,000 a year.
      If my memory serves me right, the lord mayor of Cardiff was earmarked a salary of £58,000. It was only after protests and difficult meetings that that amount was reduced. When that issue was debated in Cardiff, members of the Labour group who opposed paying the lord mayor such a salary were subsequently suspended. That demonstrates the attitude of Labour councillors towards the new cabinet system.
      My local newspaper, and that of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, is The Journal in Newcastle. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady points out that The Northern Echo is her local paper, but I believe that The Journal also circulates in her constituency. In any case, The Journal carried out a survey of north-east councils and their reaction to the cabinet system. It produced a headline, which I think damages all in local government: "Labour Councils Branded Tat Cats'". The paper contained an exposé of the amounts paid to various councillors. I am pleased to say that it included a photograph of me, taken nearly 15 years ago. It is always flattering to be reminded of what one looked like 15 years ago.
      The Journal did a detailed analysis of how councillors' allowances had increased. In Sunderland, for example, the leader of the council's allowance went up from £10,900 to £30,000 a year. The leader of Sedgefield council, the Prime Minister's local authority, put up his allowance from £4,000 to £15,000 a year. If that were not enough, there have been huge increases in the leader's salary and
      298
      costs in Newcastle from £14,000 to £29,375, with the total allowances for the cabinet increasing by more than £619,000—a staggering amount of money.
      Mr. Levitt: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's list with interest. Is he saying that only people who can afford to be councillors and pay their own pension contributions should be councillors? That is the conclusion that I am drawing from his remarks.
      Mr. Atkinson: That is not the case at all. We accept that people should have a reasonable allowance to enable them to be councillors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Spell it out."] I will spell it out. We do not want people making a living as full-time councillors. That is utterly against the ethic of being a councillor. Those of us who have been councillors believed that the officers were the paid hands doing the job and that councillors were responsible for political control and advice. However, we did that as part of a different duty, not as a full-time career. The Government are proposing to make being a councillor a full-time and highly paid job.
      Once we introduce high salaries, we increase not only the benefit to the individual but the power of patronage. That is one of the most important issues to come out of these proposals for high salaries.
      Labour party groups talk of abolishing whipping, but if one does so but has the power of patronage, one achieves the same thing more effectively. As we have seen, if one becomes one of the chosen few who will get a cabinet job, with the salary and the pension, one also has the opportunity to serve on a national health service trust, with another £19,000 a year—that has happened frequently in the north-east. It is significant that the names of the leading figures in local government in the north-east of England crop up time and again—I am sure that that also happens in other parts of the country.
      If one goes through the magic circle into the inner core of the Labour party in local government, one will pick up a salary of £30,000 a year, expenses, trips and, if one is lucky, a place on an NHS trust or on another quango. [Interruption.] Hon. Members think that that is funny, but The Journal also looked into how often leading councillors in local authorities in the north-east went on trips in this country and abroad. It discovered that some councillors incurred costs of £15,000 a year simply going on trips.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am intrigued by these Tories who are worried about money. I heard the other day that the Short money that they receive has increased by 270 per cent. I have never heard them complain about that. They have been transferring their staff from central office into the parliamentary office to use the Short money and it ought to be investigated. If a local authority did that, it would be surcharged.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although that may have been an interesting intervention, it had nothing to do with the amendment.
      Mr. Atkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would have liked to respond, but I accept your ruling. There is no connection. The Bill is about local government, local councillors and this insane cabinet and

      299
      executive system that the Government are proposing to force on them willy-nilly. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is so keen on so much government going on behind closed doors, with unaccountable councillors going on trips and not revealing how much they are spending.
      This is a jolly debate, but when The Journal telephoned authorities to ask how much they spent on trips for their councillors, a large number refused to reply. It is worth mentioning the names of the councils that refused to give any details on conference attendance or expenditure. The Journal lists them as:
      Newcastle, County Durham, Redcar and Cleveland, Sedgefield, Hartlepool, Tynedale, Derwentside, Easington, Durham City and Darlington.
      We listened to lectures from Labour Members on Second Reading and in Committee about openness, yet a number of prominent councils, which spend many thousands of pounds a year on trips and visits, refused to itemise who got what and who went where.
      Mr. Loughton: The gravy train.
      Mr. Atkinson: Indeed.
      The Government and Labour Members are forcing this system of cabinet government on local authorities against their will, in spite of opposition in the country and on the Labour Benches. The Government are in danger of damaging the reputation of local government in consequence. Council tax payers throughout the land have had to pay substantial increases because the Government have cut grant—people pay well over £1,000 for quite ordinary houses in some north country councils—but are seeing councillors helping themselves to vast increases in allowances and to more money than rate payers ever dreamed of. That will be hugely damaging to the reputation of councillors and of local government across the country.
      I do not pretend that our amendment will change that, but I hope that we can send a message to the other place. When their lordships consider the measure, I hope that they will reconsider the matter. The reputation of local government and of many decent councillors will be besmirched by the measure.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: Throughout the deliberations of the Standing Committee, I much enjoyed the contributions of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). However, I confess that his performance this evening causes me some confusion. I read carefully the string of amendments and have some difficulty in relating his remarks to their broad thrust—even that of those tabled by his colleagues and himself.
      The key issue is relatively simple and narrow. Until this evening, the Government intended, in their proposals for executives, cabinets and scrutiny committees, that only one category of councillors—members of the executive or cabinet—should be eligible for a pension, with the agreement of the particular council. The Government were not minded that such provision should be available for other groups of councillors—such as those serving on scrutiny committees.
      300
      In Committee, I argued that that was a bizarre idea. The Government maintained that the scrutiny role was vital, yet councillors who served on scrutiny committees were to be deemed second class compared with those who served on the executive. In an effort to make progress on the matter, two proposals were made this evening. The hon. Member for Hexham suggests that we can even things up by refusing to allow any councillor, in any category, the possibility of a pension. That would be one way of solving the problem.
      The amendments tabled by myself and my hon. Friends to provide equality would extend the pensions option to all councillors, subject to the agreement of the council. I was delighted to see that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions himself saw fit to add his signature to two of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and myself—a clear indication of his support for our suggestions.
      The effect of other Government amendments would be much the same as those that we propose, although the wording is marginally different. I could chalk that up as a success, but that is not important. What matters is that the Government recognised an injustice and were prepared to do something about it. I welcome that.
      I hope that, when the Under-Secretary replies, she will turn her attention to amendment No. 191—the effects of which appear to be somewhat bizarre and would mean that the National Assembly for Wales would be unable to give advice on some matters. If my interpretation is correct, that would be a retrograde step and we should have difficulty in supporting it. I look forward to an explanation of why the Government think the provision is necessary.
      Ms Armstrong: The amendment has disappeared.
      Mr. Foster: If that is so, I am absolutely delighted.
      I am extremely pleased that the Government have accepted the principle of ensuring greater equality between councillors who are members of the executive and those who are members of scrutiny committees. It is a pity that they did not accept that earlier, but I am delighted that they have done so.
      Ms Beverley Hughes: I intended to start by replying to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), but as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has already noted, nothing that he said related to the amendments, so I find myself at something of a loss. The hon. Member for Hexham spent a lot of time talking about allowances for councillors, not about the payment of pensions, which was the subject of the amendments. No one would support the award of unjustified salaries and allowances to councillors, but neither do we support the rubbishing of all councillors in which the hon. Gentleman engaged. That is equally reprehensible. The assertion that councillors do not merit a reasonable allowance for the time and work that they put in is a cheap, populist jibe that diminishes the excellent work that the vast majority of councillors do.
      The hon. Member for Hexham should have talked about his amendments. I am surprised that the official Opposition continue to oppose outright the payment of pensions to members of the executive. The principle that

      301
      those councillors who, because of their position in the council, devote a significant amount of time to council work deserve a pension is widely accepted in both the local government world and beyond, and indeed, by the Conservative group on the Local Government Association. It will be interesting to see what the group thinks about the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
      By providing that the basic or special responsibility allowances paid to members of the executive of an authority may be pensionable, we are acknowledging that the amount of time spent by some members on council duties is significant. With executive arrangements, we expect that this may increase further, and that some councillors, particularly those in the executive, may become more or less full time. It is right that we recognise that such councillors may lose out on pension rights where they do not also have paid and pensionable employment. If we are to attract the right people and a wider range of people into local government, it is important that we make such provisions. Having said that, we need to think long and hard about which councillors should be entitled to pensionable allowances, as I shall make clear in a short while. In the sense that we must not undermine the voluntary principle of public service to which the hon. Member for Hexham alluded, I agree with him.
      It may prove to be the case that some councillors' roles are so demanding that we should make provision in regulations to give them access to an occupational pension such as the local government pension scheme. If that is the case, we will need to have the powers to do so. Clause 94 provides those powers. I see that an amendment has been tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team to remove the provisions in the Bill that deal with independent panels. That one really foxed me. The Opposition may have a view about whether councillors should receive pensions, but to be opposed to making an independent panel the mechanism for making recommendations to a council is difficult to understand.
      In contrast to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition, the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bath have a great deal of common ground with the Government amendments. For the record, amendments Nos. 46 and 47 were first tabled by the hon. Members for Bath and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and now appear as Government amendments, and of course we will accept them—just in case the hon. Gentlemen were in any doubt. Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 have the same purpose as Government amendments Nos. 187 and 189, but we do not feel that they do all that is needed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the Government amendments and not press his own. We also intend to accept amendments Nos. 48, 50 and 52 in the name of the hon. Member for Bath, so we will not move amendment No. 191. The other amendment to which the hon. Gentleman referred has not been selected.
      As I made clear in Committee, we believe that it is right that everyone, including councillors, should have access to an adequate occupational or personal pension to supplement the basic state pension. All councillors will be able to benefit from stakeholder pensions, which are specifically designed to provide access to supplementary pension provision. I hope that, for most councillors, council work will not be their principal occupation, and these councillors will receive levels of allowances that are more in line with the intended target group for stakeholder pensions; but, with the advent of executive arrangements,
      302
      we expect that some councillors may become more or less full-time, and it is for those that the enabling powers in the amendments are particularly designed.
      I have said that I intend to accept amendments Nos. 48, 50 and 52 to ensure that the enabling powers in clause 94 are as flexible as possible, in order that we can respond as we and the councils gain experience and circumstances change, following implementation of all the elements of the modernisation agenda in the Bill. However, in accepting the amendments, I should like to make a few things absolutely clear and place them on the record.
      First, I consider it unlikely that the amendments will prove necessary in the long run because I think that all principal councils will ultimately be operating executive arrangements. The only way in which a principal council could find itself in a situation where it is not operating executive arrangements is if it is operating the alternatives following a referendum defeat, and we have already made it clear that we believe that to be unlikely.
      Secondly, we believe that the new councillor role was created by the executive arrangements, which may mean that some councillor roles are such that they should receive pensionable remuneration. Thirdly, I believe that I have already made it clear that pensionable remuneration may not prove to be the best option for any member's roles, but the best case is likely to be for members of the executive. I must tell the hon. Member for Bath that I find it difficult to envisage any roles in arrangements of a non-executive style that might demand pensionable remuneration.
      Therefore, although I believe that we should ensure that the enabling powers in the clause are wide enough to enable us to respond to the multiplicity of potential situations and arrangements that could arise following enactment of the Bill, I do not necessarily accept that we shall need to use all of that flexibility.
      In summary, I shall repeat what we are proposing in relation to the various amendments. To ensure that the powers in the clause are wide enough to allow us to be flexible, and to enable us to react flexibly to the results of the consultation that we shall engage in on pensionable remuneration, we shall accept amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48, 50 and 52. I shall move those and Government amendments Nos. 187, 188 and 189 in the appropriate place and I shall not move amendment No. 191. However, I must oppose amendments Nos. 49 and 51 because they are technically flawed and, in my view, the amendments that we have tabled will achieve the intended effect. I most certainly oppose Opposition amendments Nos. 30 to 33 and 217, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham will withdraw amendment No. 30 and not press the others.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 70, line 32, leave out "of an executive".
      No. 47, in page 70, line 34, leave out—
      "executive" and "local authority" have'
      and insert ""local authority" has".
      No. 48, in page 71, line 13, leave out—
      'which are operating executive arrangements'.
      No. 187, in page 71, line 15, leave out "executive" and insert "council".
      No. 188, in page 71, line 17, leave out "and" and insert "or".

      303
      No. 50, in page 72, line 9, leave out—
      'which are operating executive arrangements'.
      No. 189, in page 72, line 10, leave out "executive" and insert "council".
      No. 190, in page 72, line 23, leave out from "State" to end of line 25.
      No. 52, in page 72, leave out lines 26 and 27.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

  Sea Defences (Norfolk)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  11.44 pm
  Dr. George Turner: I am privileged to represent my Norfolk constituency. It is a good place to live and it is also particularly attractive to visitors; it has much to offer them. Much of the area that is the subject of this debate is important in residential and tourism terms, with its mixture of holiday parks and permanent properties as well as expanses of open land. However, it is also of international environmental importance, falling, as it does, within the Wash site of special scientific interest and a designated special protected area now formally recognised under the European habitats directive.
  Currently, sea defences are mixed in character and include concrete walls and shingle embankments. In many parts, the beach itself is also an important feature of the defence. The need for effective sea defences in this part of Norfolk is well documented—the danger of flooding is writ large in the minds of my constituents. In 1978, flooding caused considerable disruption and damage to property, but in 1953 the position was tragically worse and 65 people died as a result of sea flooding.
  Much has been done in west Norfolk since then, but I shall seek to persuade the Government that more needs to be done and, indeed, is overdue. In 1997, the Environment Agency, which has much delegated responsibility for these issues, published proposals for a "Hunstanton and Heacham Sea Defence Strategy". Its report pointed out that the residual life of some existing defences would be unacceptably low in the absence of recycling and maintenance. It concluded that current standards are too low, with existing practices and beach management insufficient.
  The new strategy that the agency proposed involved a mixture of hard defences, beach nourishment and beach management. The strategy was in line with the shoreline management plans for both the Wash and north Norfolk. The estimated cost was some £10 million over five years. Locally, the plans enjoy wide support, and they will defend about £50 million worth of assets.
  Following completion of the proposed strategy, the Government introduced a new points system on a pilot basis with the laudable object of providing a more rational basis for comparing competing schemes. The west Norfolk proposals were caught by the changes and remain the subject of heated debate. It is for the Environment Agency to carry out the required assessments under the points system. It is charged with ensuring value for money and sound engineering work. It is, however, for the Government to make final decisions. I understand that the Environment Agency will soon finalise its recommendations for our scheme.
  There are, however, a number of important issues that I fear could be lost in the detail of the points scheme as explained to me. The most important of my concerns is over the proper assessment of the value to their owners and the community of the 3,500 essentially static caravans, mobile homes and park homes—call them what we will—that would be protected by the proposed scheme.

  305
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is the Minister responsible for fisheries and the countryside, came to west Norfolk where he met and listened carefully to representations from some of those most directly involved. They included Terry Evans, the chairman of the Heacham beach bungalow owners association, and Richard Searle, whose family has provided family holidays in my part of Norfolk for many years and who also speaks at a national level for those in the park home industry.
  Following my hon. Friend's visit and at his suggestion, I have met further with appropriate representatives of the Environment Agency. They were thorough in explaining the technical detail and I am grateful to them. However, happily, I do not need to dwell too much on the detail tonight, for my conclusion is that this is a case where the engineers and officials can advise, but the buck must rest very firmly indeed with Ministers. As explained to me, the technical argument is not conclusive. Politics not science will determine the outcome.
  The nub of the problem was summarised in earlier correspondence with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who told me:
  Because most expenditure on flood and coastal defence falls on UK tax payers as a whole, costs and benefits have to be appraised from a National, rather than a regional, local, individual or corporate perspective. In the case of caravans, mobile homes and other temporary structures, it must be recognised that if a decision is taken to abandon a site, the National economic loss is limited as the actual assets still have a value if moved elsewhere."
  This is a key argument to be addressed in west Norfolk. In some circumstances, it may be entirely valid, but I would argue otherwise in west Norfolk. It is simply too narrow a viewpoint. A final decision needs to take a broader perspective. In modern parlance, we need joined-up government.
  We also need to recognise the need for local and regional circumstances to be taken into account. In particular, we should have regard to the Government's policies for tourism and the need to encourage economic regeneration in rural areas such as mine. The Government have firmly identified tourism as a growth industry of particular importance in the rural economy, which is suffering from the major problems of agriculture. Will the Government not then acknowledge that the estimated £157 million contribution from tourism is a vital part of the west Norfolk economy?
  However, 60 per cent. of all holiday accommodation is in caravans, mobile homes and park homes, and 90 per cent, of them are located in the coastal areas that are under threat. Ministers must not allow the current formula considerably to underestimate the costs of moving or replacing such accommodation and to ignore the huge negative impact that its loss would cause the local economy.
  I understand the theoretical point that the accountants have made—after all, I was trained as a theoretical physicist. In a more perfect world, such erudite points would suffice, but what of the real world in which people have to make practical decisions? What do the Government expect owners of those properties to do? Richard Searle tells me that it would cost him more than £16 million to relocate his park, which contains only 15 per cent. of the pitches affected. That means that the bill for full relocation is estimated at £90 million.
  306
  How can owners square such practicalities with a theory that assumes a seamless move, without planning complications, to bare agricultural land valued without planning consent? When should owners abandon their current sites? If Richard Searle waits until a flood warning is given, it will be too late to protect his property. The alternative is effectively to abandon his business. Richard Searle's summary of the situation is forthright. He says:
  The loss of this holiday area would be devastating to both the individuals concerned and to the area. For a comparatively small cost, involving a modest change of policy this could all be avoided.
  Will the Government acknowledge that if parks such as Searle's were to move inland to escape the sea, which is the focus of attraction for many tourists, they would lose customers in droves? Is it realistic to assume that those displaced will simply go elsewhere in the UK? I doubt it. Much of the competition will be from Europe, and European competitors are increasing their investment in tourist areas, providing marinas and specialised bathing beaches, and protecting existing developments. I have little doubt that much of the tourism displaced from North-West Norfolk would be lost abroad. The high hurdles set for planning permissions for park home sites, which are almost a universal feature of many structure plans, would help to ensure that.
  I have also had strong representations from private owners of properties in the threatened areas, including those of the association of bungalow owners at Heacham. Interestingly, their chairman, Mr. Terry Evans, lives in Cambridgeshire. Many properties are second homes or are let. Mr. Evans and those whom he represents are, of course, anxious to see their property protected, but they have particularly emphasised the real danger of loss of life with continued delay in the implementation of the proposed scheme. They make a good point.
  During the periods of highest risk of flooding, there are nowadays increasing numbers of tourists in residence because the holiday season has become extended as more people take short breaks. There could easily be 10,000 people to be evacuated if there were a serious threat. I have been advised that proper evacuation would require about four hours' warning.
  The threat is of high winds from the worst direction when tides are high. However, the tides in the area are notorious for coming in much more quickly than they go out, and the tide would still be out when warnings would be most effective. It would be only two hours later, as the tide came in, that it would become clear, with the onset of damage to defences, whether fears were well founded—and of course that might be too late.
  There is then a dilemma for those responsible for flood warnings. If they wait too long, there will be much more damage and possible loss of life. But if they are perceived to cry wolf regularly, the final outcome could easily be even worse. Formulae do not give weight to such local factors; Ministers must.
  From my briefing with officers of the Environment Agency, I understand that our scheme now sits on the threshold of the required points total of 22 out of a maximum of 30. However, I was sorry to hear that additional advice at the end of last year further changed the details in the way that costs and benefits are analysed, and raised the hurdle to be jumped by the scheme. Work was still proceeding when I spoke with the agency, but it was clear that that issue, too, could be make or break by autumn.

  307
  More positively, I was reminded that exceptions are considered when important environmental habitats are involved, which is an interesting contrast to the rule-bound approach which I have heard to date when pressing the interests of my constituents as people. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can offer some assurance of balance in the final outcome.
  I suggest that the time is fast approaching when Ministers will need to make decisions. With my own scientific and engineering background, I do not seek to undermine the usefulness of developing point-scoring systems. I am a former chairman of Norfolk education committee and I oversaw the introduction of just such a scheme in assigning capital funds for schools. However, formulae should inform political argument, not determine outcomes, and should provide guidance, not shelter for politicians.
  Property and livelihoods are at stake in my constituency, and I ask the Government to add a dash of practicality to the theory. An important sector of the local economy in west Norfolk could be devastated and, of course, there must be overriding concern for the risk that getting it wrong poses to human life. My constituents' views are strongly held and I share them. We want a green light for the scheme.
  I am pleased to note that, despite the lateness of the hour and her just-in-time arrival, my right hon. Friend the Minister has listened carefully to what I have had to say. Tonight, I know that I cannot realistically expect the decision that my constituents seek, but will she assure them that their case will be properly and carefully considered and that the points that I have made on their behalf will be appropriately weighted? Will she also assure them that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will give those points appropriate priority in his bid for Treasury funding in the spending review and in the allocation of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food budgets?
  11.57 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I welcome the debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on drawing the House's attention to this subject and, indeed, on the way in which he spoke.
  Flooding and coastal erosion, with damage to or loss of land and property, is an important and emotive subject, and understandably so. The damage and distress sustained by those affected is often severe, and not just in economic terms. We have seen the effects of flooding recently in Todmorden and in Bishop Auckland. That served as a timely and regular reminder that natural forces can overcome man. Although natural events such as flooding and coastal erosion can probably never be entirely prevented, it is obviously right that public authorities that are empowered to take measures to alleviate the risk act where it is reasonable to do so.
  Government policy is to reduce the risks to people and to the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures. Three key strands support
  308
  that policy aim. First, we encourage the provision of adequate and cost-effective flood warning systems by grant-aiding them. We also support underpinning measures. For example, in the past year, the Environment Agency has produced indicative flood risk maps that show the areas most at risk of flooding. Those are important tools in deciding where flood warning systems are needed, but whatever warning systems are in place, individuals must take action to protect themselves—they need to heed warnings.
  Hon. Members will remember the message in the Environment Agency's flood awareness campaign last winter, which was part funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: "Floods don't just happen to other people". The risk to caravan parks and other vulnerable temporary occupancy sites was identified following the major flooding at Easter 1998, and the agency has written to site owners to raise awareness of flood risk with a request that they make visitors aware of such risks and of what they should do in the event of a flood.
  Secondly, the Government encourage the provision of flood and coastal defence measures. We do so by providing grant aid to schemes that achieve an appropriate priority score—to which my hon. Friend referred—based on urgency, ministerial priorities and the cost:benefit ratio. Schemes also need to be sustainable. We cannot commit future generations to maintaining defences in areas where that is not sustainable. Defence measures need to be based on an understanding of natural processes and, as far as possible, should work with those processes.
  As part of the strategic approach to flood and coastal defence problems, the Ministry has promoted the setting up of coastal defence groups which provide a forum for discussion and stimulus for co-operation, to help to ensure that coastal processes within particular stretches of coast are taken into account. To assist those groups in the strategic management of discrete stretches of coast, the Ministry has encouraged the preparation of shoreline management plans and has issued guidance on their preparation.
  The aim of the plans is to provide a basis for sustainable coastal defence policies and to set objectives for the future management of the coastline, taking into account natural coastal processes, coastal defence needs, environmental considerations, planning issues and current and future land use. Shoreline management plans are intended to be living documents and will need to be reviewed at regular intervals. Indeed, a timetable for reviews should be included in the plans. The Ministry intends to issue revised guidance for the next generation of plans later this year.
  It is for operating authorities to assess what measures are needed to reduce flooding and coastal erosion in their areas, and to produce relevant plans that are cost-effective and sound in engineering and environmental terms. It is important to recognise that, given the tremendous diversity of coastal formations in this country, there can be no uniform approach to coastal defence.
  Coastlines recede or advance with changes in current, wind and tide. It is therefore unrealistic to expect that

  309
  every inch of coastline will remain exactly as it is now. Instead, authorities must look at a range of options and consider what the impacts of defending a particular stretch of coast are, so as to avoid, wherever possible, burdening future generations with the maintenance of unsustainable defences.
  The bulk of expenditure on flood and coastal defences is, of course, provided by the taxpayer. The Ministry and the operating authorities therefore have a responsibility to ensure that value for money is obtained when schemes are funded. Because the expenditure falls on taxpayers as a whole, costs and benefits of proposed schemes are appraised from a national, rather than a regional, local, corporate or individual perspective.
  Although economic analysis is an important aid to decision making, I can tell my hon. Friend that it is not applied in isolation and authorities are required to consider other matters, including environmental impact and sustainability, when deciding where investment in defences should be directed and determining the optimal solution.
  The Government recognise the importance of sustaining flood defences and coast protection, and the outcome of the comprehensive spending review was that an additional £23 million was provided for Ministry funding over the past year, the current year and next year, bringing the total available to £230 million. Funding for future years will be considered in this year's spending review.
  Next, the Government discourage inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding and coastal erosion. I stress the word "inappropriate". It is necessary to ask whether it makes sense to place a development in a particular area. A key test is sustainability. Even if defence measures are put in place today to protect a new development, there will be continuing costs in maintaining them and in ensuring that they continue to do their job in decades to come, against the challenges of rising sea levels.
  In 1992, guidance was issued to local planning authorities to steer development away from areas at risk of flooding. In April the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a consultation draft of strengthened guidance, which will make flood risk a material consideration for local planning authorities. There is also guidance on the need for developers to make contributions to defences which are necessary as a result of a development, not just now, but throughout the likely lifespan of the development.
  The Environment Agency remains a consultee on development proposals, and the agency's flood risk maps are important tools for local planning authorities in considering development plans and planning applications.
  Having set out the Government's policy aim and objectives for flood and coastal defence, I should say that, however good they are, there is a need to ensure that they are delivered on the ground by some 650 operating authorities. In April this year the Government therefore put in place a series of high-level targets to help achieve a more certain delivery. We are requiring the operating authorities to produce policy statements to set out how they will achieve the Government's aims and objectives. There are targets in relation to identification and
  310
  inspection of defences, recording of results and assessing flood and erosion risk. We will, of course, be reporting on the achievement of these targets.
  I now turn to some of the specific matters that my hon. Friend raised. He knows that the Ministry provides grant aid for capital flood and coastal defences and coast protection schemes, which have to be technically sound, economically worth while and environmentally acceptable. In the face of ever increasing demands for funding, priority scoring arrangements were introduced in June 1997 on a pilot basis, with a view to optimising the allocation of available funds. The priority scores take account of ministerial priorities, which my hon. Friend mentioned, as well as urgency and cost:benefit ratio. I welcome my hon. Friend's very reasonable comments about the priority scoring system and his understanding of it, and I listened carefully to some of the reservations that he expressed about the system.
  For the first time sites of environmental interest were specifically identified within ministerial priorities, which of course also recognise the emphasis placed on the protection of life and hence on those parts of the country where large numbers of people live and work. The priorities are, first, flood warning; secondly, urban coastal and tidal defences, and environmental assets of international importance; thirdly, urban flood defences; fourthly, rural coastal and tidal defences, existing rural flood defences and drainage works, and environmental assets of national significance; and fifthly, new rural flood defence works and environmental assets of local significance.
  We recognise that the priority scoring system may not be perfect; that is why we have regarded it as a pilot and indicated that we are prepared to consider revisions. A full review of the arrangements will be initiated later this year. However, it is in the nature of such arrangements that arguments are always made for higher priority, but rarely, if at all, for lower priority. Difficult choices therefore ensue.
  In recognition of the United Kingdom's obligations towards internationally important habitats, the Government have decided that there must be no question of such habitats being lost. In some cases this could mean recreating habitats elsewhere as an alternative to saving a site, where strategic studies show this to be the more sustainable option. Where necessary, exceptional treatment regarding priority score will be considered for schemes designed to protect such habitats.
  In relation to the defences for Hunstanton and Heacham, significant beach renourishment was undertaken in 1991 following agreement of a long-term strategy for the frontage. An ongoing programme of beach management has been in place since then. More recent reviews by the Environment Agency and its consultants have identified a number of shortcomings in the standards and longevity of the defences.
  An updated sea defence strategy is being developed by the Environment Agency. It will need to satisfy the Ministry's engineering, environmental and economic criteria and be sustainable. If the works are to attract grant aid, they will need to equal, or exceed, the priority scores threshold; for the current year the threshold is 22.
  A particular issue is the sustainability of the proposed defences in the light of the review of the earlier strategy. Also at issue is the priority score of the scheme. A significant component in this relates to economics, which

  311
  I know my hon. Friend is aware of, in which the value to be attributed to caravans in the holiday park is a major factor. In the case of caravans, mobile homes and other temporary structures, it is recognised that if a decision is taken to abandon a site the national economic loss is limited, as the actual assets still have a value if moved elsewhere. The agency is reconsidering in this light—including consideration of whether a case can be made for an alternative approach to the economic methodology. Any such departure would need to be considered with colleagues in the Treasury for their guidance, too.
  312
  I hope that, in the light of my remarks, my hon. Friend will be reassured that my Ministry will receive further representations from him. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who leads within the Ministry on the issue, is keen to ensure that applicants for support are treated seriously and that their treatment is based on detailed examination of all the relevant issues.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Down's Syndrome
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
10 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on Down's syndrome in the 30th anniversary year of the Down's Syndrome Association. I intend to highlight some of the difficulties facing the 60,000 people with Down's syndrome in the hope that we can change society's attitudes towards them. I congratulate the association on the work that it carries out on behalf of people with Down's syndrome.
My involvement with the DSA was catalysed by one of my Farnworth constituents, Mrs. Flo McBrien, the mother of Shelley, who was born with Down's syndrome. Flo had to campaign for vital surgery that has given Shelley a much better quality of life, and she now campaigns on behalf of other children with Down's syndrome, such as 18-year-old Joanne Harrison from Shrewsbury, who desperately needs a heart-lung transplant. If Joanne's heart defects had been detected by screening at birth and the necessary surgery carried out at that time or shortly afterwards, her physical condition would not be what it is today. I am grateful to Esther Rantzen, who highlighted Joanne's case and other similar cases in her television programme.
Down's syndrome is a genetic condition, linked to the presence of an extra chromosome that may manifest itself in learning disabilities of varying severity and in physical problems, especially cardiac abnormalities. Sadly, people with Down's syndrome experience discrimination throughout their lives due to ignorance and misunderstanding. In the previous parliamentary Session, I tabled an early-day motion requesting that the Government combat such ignorance and misunderstanding, especially as it affects the treatment of those with Down's syndrome under the national health service. It was the 12th most successful early-day motion in terms of the number of signatories.
I am rightly proud of the modernisation programme that the Government initiated and implemented for the national health service. Thousands of nurses are returning to the NHS and thousands more are in training. Many more doctors are coming through the process, and in a few years they will be able to practise. Thirty-seven new hospitals have been approved, many of which are under construction. Some, like the one in Carlisle, are already open.
The Government have produced two important documents about learning difficulties: "Once a Day" and "Signposts for Success". They highlight good practice for the commissioning and providing of high-quality health care for those with learning disabilities, who include adults and children with Down's syndrome. Many people receive excellent care under the national
2WH
heath service, but some patients with Down's syndrome do not. That is unacceptable. Prejudice is encountered in two ways: by reduced access to clinically appropriate services and by the attitudes of staff who discriminate against Down's syndrome patients on the basis of disability alone.
Last year, the Down's Syndrome Association published a survey of parents of children with Down's syndrome, entitled "He'll never join the army". It showed that 28 per cent. of the 1,509 parents who were surveyed reported a high level of dissatisfaction with the standard of health care that their children receive. There have been cases of overt and covert discrimination, particularly by general practitioners, cardiologists and ear, nose and throat specialists, but also by other hospital doctors and health care workers.
Discrimination against people with Down's syndrome contravenes the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The rights of the disabled are exactly the same as those of any able-bodied person. Discrimination is illegal, and we must raise awareness to prevent further discrimination against people with Down's syndrome. Ignorance and misunderstanding must not be allowed to taint the image of one of the world's finest health services.
Every day in the United Kingdom, one baby in every thousand will be born with Down's syndrome, 50 per cent. of whom will be born with a heart defect that is detectable using simple, non-invasive diagnostic techniques. If such simple investigations are not conducted and the abnormality goes unnoticed, irreversible pulmonary complications can set in, resulting in a shortened life expectancy. Early diagnosis and surgery at an optimal time can save 80 to 90 per cent. of such children. Successful surgery can prevent problems that can severely compromise quality of life and life expectancy later in the child's life. The profound significance of such simple investigations and appropriate treatment must not be underestimated, because they can extend a baby's life expectancy by several decades.
Unfortunately, the existence of screening programmes is patchy, arbitrary and, where they do exist, variable in quality across health authorities. Even when screening is conducted, doctors do not always convey the diagnosis accurately or give appropriate advice, guidance and support. To illustrate the awful consequences of such inaction, I give the example of Katie, a nine-year-old with Down's syndrome. She received cardiac screening at four weeks of age, but was not strong enough to undergo surgery until she was four months old. That delay in treatment unfortunately resulted in irreversible pulmonary damage. Katie now requires a heart-lung transplant, but she is unlikely to be entered on the list for transplant surgery, simply because she has Down's syndrome. I urge Ministers to introduce a policy ensuring that all babies born with Down's syndrome routinely undergo cardiac screening to detect any abnormalities, and are referred for treatment if clinically necessary. No child should be discriminated against on the basis of disability: that is wrong, socially unjust and probably illegal.
The physical symptoms of Down's syndrome are unfortunately not confined to cardiac abnormalities. More than half the people with Down's syndrome experience difficulties with their hearing and have

3WH
varying degrees of visual impairment. Given the nature of their disability, such sensory impairments should perhaps be corrected more speedily than for other patients so that the potential of people with Down's syndrome can be maximised at the earliest opportunity. It is therefore disturbing to learn of patients being denied access to NHS treatment on the basis of that primary disability.
The DSA has provided a catalogue of serious cases of discrimination within the NHS. For example, one mother of a three-year-old boy was told by an audiologist that if her son developed hearing problems for which grommets were the clinically appropriate treatment, he would not be offered them, simply because he had Down's syndrome. Another mother, of a 16-year-old boy, remarked:
I was asked by an ENT specialist how I thought my son's life could be improved by having his hearing increased.
Denial of treatment is denial of opportunity for those people.
From the moment of diagnosis, parents can be subjected to discrimination. Imparting the initial diagnosis of Down's syndrome is a crucial opportunity to convey positive, not negative, messages about the child's disability. One mother of a 17-year-old told the DSA:
When she was born we were told by a doctor that it would have been better if she had died at birth.
A mother of an 11-year-old stated:
Shortly after his birth a midwife told me that had she known she was carrying a child with Down's syndrome, she would have had an abortion.
A parent of a 10-year-old boy commented:
I was advised to have my son fostered or adopted when he was three months old as he wouldn't amount to anything and that it was best to try again for another baby.
Such anecdotes are profoundly shocking. Parents have recounted horrific tales to the DSA of derogatory value judgments being made about their beloved children. Other parents have met with comments that verge on racism. Imagine the gut-wrenching feeling when one's child is described as a Mongol. That is how 12 of the parents surveyed by the DSA felt. That fiercely insulting term was discarded by The Lancet in 1964, and banned in publications by the World Health Organisation in 1965. However, the term was used to parents, by staff in the national health service only two years ago. In a society that espouses equality as a virtue, such practice must be not only reviled but eliminated.
Prejudice is manifested not only by the use of insulting and derisory terms, but by implicitly and explicitly limiting the aspirations of people with Down's syndrome. One parent was told, "Well, he'll never be a brain surgeon." Another was told by an opthalmologist, "We won't bother with glasses, as he's not what you would call university material." The father of Rhian commented:
It has become apparent to us over the years that there is a general reluctance on the part of health care professionals to fully understand and treat with sympathy and interest the needs of our daughter aged 16. There has been far too much of the approach from them that, because she has Down's syndrome, this or that ailment is to be expected and not much can be done. This is almost always inherent and coupled with a patronising attitude.
4WH
Thankfully, such comments and treatment are not typical of the modern national health service. If such treatment occurs just once, however, that is surely once too many. Even if the majority of staff do not behave in that way, the minority must be forced to change.
The Department of Health's documents "Once a Day" and "Signposts for Success" acknowledge that some people with learning disabilities do not get a fair deal in the national health service. It is estimated that, on an average list size of 2,000 patients, a GP may have approximately 40 patients with learning disabilities, some of whom may have Down's syndrome. Despite the existence of good practice and the large amount of guidance available, no national strategy currently exists to ensure that people with learning disabilities can access high-quality mainstream health services.
However, there are many examples of good practice within the NHS. Professor Tim Eden is a paediatric oncologist at the university of Manchester who works at both the Christie hospital and the Manchester children's hospital. He informed me recently that he and his colleague, Dr. Robert Wynn, a consultant paediatric haematologist, have overcome the difficulties inherent in treating Down's syndrome children who develop leukaemia. As a result, the prognosis for those children may be better than for other children with the same disease condition. Following chemotherapy, Down's syndrome children are noticeably more prone to contract infections than other children, which is the main problem. However, those medical practitioners have discovered that, by employing up-to-date nursing techniques, that difficulty can be overcome. That is good news for Down's syndrome children.
It is of paramount importance to ensure that doctors and health care workers are trained in the care of people with learning difficulties, and that any allegations of prejudice and discrimination are investigated and dealt with speedily and with due seriousness. Pressure needs to be exerted on the deans of medical schools—for example, through the General Medical Council—to ensure that training to deal with people with learning difficulties is taken seriously.
St. George's medical school in Tooting, London, is a beacon of good practice. The DSA is working with the school to develop a pioneering on-line learning package, which is funded, I am pleased to say, by a £25,000 Department of Health grant. That will allow doctors to diagnose correctly people who have learning difficulties and train them, and health care workers, to deal with that group of patients more sensitively.
Disgust at the apparent discrimination experienced by people with Down's syndrome is not confined to patients, their parents and other relatives. It extends into the health professions. Dr. Vivian Nathanson of the British Medical Association said:
Doctors are making blanket policies about treating patients. This is ethically dubious. They should all be treated as individuals, not on the basis of some classification.
Alexander Harris is a solicitor who represents a child with Down's syndrome. He contacted 180 parents of Down's syndrome children, five of whom claimed that doctors had failed to give access to vital surgery. Eight of them said that children had died or were expected to die shortly due to delays in diagnosis and surgery.
I call on the Department of Health to ensure that four steps are taken. First, cardiac screening must be compulsory for all babies born with Down's syndrome.

5WH
Secondly, they must have faster access to all required health services and, in some instances, receive positive discrimination in order to maximise their potential. Thirdly, training has to be in place in all medical schools so that doctors and health care workers can better understand the needs of those born with Down's syndrome and other learning disabilities. Fourthly, the Department must send out a firm message to everyone that the national health service should be a model of good practice and that discrimination against those with Down's syndrome will not be tolerated.
The chief executive of the DSA and I recently met the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham), and our proposals were given a good reception. I hope that they will be enacted. I look forward to listening to my colleagues and to the response of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health.
10.16 am
Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted to take part in the debate. I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on his good fortune in having the debate chosen, and on the splendid way in which he presented the case on behalf of Down's syndrome sufferers in the United Kingdom.
For a long time, I worked for Mencap and encountered daily the problems about which he spoke so eloquently. I repeatedly came across examples similar to those that he described, although many were far worse. One thing that always arose was the long wait that parents and young Down's syndrome sufferers had for everything. Nothing was ever available when needed. The fact that the issue had to be dealt with was recognised, but there were always long periods before their needs were met and before the health service, education, respite care and housing requirements were in place. Carers, and especially parents, had infinite patience. They never asked for a great deal, but only for a fair deal, which was and is still sadly lacking in too many cases.
Down's syndrome and learning disability sufferers were forgotten after the war, 60 years ago, in the speedy process that brought our health service together for the first time. They were to be considered later, but time continued to pass. Forty years had passed before people had started to get to grips with many of the issues, which is a sad reflection on all of us. It reflects the way in which the ignorance associated with the syndrome and learning disabilities generally has been allowed to persist. For one reason or another, Governments, local health authorities and local councils have ignored the issues and decided to prioritise elsewhere. That is why debates such as this are fundamentally important.
If we are to give all individuals in our nation, whatever the skills, disabilities or intelligence they are born with, the right to fulfil their true potential at their own pace and their own level, we must make sure that we put an end to that ignorance and desire to ignore the problem. The Down's Syndrome Association, which has existed for 30 years, has made a remarkable achievement, as has Mencap, which has been in existence for 50 years. Those organisations have had to struggle to educate the public and professionals about the issues.
6WH
It is a great shame that the Down Syndrome Educational Trust, whose national headquarters is in my constituency, failed in its recent lottery bid. That money would have given the trust an opportunity to develop the Sarah Duffen centre, which is named after a young lady with Down's syndrome who fought against all the odds to reach her true potential. She is a classic example of what can be achieved when people are prepared to give someone an opportunity. Very few people with Down's syndrome, and very few of their parents, who are given that opportunity refuse to take it. Had the lottery bid been granted, it would have enabled the trust's work to expand and develop. It would have helped the trust to make people more aware of the problems faced by those with Down's syndrome. More importantly, it would have enabled it to give expert training, which is vital if we are to help those with Down's syndrome to reach their true potential. That has been denied the trust by the lottery decision. Perhaps the Minister for Public Health might influence her colleagues elsewhere in Government to reconsider that application. No reasonable excuse has been given as to why it was not granted.
This Government and the previous one have done a lot to bring the debate further into the public domain and set things in motion. However, there are deficiencies in the ageing policy adopted in social services and health authorities, which tend to treat older people with Down's syndrome as if they were 17 or 18 years old. They have not adapted their policies to ageing people with Down's syndrome. In many day centres, those people have the same experience that they had 30 or 40 years ago when they first went there. People aged 60 with Down's syndrome are no different from other people. They do not want to sit in a room full of loud music; they want peace and quiet, and the space to develop in their own way. That space is denied to many people because of a lack of resources. Some day centres have changed, but others have not and need to do so. More needs to be done.
We must also consider the issue of respite care for the ageing population of mums and dads who have cared for their children all their lives. The needs of those parents have changed. For example, they need to be trained to let go of their children. I have spent a lot of my time, as a professional in the field, trying to educate parents to let their children take the risks that children normally take and allow them to go to mainstream schools or further education colleges. However, we had to arm wrestle people to get such children into colleges, because those children were not perceived as having the same rights as others to go into further education. Every case was a personal struggle for parents and people campaigning on their behalf. That cannot be right but, sadly, it continues to happen.
We must ensure that the benefit system is easily understandable and offers opportunities for people with Down's syndrome to do more than simply be cared for. It is important that housing is provided for those who want to be independent and are able to live alone without being a threat to themselves. However, that accommodation must be provided close to their friends and family, so that support is on hand, just as we prefer our families to live close to us so that we can support them. Housing for people with disabilities is often the

7WH
last thing that is thought about. Often, such housing is situated in places that are out of the way and difficult to reach.
We must also provide work opportunities. I remember many examples of youngsters, who previously were given no chance, responding when they were offered proper opportunities. A classic example is that of a young lad who moved to Guernsey from his home in Glasgow when his father retired from the Glasgow police force. He had lived in a long-stay institution for 15 years, but he went to work, first on a day placement and then at Grow Limited, an organisation that was formed by Mencap and gave such youngsters in Guernsey an opportunity to work. Within two years, he had learnt to drive and had passed his driving test. Had he remained in Glasgow, he would not have had that opportunity. He was able to take it because people could explain to his parents nicely that their son was now a young man and deserved the right to be released from their care for long enough to take some of the risk that we all experience, to fulfil the potential that was always there and to gain some satisfaction in life. The boy's life changed completely, as did that of his parents. Many other examples show how much can be achieved when time is taken and the pressure is off.
This debate opens the door for a great deal of opportunity and I am delighted and proud to have taken part in it. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on his contribution to the struggle to get a fair deal. People with Down's syndrome do not ask a lot; they want only to be treated in the same way as every other young person and adult in Britain—to be given a chance and an equal share of resources, to be taken seriously and to be treated with respect and dignity. In my opinion, that is not a great deal for people to ask. After a 50-year struggle, it is about time that we as a nation recognised their rights.
10.26 am
Mr. Ian Stewart: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on having secured this important debate. I come to the issue as a constituency Member of Parliament. Although I had a general awareness of Down's syndrome as an individual, my attention was focused and heightened by my contact with the Bell family, who live in my constituency and about whom I shall say more later.
When my attention was drawn to Down's syndrome children and the problems that they face, I found out some statistics. Two babies with Down's syndrome are born every day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East pointed out, half of those children will have some form of heart defect. Failure to detect such problems early in life can have serious consequences. If they are found early, they can be fixed through surgery, as has been pointed out. If screening does not occur until later in life, however, a degenerative heart condition can cause serious health problems and even death. Because of the stigma attached to Down's syndrome, many patients are not given the essential heart screenings that can avoid such grave health consequences. The Down's Syndrome Association
8WH
recommends that every child born with Down's syndrome should be given an echocardiogram to screen for heart defects. That is the only test that can provide an accurate diagnosis. The majority of defects are surgically treatable with a good prognosis, but if they are left too late, there can be irreversible change from pulmonary vascular disease.
Last year, the Down's Syndrome Association conducted research among 1,500 families with a Down's syndrome child. It showed that 28 per cent. of its members had experienced discrimination. It was alleged that in some cases discrimination went as far as withholding treatment and that children had died as a result. Discrimination against Down's syndrome patients is rampant. It ranges from name calling to the denial of necessary medical treatments. I have been told that some Down's syndrome cases have been passed over for heart and lung transplants because it was felt that their lives were of less value. Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states:
Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty
provided by law is death.
More than half of the people with Down's syndrome have significant hearing problems, and problems with vision are at least as common. Help for vision and hearing problems is available through surgical intervention or by providing glasses, hearing aids and other techniques, which are offered routinely to other groups of people. It is imperative that hearing and vision problems are recognised and treated so that they do not create further obstacles to full development. Those children have the right to develop as fully as other children.
To combat the mistreatment of Down's syndrome patients, the Down's Syndrome Association recommends that every medical student should receive longer training on learning disabilities. Improvements need to be made to many aspects of treatment, including the manner in which the medical staff first inform parents that their child has Down's syndrome, and the actual treatment of the child. Such programmes have been developed, but should be given a higher profile.
St. George's medical school in London has developed a successful course, which uses practical case studies of people with learning disabilities and their problems. It addresses not only the medical issues involved but the attitudes of the students. However, the class is optional. The Down's Syndrome Association is working with St. George's to develop a web-based learning tool on how to diagnose effectively, and treat sensitively, people with learning disabilities as well as those with Down's syndrome. The Department of Health has donated £25,000 to that cause. The money is welcome, but more needs to be done.
At the beginning of my speech, I referred to the Bell family in my constituency of Eccles. I am proud to have made the acquaintance of Ms Alex Bell, who fosters six Down's syndrome children. I have rarely met a more happy, secure and loving family, but I mention the Bell family only to highlight the problem. I am sure that there are many other loving families throughout my constituency and, indeed, the United Kingdom. They

9WH
need understanding and support, but that demands a change of attitude in our society. I know that the Government will take steps to ensure that proper support is forthcoming and to engender such a positive change in attitudes. I support the four demands made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and congratulate him again on securing this debate, which highlights such an important issue.
10.33 am
Sandra Gidley: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on bringing this matter to our attention. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on his contribution. It was heartening to hear him say that matters have improved in the past few years, although we have a long way to go.
We heard that 60,000 people in the United Kingdom have Down's syndrome. Every day two people are born with the condition. The key word in both those sentences is "people". Down's syndrome people look a little different, are more prone to a range of health problems and, yes, may act a little differently, but all people deserve to have the best health care possible so that they can lead happy and healthy lives. Who are we to decide that people with Down's syndrome do not deserve the very best—and believe me, they are being denied the best. I read the survey entitled "He'll never join the army", which I would recommend to anyone because it is a real eye opener. I defy anyone who reads it not to be shocked and horrified.
From the moment of their birth, comments about Down's syndrome babies are commonplace. The survey gives several examples. For instance,
When it was discovered that the baby I was carrying had duodenal atresia, one doctor suggested that we withhold permission for the operation that was essential to save her life.
Or,
An eye specialist recently told me that my daughter needed glasses 'but with her condition one would not be able to tell if there was any improvement in sight'.
Or again,
He was screaming and rolling around in agony. The doctor asked if he was in pain—as if he was an alien.
Finally,
Our son was described by a senior physician as 'an unacceptable burden on resources medically, socially and educationally'.
Those examples are indicative of an oft-prevailing attitude—but it gets worse. One in two children with Down's syndrome are born with a heart defect. Some are minor, but others are severe and require medication or surgery. It is essential that those problems are identified in the first few weeks of life, but although the possibility of heart problems is well known, all too frequently an echocardiogram is not carried out and the symptoms are ignored. It should be compulsory for testing to be conducted in the first couple of weeks of life. Again, the examples are heart wrenching:
I was told by our original paediatric consultant that it would cost at least £10,000 for heart surgery and that they would rather spend that sort of money on a 'normal' child…
and:
Our daughter's heart problem was not found until she was two years old, which we found strange as so many children with Down's Syndrome have some sort of heart defect. Then we were told it was too late to operate.
10WH
Those attitudes are still prevalent, yet there is a body of evidence to show that an early operation is less of a financial burden on the health service, and is in the best interests of the patient. If the operation is not performed, the prognosis is poor. In their early 20s, sufferers will probably be wheelchair bound and in a great deal of pain and discomfort, not to mention the fact that that will cost the taxpayer a great deal more money than the original £10,000.
All that makes harrowing reading, but I do not believe that the majority of medical staff involved are deliberately cold and uncaring. Their comments often stem from ignorance and lack of sensitivity. A seemingly cold and callous remark at birth can make it difficult for parents to bond with their new baby, and I would go so far as to say that it can potentially cause long-term problems with the relationship.
We witness discrimination. The basic training need must be addressed, because health professionals must be able to see the person, not the disability. It will take a long time to change entrenched attitudes, but we can make a start by insisting that students in the health professions receive training in learning disability issues, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East.
I have come across children with Down's syndrome ranging from the cheerful and happy to the downright disruptive—exactly the same range of behaviour found in so-called normal children. In any group of people there are a wide range of behaviours and abilities, and we typecast any group of people at our peril. Health professionals must learn to see the person, not the condition. People with Down's syndrome no longer regard themselves as sufferers.
It is more difficult to insist on on-going training as, in my experience, those who are most in need of training are least likely to seek it. Once that is in place, attitudes will begin to change. I would then hope that no person with Down's syndrome would be treated differently or would ever be denied treatment because of his or her condition. By that, I also mean that the appropriate medical tests should be undertaken. Those are some of the aims of the Down's Syndrome Association, as outlined by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. I wholeheartedly support those aims and urge the Government to do all they can to deal with those problems.
10.39 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing the debate. This is the first time that I have followed the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), so it is nice for me to be able to welcome her to Westminster Hall for an Adjournment debate.
The topic that we are considering is a classic subject for an Adjournment debate, because all political parties are trying to tackle fundamental prejudice in society. We have talked about health professionals, whose response has a key part to play in achieving what we want for people with Down's syndrome. The truth is that prejudice in the population at large is extensive. We are tackling a big problem in society, and that can be done effectively only by taking a cross-party approach.

11WH
Probably the most anxious moment for any parent of a newborn baby is when the child is passed to the paediatrician for health checks. What the health professionals then say to the parents is paramount. I expect that there is not a parent in this place who would not recognise the worry of that moment. The words that doctors use often replay in the parent's mind for years to come, and if crass or insensitive language is used, the damage can be very real. We have heard examples of just the wrong kind of language being used.
Many women opt for tests for Down's syndrome during their pregnancy, but for many that is a difficult decision. The classic test of amniocentesis carries a risk of miscarriage, and women who have miscarried may fear such a test. Faced with the dilemma of what to do if it were established before birth that the child had Down's syndrome, many mothers decide not to cross that bridge at that stage and do not have the test. The birth is often the moment when the discovery is made. In a handful of cases—an example occurred recently—the test can be wrong. That, as we saw from the interview with the parents, causes real distress.
A cultural problem has arisen. With new technology, we are moving into an era when prospective parents think of having a perfect baby, a perfect birth and no problems. The truth is that human beings are born in different shapes and sizes, with a wide range of variations in ability and disability. That huge variation is part of our make-up. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, there is a huge variation in the severity of Down's syndrome. In some people with the condition, the symptoms are very mild and they are perfectly able to lead a virtually normal life. I wholeheartedly agree that they should be given every opportunity to do so. Set against that, the appalling statistic that more than a quarter of parents of Down's syndrome children have experienced discrimination at the hands of health professionals needs to be tackled.
Like the hon. Member for Romsey, I read with horror the results of the survey carried out by the Down's Syndrome Association, "He'll never join the army". I read the whole document, and was aware of the same telling phrases that several hon. Members have referred to, which show how damaging language can be, and of the fact that decisions made by health professionals have adversely affected the outcome for some Down's syndrome children. I was also shocked by the responses to the two questions in appendix 3, which show the scale of the problem. There were 1,509 responses to the survey, and beyond the 28 per cent. who were dissatisfied with the NHS help that they received, 126 respondents experienced specific difficulty in certain disciplines of medicine. It is important to dwell on that finding for a moment, because it may help the Government to focus their efforts on the relevant areas.
Interestingly enough, the greatest difficulty was experienced in cardiology. We should not be surprised by that: cardiac conditions in people with Down's syndrome need special attention. The survey showed that, for those parents, that discipline's response was inadequate. Next came general practitioners, which suggests that an extra effort needs to be made in training
12WH
GPs, as they are often the gateway to specialist treatment. I suspect that that is the cause of some dissatisfaction.
In third position came ear, nose and throat specialists. We have already heard that prejudice may exist and that quite straightforward procedures such as the fitting of grommets are sometimes not thought to be worth while. That is clearly a long way from the guidance given to the profession on how to deal with such cases. Such instances highlight where the Government should focus their attention.
The view of those at the top of the medical profession is clear. Dr. Ian Bogle, chairman of the British Medical Association, said:
All patients are entitled to good standards of practice and care from their doctors. A person with Down's syndrome has the same rights as any other person.
That, however, contrasts with people's experience. We heard that St. George's teaching hospital has a special programme to help doctors to learn more about what might benefit patients who have learning disabilities. My immediate thought was that if St. George's hospital can do it, others can too. Distance learning packages, such as the one described by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, are a good answer. We often see best practice in the NHS, but it seems incredibly difficult to disseminate that throughout what should be a national service. I ask the Government to redouble their efforts to cross-fertilise those good ideas.
I want to talk a little about age management, mentioned by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South. I have a residential care home for people with Down's syndrome in my constituency. By coincidence, I was there on Saturday. Some of the residents are over 60 years old. That is a long lifespan, especially for people who have different requirements at various stages of life. I am pleased to say that that residential home is much more a home than an institution for the residents, some of whom have lived there for more than 30 years.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South said about older people not enjoying beat music blaring out from a ghetto blaster in a corner of the room, because some of the rooms in that residential home had been made quieter and more suitable for those women who were getting on in years. As a result, activities were possible in those quieter rooms that would appeal to ladies at that stage of life, such as weaving and other crafts. We must be careful not to take a "one size fits all" blanket approach to the needs of people with Down's syndrome. As the hon. Gentleman said, the condition varies so much that provisions need to be tailored to bring out everyone's full potential.
What more does the Minister think could be done to enforce the existing guidelines for dealing with Down's syndrome? Those guidelines are clearly not respected by all health service practitioners. If the guidelines are not adhered to, sanctions must be available. No one with Down's syndrome should be refused treatment on the grounds of that condition alone. Such action cannot be right. If hospitals were aware that claims could be made against them for negligence, they would be much more careful about what they said and did to patients who have Down's syndrome.

13WH
I agree that an echocardiogram should be carried out on all newborn babies to ensure that Down's syndrome children are not discriminated against. There is no good reason for denying them that procedure. Indeed, it is a cost-saving measure, as has been said. If it is carried out early, it can save considerable problems later. It is difficult to understand what the justification could be for failing to do that. If a hospital fails to carry out that procedure and it is decided that it should be policy to test all newborn babies with Down's syndrome, the hospital should be subject to negligence claims.
In reply to a question from Lord Robertson of Oakridge in the other place last October, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said:
The current guidance on health services for people with a learning disability…which includes Down's Syndrome, makes clear that they have the same right of access to NHS services as everyone else and that special care should be taken to ensure that they are not denied health care because of their disability.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 1999; Vol. 604, c. WA35.]
That is a clear and unequivocal ministerial statement, but nevertheless the guidance is ignored. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how that guidance can be made effective. The good-practice programmes "Signposts for Success" and "Once a Day" have not got to the root of the prejudice against people with Down's syndrome. We must start training the health professionals involved much earlier in the process.
The sanctity of life is the principle that underlies our demand for an end to discrimination against people with Down's syndrome. I do not believe that there is party political division on this issue. The problem is how to achieve our aim.
10.51 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing this debate on an extremely important issue. His points and the statements that he and other hon. Members quoted from their constituents and the Down's Syndrome Association report "He'll never join the army" are extremely powerful testimony to the trouble and torment that discrimination and indifference can generate for people with Down's syndrome and their families. They highlight the problems that people with Down's syndrome can face in practice.
People with Down's syndrome have the same rights of access to health and social services as anyone else. They should not be discriminated against simply because they have a learning disability. I am proud that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Human Rights Act 1998 are on the statute book. Those measures are designed to stamp out unacceptable practices and to make people more aware of when they are discriminating against others or undermining or denying others' rights. The Acts apply as much to health services as to other spheres of our lives.
Guidance issued to the national health service in 1996 made it clear that it is against the law to offer a service that is not as good as that being offered to other people, purely on the grounds of an individual's disability. Discrimination on the grounds of learning disability in our health services is unacceptable. However, in
14WH
practice, discrimination and prejudice continue. Some of that discrimination stems simply from ignorance, and I pay tribute to the valuable work of the Down's Syndrome Association and other organisations in raising awareness of the needs of children and adults with Down's syndrome. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), met representatives of the association and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East to discuss their anxieties, especially about possible discrimination in the health services against people with Down's syndrome and about training medical staff and others.
The association also had the chance to give evidence to the second stage of the Brompton hospital inquiry, which is considering parents' anxieties about the matter. However, raising awareness and setting standards to prevent discrimination are not a matter simply for the law and voluntary organisations. The NHS also has a part to play.
Guidance issued in 1992 reminded authorities that people with learning disabilities have the same rights of access to NHS services as everyone else, and stated:
Special care must be taken to ensure that they are not denied health care because of their disability.
That guidance was followed up in 1998 by far more detailed guidance in "Signposts for Success", which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. That publication provided good practice guidance on commissioning and providing health services for people with learning disabilities, stating that commissioners of services should develop service specifications, standards and monitoring to ensure that there are guidelines for sensitive sharing of information with parents about their child's impairment—points that were raised this morning by hon. Members. It also recommended that commissioners should ensure a shared understanding of the needs of families and the specific needs of children with disabilities and, importantly, the provision of early intervention services and counselling, as well as access to the necessary specialist services, for families.
We continue to reinforce the guidance contained in "Signposts for Success" by publishing booklets aimed at specific groups of health service staff. "Once a Day", to which reference has been made, was aimed particularly at primary health care staff and stressed the need for the sensitive sharing of information about a child's disability. It also stated:
Particular conditions, such as Down's Syndrome, carry an increased risk of certain health complications such as cardiac disorders, respiratory problems, thyroid disorders and hearing impairment.
We are preparing guidance based on "Signposts for Success" for staff in in-patient and out-patient services. That guidance has received considerable support from professionals, from those responsible for commissioning and providing services and from family carers.
The big question is how far that guidance is implemented in practice. A recent survey commissioned by the Department of Health, entitled "Facing the Facts" shows that there is still considerable variation in the health and social services provided for people with Down's syndrome. In other words, provision is patchy.

15WH
That situation has also been spelt out in the work of the DSA and by the contributions of hon. Members this morning.
Implementation is vital, as is ensuring that we spread to every area the best practice that we know occurs in some areas. It is unacceptable that the care received by people with learning disabilities and Down's syndrome should depend on where they live. That is why we announced last year a new national learning disability strategy, to be launched towards the end of this year. We do not envisage a radical departure from existing policies and guidance, although we need to build on them; the central task is to make sure that we eliminate inconsistencies in service delivery and that all services meet the level of the best.
Work on the strategy therefore seeks to identify ways in which current policies and good practices can be implemented across the NHS and social services. As part of that work, we will consider what monitoring arrangements need to be put in place to ensure the proper implementation of the strategy and the prevention of unfair and unacceptable discrimination against people with Down's syndrome. The work is being taken forward in several small sub-groups that address a range of issues on children, supporting independence, health and work force planning and training.
We are involving a wide range of interests, including people with learning disabilities, family carers, professional organisations, providers, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Local Government Association, the NHS Confederation and voluntary organisations throughout the sub-groups, the Department's learning disability advisory group and focus groups. We have also commissioned work on such issues as access to primary and hospital care, research issues, cancer services and services for black and ethnic communities. Dr. Oliver Russell chairs the health subgroup and he, with other officials, met the DSA last year to discuss its concerns about cardiac screening, discrimination and medical and other staff training. The sub-group on children has also considered such issues as early intervention and family support and has involved a number of advisers, including the DSA. I hope that our debate will inform work on the development of the new learning disability strategy.
I shall now respond briefly to the points that have been made in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said, children with Down's syndrome are known to have a much higher risk of congenital heart disease than the average population: 40 to 50 per cent. of such children will be born with a cardiac abnormality. Given the known predisposition of that group of children to such problems, it is clearly good clinical practice to assess such babies for cardiac abnormality at the earliest possible opportunity, using the full range of non-invasive diagnostic methods that are available. That is the best way to ensure that appropriate treatment can be offered at the optimum time to achieve the best possible outcome for the child. Obviously, it is a matter for individual clinical judgment to ensure that the assessment is undertaken at the most appropriate time, taking into account the condition of
16WH
the baby and the state of mind of the parents. How we ensure that that best practice is followed up certainly needs to be part of the new strategy.
My hon. Friend referred to the need to speed up access to care for those with Down's syndrome. All children have access to child health surveillance programmes, but it is clear that those with known needs often require referral for assessment earlier than the usual developmental checks. For those children, earlier detection and intervention can be helpful in best achieving their full potential. The child development centre, working in conjunction with the child, parents and professionals in many agencies, should be well placed to draw up an appropriate plan for the child's health, skills, development and play.
My hon. Friend referred also to the training of medical undergraduates and health professionals. University medical schools determine the content of the curriculums in the light of the recommendations of the education committee of the General Medical Council. Furthermore, the medical curriculum development scheme was launched in April 1998 to encourage national health service bodies and partner medical schools to work together on curriculum development to meet NHS needs. The chief medical officer has made available funding for six projects, the purpose of which is to consider what permanent mechanisms can be put in place to review and address NHS needs in curriculum development.
One of those projects is based in Leicester and is called "Learning from Lives". It is aimed at third-year medical students and has two themes, one of which is a comprehensive understanding of the nature and consequences of chronic disability. Students undertaking the course explore the differing needs of elderly and younger mentally and physically disabled patients and investigate the range, roles and accessibility of the multi-disciplinary teams that are involved in the care. Organisations from the voluntary sector are also involved. Students will be expected to develop professional behaviour and adopt a positive regard towards disability.
The projects are now in their final year and the Department of Health intends to publicise as widely as possible the good practice that is emerging from them to encourage similar collaboration in curriculum development elsewhere. The NHS executive is currently looking at suitable ways in which to do that. In addition, as a result of a meeting between the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, and the Down's Syndrome Association, we have provided support for new website work that is being developed by the association because we must ensure that all clinical staff involved in the care of babies with Down's syndrome are aware of the health problems commonly associated with the condition, so that they can be picked up at an early stage.
I have mentioned other measures that we are taking to improve the recognition of wider health needs, but the work being carried out by the Down's Syndrome Association, supported by the Department of Health, to develop interactive web-based training is aimed specifically at raising the awareness of the condition among medical students. That is an important step forward.

17WH
The Hon Member for Portsmouth South (Mr. Hancock) spoke about the importance of promoting independence, opportunities for work and education and developing full potential. Clearly, that is vital for people with Down's syndrome and for all people with learning disabilities. Opportunities should exist for everyone, whatever their circumstances. He also raised the issue of supporting older people with Down's syndrome. I wholeheartedly agree with him on that; it is another of the issues being considered in relation to the learning disability strategy.
Mr. Hancock: The Minister has made great play of the part that the strategy will play. Many people outside this Chamber will be interested to know when it will be published, when and if any associated action plan will materialise, and whether it will be resourced in such a way that it will be deliverable.
Yvette Cooper: The approximate timetable for the plan, which was launched at the end of last year, is to conclude its work and publicise the new strategy towards the end of this year. Clearly, the strategy must be deliverable. I cannot, at this stage, provide details of the content and form that it will take, because work is still under way, including in the sub-groups.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked about enforcement mechanisms, and how to ensure that guidance is properly followed. Clearly, we must consider how to monitor the implementation of the strategy. That raises a broader question of how to spread best practice across the NHS in many different fields, which has been given detailed consideration as part of the development of the national plan, not just in this area but across the board. It is important to spread best practice rapidly, rather than in isolated examples.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) referred to communications skills in relation to training for the medical profession. That is already part of the guidance in "Signposts for Success" and "Once a Day", and must be reinforced in the additional guidelines for in-patient and out-patient staff. More work will be necessary, as part of the strategy, to make that difference.
I shall touch briefly on some more general issues in relation to helping Down's syndrome children and their families. They will benefit from initiatives to improve the services available for those with learning disabilities. Following a baby's birth, all children with Down's syndrome and their families must have a named health visitor. They should receive support from that health
18WH
visitor, who, along with the family's GP, will be the main source of support and referral to other agencies. The primary health care team should offer the child health surveillance and a screening programme as agreed locally, and should work closely with the local community child health service to ensure that a care plan for child and family is properly formulated. In some cases, the child and family will be referred to a child development centre for a fuller assessment of their needs. That will provide a single door for multi-agency assessments to be carried out by health, social services and education staff. Clearly, there are implications not only for health services but across the board.
The Department of Health guidance, "Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital", recognises and promotes the cardinal principle behind treatment—to provide support for the child as a whole and not simply for the condition for which treatment or care is required. The guidance acknowledges that children with disabilities who need hospital admission are doubly disadvantaged. Health service providers are therefore advised to ensure that facilities, procedures and staff can cope with the special needs of children with a physical, intellectual, sensory or communication disability.
We also recognise the need to provide for specialist staff training and orientation, which is reflected in the use of the court budget funding. The purpose of that budget is to stimulate training initiatives for child care health professionals. That is the source of the support for the Down's Syndrome Association. Through that support, we produced a template for the correct approach to families with a disabled child. It provided standards against which services could judge their performance, and was included in the Department's guidance document for health services in the community.
Considerable work has been carried out on this important subject, but we know that there is much more still to do. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East on bringing the issue before Parliament, raising public awareness and working with the DSA to provide proper information about the difficulties often faced by Down's syndrome sufferers—adults and children—and their families. We are committed to supporting such action. We have much work to do across the NHS, with the voluntary associations, and with all those who believe that discrimination is completely unacceptable in our health services.
11.11 am
Sitting suspended.

Transport (South-West Norfolk)
11.30 am
On resuming—
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: First, may I say how grateful I am to be able to raise in the Chamber the issue of transport in south-west Norfolk and, by extension, in rural areas throughout the country? The Minister will be aware that petrol prices and, in particular, the Government's imposition of higher and higher levels of tax on road fuel are at the top of the public's agenda. The Sun today is full of advice for the Minister, which it couches in the immortal words "Get It Down Brown." It is supposed to be positive and constructive. More seriously, on 2 July The Sunday Times pointed out that, since the general election, motorists have been hit with an £8 billion hike in taxes, which is equivalent to a 4p in the pound rise in income tax. Annual excise duties on petrol have risen by more than £6 billion, value added tax receipts from petrol have risen by more than £1 billion and road tax has increased by £700 million, all of which adds up to nearly £8 billion.
I know that the Minister will avoid giving the impression that fuel price rises are due to more than increases in the price of crude oil, but the public know where much of the blame lies. It will help his credibility if he does not try to blame the previous Government, although he will probably do that. His Government have been in power for the past three years and the public hold them responsible for the tax increases that have made petrol—at £4; a gallon—the most expensive in Europe.
I want to raise the results of a survey that I recently conducted on transport in south-west Norfolk. To date, 500 people have responded, although I expect many more to add their views. The Minister will be interested to know that nearly 100 per cent. of respondents believe that the Government should pay more attention to transport issues, such as railways, road improvements and traffic. Some 90 per cent. support people who are protesting against the rise in petrol taxes and 80 per cent. believe that more should be done to encourage the use of public transport. Interestingly, 62 per cent. do not—because they cannot—use local bus services, which are inconvenient, do not exist or do not reach their villages. The Minister should note the significant statistic that only 31 per cent. of pensioners are able to use concessionary bus fares in Norfolk because of the lack of services.
The Minister will point out—justifiably—that Norfolk has received a substantial grant for the development of rural bus services. It certainly has. I welcomed the grant when it was announced, but I also explained that the rural economy is so diverse that no transport system could cope with all its needs. Moreover, the way in which the grant was established militated against the sensible deployment of the initial £1.5 million hat Norfolk received.
In a briefing note produced for me last week by the county council, Andrew Harding, the officer in charge of such matters, said:
The grant was set up, quite properly, with conditions to prevent local authorities being tempted to substitute grant for local funding of established bus services. This can lead, however, to the
20WH
situation where, due to local authorities budgets being fully committed, an established and well-used bus service could be denied the full financial support it requires, whilst a new RBSG service carrying fewer passengers is maintained. In the interests of obtaining Best Value, overall more flexibility would be desirable.
The county council has done its best under the rather unsatisfactory conditions imposed on it by the Government for the use of this subsidy, but the results of those initial requirements have not gone unnoticed by the public. The secretary of the Watton and district chamber of commerce, Martin Anscombe, wrote to the director of planning and transportation at county hall last autumn. He said:
I have now been asked by this Chamber's Committee to express the view of members in the strongest possible terms. That is simply that the provision…as far as Watton is concerned, is a complete waste of public money. There are now some 130 additional buses per week through Watton…Informal observations indicate that the new services are so far very little used, with large single decker coaches arriving and departing empty or nearly so. The effect of the grant has been the setting up of new services on a somewhat scattergun approach with no time for consultation or a thorough examination of either need or effect.
I raised this matter in the House last autumn. I am dismayed to find that the county council is still asking for more flexibility, to enable it not to waste this publicly provided subsidy for the rural bus service. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point or undertake to consider it. The most acute anxiety about rural transport—it has now reached crisis point—is that no public transport system can provide for the diverse needs of a rural area in which there are several population centres to which people travel for services and work. Not only do some people in such areas have more than one job, but it is by no means uncommon for one family to need two or even three cars in order to get to work. The fact is that people in rural areas need cars. For them, cars are not a luxury. Whether they need to work, shop or to gain access to medical services or schools, they are being precisely and punitively targeted by the Government's fuel tax policy while at the same time being exhorted in the name of the environment not to use their cars.
The Minister might not want to take my word for it, so perhaps he would like to hear the comments of some constituents of mine who responded to my traffic survey. Mr. Green of Outwell said:
It is ridiculous to keep putting tax on fuel hoping to try to get people to use public transport. Living in Outwell, I need my van for work, and to get places, and also to pick up my 2½ year old son and to take him back. I could not do that using a bus. I am a self-employed plasterer and work on different jobs all over the place, eg. one day I might be at Emneth, the next day at Gedney Hill, then maybe Walton Highway.
The Minister may want to listen to the following point:
I do not think that taking my cement mixer, buckets, levels, straight edges board and stands and trowels on a bus and then walking four to ten miles to the house I am plastering is a practical idea… Remember this is not London where a bus or taxi comes past every two minutes. So putting tax on fuel is disgusting. Remember an increase in fuel means everything else has to go up.
Those are the words of a self-employed man.
Mr. Middleton of Bradenham describes a different problem. He says:
I am a disabled person. I have a motability car, which costs me just under £40 weekly. There are no buses in this area that will take a wheelchair. To go anywhere I must use the car. The nearest rail station is 20 miles away. My car still costs me £40 weekly even if I

21WH
don't use it, so it is cheaper by far to use it all the time, rather than just to go to the station and pay fares on top of the £40. I am, as most people are, quite concerned about pollution, but I feel that the Government is treating us rural persons very unfairly. Putting more tax on fuel will not bring the train or bus closer to my home… I feel I am really being got at. I am an OAP with a non-elastic income.
Mr. Wilkinson of Watlington writes:
In rural areas such as South West Norfolk, public transport is not an effective mode of transport, especially when we live out of town… We need our own transport, so Mr. Prescott's idea that there is no need for more than one car per family is totally out of touch with what is going on in the real world… I live in Watlington near the railway station, and I work at the power station at King's Lynn, which is on the south side of the town. To use public transport, I would have to walk a quarter of a mile to the Angel pub to catch the bus, travel all round the houses for 3 quarters of an hour, reach King's Lynn, then what? How do I get to the power station when it is not on my bus route or any other? Ah yes walk again for another mile or so. Totally unacceptable and unreasonable, after over an hours journey I can't get to work, assuming they don't cancel the service that day without telling anybody.
Mr. Birt of Watton writes as follows:
I heard that the Deputy Prime Minister had spoken on the question of transport and suggested that drivers over the age of 70 should stop driving. I gave that great thought as I am 89 years of age (still a good driver). I decided to give up driving. Result, I am tied to Watton due to a bad bus service. Should I go to King's Lynn or Thetford I cannot return home after 6 o'clock.
Mr. Birt's letter speaks volumes for the life and vigour of people of 89.
Mrs. Gyll Bradley writes:
I am a single mum on an extremely low income, yet I have to run a car to get my daughter to school or to go shopping. The nearest town is Wisbech and we have no regular services at all. The nearest train service is 10 miles away, so I need a car to get to the station. When I lived in London I didn't need a car and used the transport system—cheaper I hear than most up here. The petrol is also cheaper in London—why? They need cars less and yet it costs them less to run one! Cycling is fine in Cambridge, but locally it can be very dangerous, the roads are narrow and bendy and people drive too fast and there's no one around to stop them doing so. There is an increase of folks driving without tax and insurance around here, can you wonder though, some weeks I have to go without important items just to make sure that the car is roadworthy and legal. I would love to ditch the thing and get a bus—but they are so rare we take photos of them and put them in our "Endangered Species" album!!
We should remind ourselves that, at the 1996 Labour conference, the Deputy Prime Minister promised
immediate benefits for the travelling public
as a result of the Government's transport policies. The result has been that people in rural areas, who have to use their cars because of the nature of the economy and because of the deficiencies of the public transport system, are being penalised because they live in rural areas. That cannot be fair. In particular, people at work, the self-employed, the disabled, elderly people and people with families have been accurately targeted for punitive and regressive tax treatment—not the picture of the inclusive Britain that we were promised before the general election.
The Minister will certainly say that there have been international increases in the price of crude oil, and that is true. He might also say that the previous Government introduced the fuel escalator, but he cannot deny that our petrol is the most expensive in Europe because we have the highest fuel tax in Europe. For every £20 spent
22WH
at the petrol pump, £17 is taken in tax. Meanwhile, according to figures from the House of Commons Library, planned spending on transport will fall by 12 per cent. between 1997–98 and 2001–02. To add insult to injury, only 14 per cent. of the £36 billion being taken from road users every year is going back into road improvements.
In my constituency it is not uncommon for people to have to take a round trip of 14 miles to visit a general practitioner. They might have a round trip of 24 miles to go to the nearest supermarket, and to go to the nearest hospital might require a trip of 36 miles there and back. I give those figures because they are the distances travelled by people from the village where I live. Of course, older people must quite frequently make trips to the GP, to pick up medication. Trips to the hospital may be necessary, perhaps to visit older relatives. Although everyone tries to support local shops, they must from time to time visit the local supermarket.
The Government's tax policy on petrol, therefore, has an impact on all those people, who do not have a choice. They do not have a choice of sensible public transport that suits their needs, as my constituents have shown in their comments. Nor would it be possible for a public bus service, for example, to provide for every need. I accept that. However, the excuse that is given is that petrol tax increases are possible because we have a viable alternative in a bus or train system. I have tried to show that that alternative does not exist. My constituents must use their cars and, therefore, be taxed.
This tax policy has an impact on all people in rural parts of Britain. People are being unfairly and punishingly taxed off the roads, for no fault of their own—merely because of where they live. We shall have reached a pretty pass if older people on a fixed income must calculate whether they can afford to go to the supermarket or the doctor. The Minister is, I know, a sensible and reasonable man. He has the great good fortune to live in a splendid part of London—Streatham—but that will not necessarily put him in a position to empathise with my constituents, and other people in rural Britain, over the plight to which they have been reduced. I recognise that he cannot today, at a stroke, say, with The Sun, "Get It Down Brown", but I want him to say that he has heard the pleas, which are genuine. They are the voices of my constituents, who speak from the heart about a state of affairs that some of them are beginning to find frightening. The Government will allow that to continue at their peril. Believe me, people in rural areas have had enough.
11.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on securing the debate. She has raised several important transport issues and explained their impact on her rural constituency. I am pleased with this opportunity to demonstrate the Government's commitment to improving transport and the quality of life of rural communities such as the one that she represents.
We set out our policy framework for transport in the integrated transport White Paper. We are taking further powers in the current Transport Bill and our

23WH
forthcoming 10-year transport plan will set the investment framework for providing a modern transport system that will be accessible to everyone. Of course, I cannot give details of the plan today, but I am confident that it will represent a step change improvement in the way we meet transport challenges. It will enable us to implement solutions identified through our programme of multimodal studies of problem corridors; it will enable new rail infrastructure to be installed, more innovative and flexible bus services to be introduced, and additional investment to be made in the road network, particularly by means of much-needed bypasses. It will also enable the transport problems of rural communities and the effects of social exclusion to be tackled, and it will help us to give everyone a better choice in transport.
The forthcoming White Paper will set out the Government's vision for rural England. We have launched a discussion document, and have received more than 800 responses, which have been summarised and posted on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions website. We expect the White Paper to focus on sustainable economic growth and regeneration in rural areas, access to services in rural areas and social exclusion, all of which are linked to transport. We shall consider the recommendations made by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs as we continue our preparation of the White Paper.
I sympathise with the anxieties about petrol prices and fuel duty that were expressed by the right hon. Lady's constituents, but it is essential to place those concerns in context. First, the Government are reversing the previous Government's legacy of under-investment in transport with the massive £280 million of extra spending that was announced in this year's Budget. The Government are also investing in the country's public transport and road network, yet the previous Administration planned to cut the transport budget by £1 billion. Secondly, world oil prices are at an all-time high. We have seen steep increases in petrol pump prices. They have risen by 18p during the past 16 months, but less than 2p of that increase is due to this year's rise in fuel duty.
Mrs. Shephard: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: If the right hon. Lady will forgive me, she has left me relatively little time. I have much to say and little time to say it, but if the opportunity arises—I want first to say more about petrol price rises—I shall give way. I want first to make some progress.
I was about to point out that, although fuel duties rose in line with inflation in this year's Budget, it was the lowest increase in 11 years. The previous Administration introduced the fuel duty escalator in 1993 at 3 per cent. and then increased it to 5 per cent. This Government have
24WH
abolished the fuel duty escalator. The fact is that fuel prices are lower now than they would have been had the escalator not been abolished.
Mrs. Shephard: Does the Minister accept that, since the general election, taxation on motorists has increased by £8 billion, which is the equivalent of 4p in the pound on income tax?
Mr. Hill: In real terms, motoring costs in 2000 are identical to those in 1970. The Government have achieved that by various policies, including cutting fuel duty, which I propose to deal with if I am given time to do so.
The Government were elected on a pledge to stick to the previous Administration's spending plans for the first two years. In the third year, we scrapped the escalator. We have also played our part in meeting the legally binding environmental targets agreed at Kyoto. The precise answer to the right hon. Lady is that, under the previous Government, car tax increased by £45 between 1993 and 1996. We have cut it by £55 on 4 million fuel-efficient cars. At the time of this year's Budget, the Automobile Association said:
This is the first time drivers can take some heart from a Budget in over seven years.
That covers the time during which the preceding Administration was in power. It is worth drawing attention to the fact that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said in 1996 that the price of fuels is not set by Government. Any real-terms increase in fuel duties in the future will go directly towards transport spending in addition to the billions already invested in modernising Britain's infrastructure.
I shall give a practical example of the Government's commitment to transport infrastructure in dealing with developments on the A11 in the constituency of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk. The A11 is a significant interregional route into East Anglia, but piecemeal improvements in past road-building programmes have resulted in congestion and safety problems, especially in the section that runs through the right hon. Lady's constituency. The Government's trunk road review of 1998 was a thorough review of the national road programme. That review was not held behind closed doors, unlike reviews carried out by the previous Administration, but gave communities, local authorities, businesses and transport and environmental groups the chance to have an input into the shape of the network and the type of improvements that should be made.
Completing the dualling of the A11 to give better access to the north and east was a high priority for the region. We inherited a wish-list programme of 147 schemes, including three for the A11. In 1998, we identified a targeted programme of 37 schemes that could be started within five years. One of those schemes was the dualling of the A11 between Roudham Heath and Attleborough. On 3 February, my noble Friend the Lord Whitty was able to announce that the start of construction on the Roudham Heath-Attleborough scheme had been brought forward to the beginning of 2001. At long last, a scheme that entered the national roads programme in 1985, and for which a preferred

25WH
route was announced in 1990, will be under way. That is a practical example of the Government's commitment to the motorist in the right hon. Lady's constituency.
In the brief time left to me, I shall deal with the rural bus network, which the right hon. Lady mentioned. Norfolk's allocation of £1.6 million per year of rural bus subsidy grant was the highest in the country. We have recently announced that the funding will be extended for another three years until 2004. In addition, we awarded Norfolk a further £1 million through the rural bus challenge initiative. The bus subsidy grant has enabled 49 new services to be introduced in addition to those that operated before May 1998, several of which have performed very well. In 1999–2000, more than 500,000 passenger journeys were made using services provided through the grant. I am sorry to hear that a small number of services have had to be withdrawn, even after allowing 12 months for patronage to build up.
The rural bus subsidy grant has allowed a substantial number of new and useful services to be introduced and maintained, increasing opportunities and choice for the rural traveller. Norfolk county council says that the services that have benefited tend to be those that supply new links to training and work opportunities as well as to shopping and health care. In most parishes in the right hon. Lady's constituency, bus service provision has improved since the grants were first awarded. Parishes that remain below the county council's preferred level of service are a priority for action, and the extension for the rural bus grant will decrease the number of poorly served parishes.
I acknowledge that successful directly subsidised services have sometimes been abandoned in favour of those funded through the rural bus subsidy grant. The point has been made several times that the rules are inflexible. We set up the fund specifically for new services because we did not want the money to leak into other areas. Nor did we want people deliberately to reduce services in the hope of gaining access to the new funding. However, the extension of the grant for an additional three years should enable councils and operators to plan ahead with more certainty and will provide greater incentive for potential bus users to leave their cars at home. We do not want the grant to be used to maintain the existing network, as that would diminish the purpose for which it was designed. We have shown flexibility by moving from 1 May 1998 to 1 May 1999 the cut-off date for deciding whether an existing service can be supported. However, the important principle remains that the grant will be continued for the commissioning of new services. I am afraid that I cannot promise that we shall change that.
The rural bus challenge funding won by Norfolk county council has enabled the purchase of four new and fully accessible vehicles, and has allowed for the development of flexible feeder services to improve connections between rural areas and rail and bus interchanges. Those initiatives are in line with our integrated transport policies, will help to improve access for disabled persons, increase social inclusion and facilitate modal shift from the car.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam)>: Order. Time is up.

Rail Services(Gloucestershire)
12 noon
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about the rail system in Gloucestershire. I want to consider some specific points to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reply. They include the recently released London to south-west and south Wales multi-modal study, the possibilities of redoubling the line between Kemble and Swindon where it is currently single track, and what I deem to be the threat to the reopening of stations. I would then like to talk about more general issues, including hardware, especially stations, and how we can extend rail operations for passengers and freight.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) and for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) would have been present, but they had other engagements. They will eagerly follow up some of my points, because I shall make general ones connected to the county, as well as drawing on the example of my constituency.
I have experience of using the train; I came here this morning by a train that was only slightly late. The underground seemed to have had a complete signal breakdown and there was a fire at London Bridge, but I gather that the system is running again properly. If it is not, I know that our Ken will chase after it and ensure that it is.
The issue is a big one for all people in Gloucestershire. From talking to the Confederation of British Industry in Gloucestershire and the Gloucestershire development agency, especially its chairman, Mr. John Hazelwood, I know that they prioritise the future of the county's rail network and see it as an important issue. I lost one of my close friends, Bob Cotton, in the tragedy at Paddington, and I hope that it soon results in our building the safest network possible.
I am grateful to Mike Obst, the senior transport planning officer of the county council, and his colleagues Barry King and Ken Kemp, who talked me through some of the issues from a strategic point of view. People I meet on trains regularly tell me what they think of services, and I thank them too.
Gloucestershire is imbued with rail history. It is part of Brunel's "God's Wonderful Railway". It still has the legacy of that; one of our historical problems is the breaking of the gauge, which means that all trains that come into Gloucester have to go out the same way. That obviously causes some limitations. I once wrote a thesis on the Gloucester carriage and wagon works, but I shall not bore hon. Members with the details of it. Gloucester was a rail centre and I hope that it can become one again. More interestingly, I shall mention the fact that, in socialist circles, we better know Richard Potter, a great rival of Daniel Gooch, as the father of Beatrice Potter. I do not mean the author, but the woman who later became Beatrice Webb. That is important to some of us.
I want to talk about the present state of Gloucestershire's rail system and also about what can be done with it in future. I have talked extensively to all the different interested parties, including Railtrack, the train operating companies, the local authorities and

27WH
customers. I attended the rail users consultative committee summit at the end of last year and the county council rail summit, which considered the sort of issues that I shall raise.
I make no apology for starting by talking about the London to south-west and south Wales multi-modal study. That is rather a mouthful, but it is an important document. It was launched on 11 May and, although I welcome it, it is somewhat light in terms of what it offers Gloucestershire. It could have a major backwash in the sense that our rail system could be stymied by a lack of investment and strategic thinking. Will my hon. Friend the Minister look again via his civil servants at how we could at least enhance rail services in the county, because the study could have major implications for its economic development, its ability to link to other areas in the country and its scope to deal with the existing capacity problems?
Will my hon. Friend also consider how to deal with the dramatic increase in passenger transport—I am pleased that that has happened over the past couple of years—and, more particularly, how to enhance rail freight development, in which the county is lagging behind, and examine other opportunities, such as green tourism? Will he consider how better to evaluate the use of roads compared with the use of trains? A major study is being undertaken into the M4, A419 and A417 road network, which I hope will take that into account. Transport 2000 made some trenchant comments locally on how such an evaluation should be made.
The second issue that I wish to raise is most important. It concerns the bizarre situation, whereby our main line east and west from Cheltenham to Paddington has 10 miles of single track between Kemble and Swindon. That has major repercussions for the way in which the trains are organised. It was developed on the basis that a single track was probably better quality than the two tracks that it replaced, but it will cause many problems in the future. I have spoken to Railtrack several times and, initially, it was somewhat cool to the idea of redoubling the track.
However, having discussed matters with Andrew McNaughton, the Great Western zone manager, I am happy to say that there is now some movement. There will always be the matter of who will pay for the redoubling and how it will be managed, given the consequences that will have to be dealt with when, hopefully, the two tracks will be put back. Such an issue has implications not only for passenger travel but because it will reduce the possibilities for dramatically increasing freight use. My hon. Friend the Minister may have something to say about that in his response. It is a matter not only of laying another track but of improving signalling and the track overall and ensuring that the hardware along the line is improved to encourage people to use it.
My third point concerns the reopening of stations. There is a will to reopen stations in the county. We currently have nine stations and we obviously wish to increase that number. A site at Bristol road, Stonehouse—I declare an interest because I live in the town—which would probably be used for the station reopening was identified by Railtrack Property as a site for potential sale. Working with the county council, we
28WH
extended the period during which arguments could be advanced against the sale, but we were faced with the prospect of having an open market auction, which we would have lost.
I am pleased to say that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has now listened to our pleas and has removed the threat for two years. That is important because a working group is now looking at how to bring the station back into use. When such sites clearly have strategic value and feature in local transport plans, it seems daft that another authority—a public authority—should try to sell them. When I told my dear friend, Councillor Bob Eccles, the chairman of Stroud district council, about today's debate, he reminded me not to forget various halts. He is keen on reopening Ebley halt and I know that many people agree with him. There will always be conflict about the use of local and longer distance services.
I want to look at some more general issues that affect Gloucestershire but also relate to the operation of the rest of the network. I would identify three key themes: first, how to continue to increase passenger use; secondly, freight; and, thirdly, hardware, principally stations. I am aware that Gloucestershire county council has done a great deal of good work in drawing together some of the arguments. It has listed, in various documents, the ways in which various lines and services would be prioritised. A lot of room exists to improve the level of service, reliability, and the treatment of customers. Among the objectives is the development of fast, frequent, inter-city-quality through services from Cheltenham to Gloucester to London via Swindon, and the provision of local services, which I hope will at least be on an hourly basis. There are also objectives to develop fast, frequent services between Birmingham and Bristol, calling at Cheltenham and Gloucester, and to make sure that the system is as accessible as possible to people of all types, including those with mobility difficulties.
The strategy is clear: we want more, and we want it fairly quickly. However, there are problems as well as opportunities—as always, the question is: who will pay? In the case of the reopening of stations, most of the money, and sometimes all of it, seems to have to come from local authorities. Both private operators and those who oversee the wider public purse should consider more carefully what benefit they would derive from the reopening of those stations. Having talked to Railtrack at length, I am optimistic about the fact that it seems to want to exercise its responsibilities. However, it will argue that much depends on the current asset condition, its ability to cope with growth, the capacity of the network, franchise renegotiation—which I shall discuss shortly—and overall network development.
As much as I would not want to labour the point about the importance of improving services in Gloucestershire, a great deal depends on how the other end of the network functions. There are serious problems with regard to the capacity of trains serving Paddington and Reading, but I was pleased to receive, in the past couple of days, some notation on what might be planned for Paddington. I hope that that will release some of the pressure on the system.
Clearly, all those who have an interest in the railways should be encouraged to work together to make improvements. Whenever I use the train, which is

29WH
regularly, I find that it is possibly the worst-kept secret of all—more and more people are using it, to their great benefit, but the system is beginning to creak in places.
On passenger operations, the franchise negotiations, which are in mid-cycle, are somewhat confusing. No one would want to pick up the mess left by the previous Government. Some services are up for review, and I am especially concerned about the decision of Wales and West to drop out of its obligations to Wessex from the middle of next year. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the ramifications of such action? Can it be done, and who might provide such services instead? If no one is keen to do so, what will happen? I have been contacted by an old friend, Clive Mowforth, of CoJAC—the Coaley Junction Action Committee—who regularly raises questions about problems on the north-south line passing through my constituency, in relation to the better integration of the service and rolling stock, among other factors. If the Wessex idea is genuinely to come into its own—a Wessex franchise has already been established, and we are building on that—when can we expect some answers about when it will lock into place, and what will be involved?
We need to improve dramatically services on the Cheltenham to Paddington line, although there will inevitably be conflict between longer-distance travellers and local services. Next year, for the first time, we face the possibility of trains not stopping at local stations. Is that the thin end of the wedge? My hon. Friend the Minister might consider how to get the balance right in future.
Although we welcome the fact that the Swindon-Gloucester-Cardiff line has been highlighted as offering potential for freight use, Gloucestershire does not have a freight terminal. Five areas are being considered—Ashchurch, at the Ministry of Defence site; the Gloucester triangle; Gloucester-Quedgeley-Hardwicke; Sharpness, in my constituency; and Lydney-Parkend, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean. I shall not speak in favour of any one of them; I merely hope that at least one becomes a centre for a freight terminal. The matter relates to the opportunities currently available there, and we must make a proper evaluation. I hope that public money will be available, whether from the regional development agency or another source, to help speed that along.
I mentioned the need to keep sites available for reopening stations, and we want to build on existing stations, too. In Stroud, the centre point of my constituency, the station is in the centre of the Cheapside redevelopment. Stations can do a great deal for the regeneration of their areas. Again, we have been fortunate to receive money through supplementary credit approval to enable us to examine how to improve our inter-modal transport. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make some nice noises, and will follow up those noises, about how stations are key to development and to the revival of market towns in particular.
I realise that I have raised an awful lot of issues for consideration, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be able to respond to all of them today, but I am sure that dialogue continues. Like my hon. Friends, I am a great believer in the rail system. We believe that the system that we inherited needs to be substantially
30WH
improved. I am sure that the Government intend to do that, and I am more than willing to do anything that I can to help.
12.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss rail services in Gloucestershire. I thank him for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of several of the issues that he wanted to raise. I was fascinated by the Potter-ed history of the railways in Gloucestershire with which he began his speech.
Gloucestershire is served by several train operators, including Wales and West, First Great Western, Virgin CrossCountry and Central Trains, to which I shall refer throughout my response. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked why Gloucestershire was excluded from the south-west and south Wales multi-modal study. The transport corridors to be examined as part of the study do not include Gloucestershire's railway lines. However, in identifying problems on the transport corridors involved, we need to be aware of problems on the adjacent transport network, of which the Swindon-Cheltenham line is part.
It may be that problems on the transport corridors can be resolved only by taking action on the adjacent network. If that is so, subject to the approval of the steering group, it may be appropriate to select such lines for further analysis later in our study. As a minimum, we must be aware of the constraints on, and aspirations of, the adjacent networks, because they could influence the overall strategy for the study. I hope that my hon. Friend will find those remarks reassuring.
I turn now to the Cheltenham to Swindon line, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred, and in particular to the single-line section between Swindon and Kemble. The route is served daily by several freight trains; a Wales and West passenger service, at approximately hourly intervals between Swindon and Gloucester; and First Great Western through services in peak hours between Cheltenham and London. I understand that Wales and West proposes to withdraw its services on this route. Instead, Great Western and Virgin CrossCountry will jointly provide the same level of service, but using the latest high-powered, air-conditioned rolling stock. Overall journey times between Swindon and Gloucester will be unaffected, though the higher acceleration potential of those trains will provide improved performance. If present commercial and contractual negotiations are fulfilled, the route will enjoy through services to London Paddington eastwards and new journey opportunities northwards to Birmingham and beyond.
I understand that the draft regional transport strategy for the south-west includes the need for
a study into improvements to the Cheltenham-Gloucester-Swindon rail line, linked to the road based study for the A419/A417 at Blunsdon, in order to facilitate enhanced services for passengers and freight.
The regional transport strategy forms part of the emerging regional planning guidance for the south-west. The panel's report on the public examination of draft

31WH
regional planning guidance is awaited. Once it is received, the Secretary of State will consider what changes may be necessary in the light of the recommendation. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy of the report as soon as it is published.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the reopening of stations and gave Stonehouse, Bristol road as an example. I appreciate the importance of that plot of land. My hon. Friend will know from the answer to his parliamentary question on 13 March that the property at Stonehouse was included in the 60-day notice of intention to market the site that was issued on 10 November 1999. The British Railways Board and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will take account of the representations made in response to that notice when deciding how to sell the site. I can, however, be a little more precise and, I hope, helpful on the matter of the land at Stonehouse. I understand that Gloucestershire county council has been informed that there will be no rush to sell and that it will be given reasonable time to get its act together and bring a train operator on board.
The county council is considering a rail passenger partnership scheme for several local stations on the route and thought that it would take five years to organise the business plan and planning permission. However, it has been advised that that is too long and that a period of 18 months to two years would be a more realistic basis on which to decide whether the station should be built or the land redeveloped. There is no immediate threat to the site and time will be allowed to enable the county council to make progress. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by those observations. I am gratified to see, from his sedentary expressions of approval, that he evidently is.
My hon. Friend mentioned the important issue of replacement franchise proposals. The existing franchise contracts were seen by many as a potential obstacle to improvement. In view of that, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister issued new instructions and guidance to the franchising director, asking him to bring about improvements through renegotiation of replacement franchise agreements. On 20 June, Sir Alastair Morton, chairman of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, set out the future map of passenger rail services.
The franchise map, which follows extensive consultation, is based on the creation of three distinct service groupings: long distance, high speed—expanded from current inter-city services—and London commuter and regional services. Of course, the final detailed shape of the franchises created within the groups will be set only once bidders' plans have been considered, and following consultation with key stakeholders. However, the guiding principle behind the map is to improve services, not to introduce change for change's sake. It is intended that the map will revitalise the network, with franchise areas designed to relate better to each other and to provide improved accessibility for passengers. I am pleased to say that people are now using rail in the largest numbers for 50 years. The changes being proposed are intended to ensure sufficient capacity and investment to ensure that the trend continues to provide for 50 per cent. growth in travel in the coming decade.
32WH
My hon. Friend mentioned the issues of Wessex Rail and the Prism deal and I hope to have time to deal with them all. The creation of a future Wessex Rail franchise to serve the west of England was announced by Sir Alastair Morton on 20 June. The franchise could include the area bounded by Worcestershire, Bristol and the south coast, or services to and from Gloucester. It could also include the line between Exeter and Waterloo, local services around Bristol and services transferred from Wales and West, South West Trains and the longer distance Thames Trains services. A study will be undertaken to define the Wessex franchise more precisely. A final decision will be made after consulting local and regional authorities and local rail passengers' committees.
Earlier this year, the SSRA also announced a feasibility study into a dedicated Wales rail franchise to serve the interests of Wales and the border counties more effectively. The study will decide which services should be included and consider the likely effects on passengers and value for money. Wales is served by seven franchises. There is little coherence and they have no ability to work effectively with the National Assembly or to address the emerging needs of Wales after devolution. The study will broadly consider the core of services within Wales and the border counties, excluding long-distance high-speed services that are operated by First Great Western and Virgin Rail, which provide the southern and northern inter-city links to London. The SSRA is consulting closely with the main stakeholders and an announcement is expected shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned the Prism deal. The franchising director reached an agreement on 15 June with Prism Rail plc on the restructuring of the group's portfolio of passenger rail franchises, which includes Wales and West, West Anglia Great Northern, Cardiff Railway and London, Tilbury and Southend Railway. As a result, the Wales and West and Cardiff Railway franchises will be surrendered on 31 March 2001 instead of early 2004, which will facilitate the SSRA's proposals to create a single franchise for Wales and the borders.
The new arrangements for the three shorter-term Prism franchises, which were originally let for seven years, will reflect the SSRA's goal in franchise negotiations to achieve the best possible outcome for passengers and the taxpayer while accelerating the national franchise replacement programme. The franchising director's objective is to replace the shorter franchises, which expire in 2004, within about two years. It is not known when the franchising director will be able to announce the outcome of any franchise replacement negotiations, but he is not committed to accepting any proposal and could allow existing franchises to run to their expiry date. If an application is to succeed, it will have to guarantee better performance, more investment and expansion of network capacity, improvements for passengers and value for money for the taxpayer.
My hon. Friend set out his concerns, which I share, about the performance and quality of service of train operators serving his constituency. Hon. Members will know that last year the rail industry made several commitments to improve rail services during the year. I am pleased that most of those have been met. However, more clearly needs to be done if passengers are to get the service they expect. We must continue to work with the

33WH
industry to ensure that standards are raised. That means better safety, improved performance, new rolling stock and investment secured for the future.
Operators are being judged against a new public performance measure that gives a clearer and more meaningful idea of the actual performance of train operators. Initial data cover the second half of the last financial year, from mid-October to the end of March 2000. Compared with the same period in 1998–99, of the four operators that serve Gloucestershire, I am delighted to say that three have improved—Wales and West, Central Trains and Virgin CrossCountry. The new measure will also allow headline figures for each train operating company to be published every month, which is a clear improvement on the previous quarterly shadow Strategic Rail Authority reports. I am pleased to announce that the first monthly summary will be published this month.
Results from the second national passenger survey, which is a twice-yearly tracking study conducted by the Oxford Research Agency to measure levels of satisfaction across the entire franchised rail network, indicates that between 78 and 83 per cent. of passengers who use the four operators are satisfied with the overall service. However, there are still gaps between the best and worst performers. The worst performers must raise their game to match the best. The powers given to the shadow Strategic Rail Authority by the Transport Bill, which is now going through Parliament, will ensure that they do that or suffer the consequences.
I have described some of the measures that we are taking as part of the franchise replacement programme, as well as the other issues relevant to my hon. Friend's interests. I hope I have made it clear that, through such measures, we are determined to drive up the quality and performance of rail services and lever investment into the industry. I thank my hon. Friend for allowing us to discuss these important issues in this Adjournment debate.

Widening Access to Oxford University
12.29 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this important subject, which has been in the news recently. Access to Oxford university was supposed to be a theme of Government campaigning, and a recent outburst by the Chancellor received a great deal of publicity. This is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss the subject in detail in the House. I think that everyone in the House and, indeed, everyone in society recognises that there is a problem about access to universities for less well-represented groups, especially in relation to the so-called elite universities—I would use the term "top" universities or university departments. We need to do something about that. I am pleased to welcome an Education Minister to the debate: I am sure that he feels as passionately as my constituents and I do about the problem of groups under-represented in higher education generally.
It is unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to respond to the debate, because that would give him an opportunity directly to answer some of the concerns that have been raised by my constituents and others about the Government's handling of the matter. The Chancellor waded into the subject by making a statement that was factually incorrect, offensive to people involved in the admissions procedure at Oxford and, most importantly, counterproductive to the aims of my constituents, of Oxford university and of the Department for Education and Employment. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity, however indirectly, to apologise on behalf of the Chancellor, not only for making factual errors, of which everyone is capable, and not only for the unjustifiable offence caused to people involved in the admissions process at Oxford university—it is a casualty of all politics that some offence is caused—but mainly for the fact that his remarks were counterproductive and will make our task in rectifying the problems much more difficult.
It is worth considering the Chancellor's motives for pronouncing that the decision by Magdalen college, Oxford not to offer a place to one student was a scandal. What could his motives have been? It is interesting to note that he made the remark—which he knew would receive press coverage, because it had already been covered earlier in the week—at a celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act 1970. Was it that the Chancellor had little to say about any new legislative proposals to deal with the pay gap between men and women? Given the subject of this debate, it is interesting to note that a pay gap in higher education has been proved to exist. The Bett report clearly showed a discrepancy in the pay of men and women in higher education, regardless of their status, for which the Government have refused to accept responsibility and refused to provide funding to tackle the problem.
The Minister often says that there has been a real-terms increase of 11 per cent. in funding for higher education and that that is sufficient to tackle the problem. However, he knows that that increase is to fund expansion, which he and I both welcome, but involves a reduction in the unit cost per student. When unit funding per student increases in primary and secondary education, the Government rejoice. In their

35WH
annual report, they announced that as a wonderful thing, but when the higher education unit of resource is cut year after year by this Government, as it was cut by the previous Government, either they have nothing to say or they say that it is a necessary efficiency. I do not believe that equal pay or access can be fully tackled until that reduction in the unit of resource is halted or, preferably, reversed.
It is appropriate for me to refer to an individual case in relation to access to Oxford university, not least because Ministers, including Cabinet Ministers, have already done so. Some years ago, a state school student with a string of As at GCSE, or the O-level equivalent, applied to Oxford university. The student was predicted to do well at A-level, but was rejected by the medical school at Oxford, and went on to America to study at Harvard. That student was me. However, I went to Harvard high school in Los Angeles—and only for a year. I then applied again to Oxford university and got in. It was right that I was rejected the first time, as my performance in the entrance exam was poor. As I understand it, my place was given to a young woman from an inner-city school. She was born on the Indian sub-continent and had done equally well in her education, although she had overcome many more hurdles, not least that of language. I made no complaint and I was pleased to enter the university a year later. The contrast between my approach and that of the Chancellor in the Laura Spence case is startling. I shall speak more about that later.
We should consider the figures, as they are the basis of the subject under discussion. We know that only 7 per cent. of people are educated in the private sector, but that 50 per cent. of places at Oxford university and some other top academic departments go to students from the independent sector. That huge discrepancy is very worrying. The corollary is that the 93 per cent. of our young people who are educated in the state sector form only 50 per cent. of entrants to some of our top academic institutions. The gap can be narrowed, and it is important to note where it is reduced, so that we can see where the problem lies. Information given by the Independent Schools Association to the Select Committee on Education and Employment during its recent inquiry suggests that 20 per cent. of A-level entrants are in the private sector, which, of course, leaves 80 per cent in the state sector. The figure narrows the gap significantly, although there is still a huge discrepancy between the 80 per cent. of A-level entrants and the 50 per cent. of acceptances to top universities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks)indicated assent.
Dr. Harris: I see the Minister nodding. The gap must be closed if we are to solve the problem, whose existence we both acknowledge. Approximately two thirds to 70 per cent. of pupils who gain the sort of qualifications—the Government consider A-levels the best measure—that are required for entry into the top institutions come from the state sector. The pool from which Oxford university and other top institutions can recruit is limited to that 70 per cent. Clearly, that
36WH
percentage needs to be levered up, because it leaves a large discrepancy between the state sector pupils among those students eligible to be admitted and the proportion among those who are admitted.
The ratio of applications from the two sectors, which varies according to institution and subject of study, is approximately 50 per cent. each from the state sector and the private sector. That figure is approximate and varies year on year, but, crucially, it roughly matches the percentage of acceptances or offers made or entrants—the terms are analogous—into the top institutions. It gives at least prima facie evidence that the problem exists mainly in the proportion of the number of people with top A-level grades who are from the state sector and who actually apply to the top universities or, indeed, to higher education in general. It is that gap to which we should apply ourselves, and I hope that Government policy will be directed towards it as well as the others.
In any assessment of the relatively poor performance of young people in the state sector as compared with those in the private sector, we must first say that the poor performance is that of the sector and not of the young people themselves. It would be wrong to argue that there is anything to do with the students themselves that makes them on average less likely to do well in the state sector than students do in the private sector. Classes in the private sector are much smaller, which is what wealthier parents are paying for. We ask whether the Government are doing enough to ensure that funding in the state sector is equivalent to or is catching up with that in the private sector. That will help address the problems of morale in the teaching profession in the state sector.
In his latest Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer put nearly three times as much state money into reducing income tax, which will benefit the better-off, as he made available in additional funding to the state education sector. The Minister knows that the Liberal Democrat party and I oppose that. Our priority is yet more funding for the state sector, and we oppose those income tax cuts. It ill behoves a Chancellor who has such priorities to say that the problem lies not with inadequate resources in the state sector but in some sort of bias in our top universities.
The Chancellor who made those remarks is the same Chancellor who, although it was not mentioned in the election manifesto, cut at a stroke maintenance grants for the poorest students entering higher education and imposed tuition fees on most of the rest. Independent studies of the subject, not least the independent Cubie commission in Scotland, show that fear of debt is a significant deterrent to young people entering higher education, particularly for those from poorer backgrounds.
The Government are particularly keen on focus groups as a mode of gauging opinion. However, it is not surprising that the university partnership in East Anglia found that fear of debt among poorer families in areas with poor access to higher education is a major factor in deterring people from applying for higher education. That is also the view of the Independent Schools Association, which has no axe to grind on maintenance grants for poorer students. Indeed, the director of

37WH
Sutton Trust told the Select Committee that he was aware of the work of the Cubie commission and could understand its point of view.
The Government may have increased access funds, which is welcome as far as it goes, but I wonder whether that is the way forward, because it is a post-application, post-acceptance, post-poverty solution. Once students get into poverty, they are encouraged to enter a beauty parade to decide who is the poorest and who can qualify for access funds.
The major component of the problem relates specifically to the number of applications being made to our top universities and to universities in general. The Minister will know that a huge amount of work is already being done, although it could be argued that more should have been done earlier. Next week, at Oxford university, I shall again attend one of a series of summer schools to encourage young people from comprehensive schools, from poorer backgrounds and from the state sector in general to apply to Oxford university. Such summer schools can be found at other universities. Indeed, the Department for Education and Employment, in its welcome excellence in cities initiative, is funding some of them.
I applaud the Government for that, but it rather defeats the purpose of funding schemes that encourage people to apply to universities when the person in charge of the purse strings says, "By the way, however much you are encouraged to apply, you may as well not bother. The admission scheme is stacked against you because the old school tie or old boys' network is at large." That unsubstantiated allegation has caused great damage.
Application statistics show little evidence of bias in the selection and admissions system at Oxford university. For example, of the students from UK schools selected to study biochemistry—the subject that Laura Spence eventually decided to study at Harvard university—62 per cent. of candidates were from the state sector, and 38 per cent. from private schools. That is similar to the distribution of students doing well at A-level, which is welcome; crucially, the success rate is almost identical for students from each background—a 69 per cent. success rate for state candidates and a 70 per cent. success rate for independent school candidates.
Success rates are similar in the medical school, to which Laura Spence applied. Just over 100 places are available for UK students, and about 500 applications are received. Approximately half those application come from the state sector—the proportion should be higher—and half are from the private sector. Almost every one of those students will have gained straight As at GCSE and will be predicted for straight As at A-level; there is no point in applying without such grades, because it is such a competitive subject. Even if every one of those just over 100 places had been allocated to state school students, 150 eminently qualified and highly able state school students would not get a place. That is 150 Laura Spences—an awful lot of speeches for the Chancellor to make. The allegation that the offers received by that capable student from other medical schools were somehow unworthy is of concern to those who work in the top universities.
One must ask what the Government seek to achieve, particularly when the Foreign Secretary says, on the one hand, that too much cachet is put on Oxbridge
38WH
degrees—I would agree with that—while the Chancellor says, on the other, that it was a terrible crime that someone as able as Laura Spence could not get a place at Oxford and that she was therefore right to reject the other top universities. That was her decision, and I wish her well wherever she studies, but the biochemistry scholarship that she was awarded by Harvard—not the subject that she applied to study at Oxford—will not cover the fees that she will have to pay. Poorer students at Harvard have to take jobs to pay their way, perhaps by cooking meals for richer students.
The Chancellor and his colleagues would do best to consider their own country—Scotland has done away with some of the barriers that prevented people from poorer backgrounds from getting into higher education—rather than some American panacea. The number of applications in Scotland as a percentage of the population has increased this year by nearly 5 per cent. following the abolition of tuition fees and the reintroduction of maintenance grants in some form, whereas it is still falling in the rest of the country. That must give the Minister pause for thought.
Finally, it is important that we realise that a problem remains to be tackled. We must ensure that people with a state-education background apply for higher education generally, and particularly to our top universities. That process is not helped by Oxford and Cambridge and other top universities being portrayed as having a Brideshead image. I get extremely frustrated—the Minister, too, must feel this—at press and television coverage showing Oxford students wandering about in academic dress. The times when academic dress is worn at Oxford are much the same as at every other university.
We must change those prejudices. We must ensure that universities do more to get people to apply for higher education, including at Oxford. That process is not helped by the Government's ill-founded, factually incorrect, offensive and counter-productive attacks on individuals in the Oxford admissions process. I look forward to the Minister answering some of the points that I have raised about Government policy. I hope that he recognises the damage that was done by the Chancellor's intervention in the debate.
12.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that he was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to reply to the debate. My right hon. Friend is elsewhere, helping to maintain a stable and growing economy, which must be good news for future public spending on education and many of our other priorities. It therefore falls to me to undertake the task.
I start with a quotation from the report of the vice-chancellor of Oxford university's working party on access of May 1999. In it, he said:
Year by year, Oxford admits more applicants from the independent sector than from the maintained, although the latter group contains approximately two-thirds of those school leavers who obtain the highest A level grades. Fairness to applicants and fulfilment of the University's mission alike suggest that the

39WH
proportion of applicants accepted should be closer to the ratio of high grades at A level, one-third independent school pupils to two-thirds maintained.
I am struck by the fact that, although the Oxford university working party was not complacent about social inequalities, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon appeared to be so on at least one occasion. He saw faults all over the place, but they did not relate to admissions policies. I side with the university in recognising that there is a serious problem.
Obviously, there has been much discussion about the matter in recent weeks and I for one welcome that, especially because it will become a spur for action. Many universities are doing good work to improve their links with state schools and colleges. They include Oxford, which is why I referred to the Oxford document. They are also reaching out to parts of our country where participation in higher education is traditionally low. As Oxford's vice-chancellor acknowledged, much more needs to be done. Although opinions differ on what precisely should be done, there is no doubt that action to improve the position should be taken in partnership: Government, universities, colleges and schools need to work together.
For our part, the Government have been taking action on a number of fronts to ensure that people with talent and all those who can benefit get their chance in higher education. Given the limited time that remains for this debate, this is not the occasion to speak in detail about our policies. However, I should point out that we are spending more on education. We have taken significant action for early-years and nursery education, and measures such as the primary school literacy hour and the numeracy strategy are in some respects as important to tackling this issue as encouraging an 18-year-old to apply to a particular university. The strategy applies across the board.
The hon. Gentleman presented a critique of our student finance strategy. The system that we have put in place is not subject to the failures that the hon. Gentleman outlined, but the system that we inherited failed in many respects. In his important report, Lord Dearing recognised that universities were seriously underfunded during the previous Government's time in office, which saw a dramatic fall in unit funding from public resources. Between 1989 and 1997, there was a 36 per cent. drop, which is a drastic decline in standards. A further cut was planned for the subsequent two years. It is vital to get right the balance between quantity—with more of our young people going to university—and quality. Spending on higher education was also regressive, as the great majority of taxpayers who did not benefit from it paid for the minority of people who went to university and who came, predominantly, from the higher socio-economic groups. Until recently, the state spent almost twice as much on the education of graduates as on the education of people who left school at 16. Graduates benefit from higher earnings and are less likely to be unemployed.
The facts speak for themselves. In 1960, more than a quarter of the 18-plus group from the top three socio-economic groups went to university, but only one in 28 from the lower groups did so. Mandatory awards were introduced by the Education Act 1962, giving student
40WH
support and paying tuition fees for most students. By 1990, however, participation by the top three socio-economic groups had risen to more than one in three. In the bottom three groups, however, barely one in 10 went to university. By the mid 1990s, the participation rate for the top three groups had risen to almost one in two, or 50 per cent., whereas for the other groups, it had risen to only one in six. Whatever was good about the old system, it did not crack the problem of socio-economic inequality.
The plain fact is that mandatory awards did not promote the increase in participation by the lower socio-economic groups for which many had hoped. We were determined to tackle that problem, which meant some tough choices about what was needed. Consequently, we accepted the Dearing recommendation that those who benefit from higher education should contribute towards its cost. The arrangements that we have put in place mean that we can provide the extra funds that universities and colleges need to widen access without damaging quality.
The income we receive from student contributions to fees has helped us to plan more than £1 billion of additional funding over the four years from April 1998, which is an 11 per cent. increase after allowing for inflation. The costs of higher education are now shared more fairly between students, their families and taxpayers generally. I was unsure whether the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that he would change that policy, but if he was, he did not say how that change would be funded. Not everything can be funded from that famous 1p on income tax. If the Liberal Democrats are to be taken seriously, they must spell out their funding and taxation priorities.
We have also ensured that students from less well-off families do not have to pay fees. Indeed, already more than 40 per cent. of all students are exempt from making any contribution. That will rise to 50 per cent. from next year because we shall raise the contribution threshold. I repeat—poor students do not pay fees.
We recognise that much more needs to be done on the issue of access. The recent data produced by the Sutton Trust and others are not new but are very worrying. We must do more to ensure that all our talented young people, whatever their background, get the chance they deserve in higher education. It is not satisfactory that only 17 per cent. of young people from lower socioeconomic groups go into higher education, or that someone from a private school is almost 30 times more likely to get into university than someone from a disadvantaged background, or that 65 per cent. of those with three A-levels at A grade are educated in the state sector, but only 52 per cent. of entrants to Oxford and Cambridge in 1999 were from state schools or colleges. Many people are angry about that lack of equal opportunity. I am surprised that Liberal Democrat Members do not share that anger, and that they could not suggest one or two ways in which to improve the situation.
I applaud the work that has been undertaken by Peter Lampl and the Sutton Trust. The trust is sponsoring six separate university summer schools at Oxford, Cambridge, Nottingham and Bristol. The schools will run this summer and will be open to able 16 and 17-year-olds throughout the United Kingdom who fulfil

41WH
the necessary criteria. Quite rightly, the focus will be on inner-city secondary schools and colleges where participation is still too low. We support that work and are contributing to its cost.
In addition, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, we are contributing £4 million towards piloting our own summer schools, which will start this month as part of the excellence in cities package and will offer opportunities to children from disadvantaged backgrounds. More generally, through the Higher Education Funding Council for England, we are allocating £30 million this year for initiatives to widen participation. A 5 per cent. funding premium for universities was introduced last year to recognise the extra costs incurred in recruiting students from disadvantaged backgrounds. I know that at Oxford that money has been carefully focused on the recruitment of students who might not otherwise aspire to study there. We have also introduced premiums for students with special needs and are supporting networks of universities, further education colleges and schools to enhance progression into higher education. We have provided £10 million for "opportunity bursaries" of up to £1,000 from autumn 2001, which will be aimed at young students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
42WH
We intend to build on that work to ensure that all universities have professional recruitment and selection systems that maximise applications from able students of all backgrounds. We will also ensure that schools and colleges not only raise the expectations of their students, but assist them in preparation for applications, interviews and selection examinations, which are crucial areas where there is much inequality within the different school systems.
I welcome this debate. The test for all of us will be how we move on. A great deal is being done to widen access, but a great deal still needs to be done. The Government and Oxford university recognise that. The issue is simple and has been debated in the House for more than 100 years. We are determined to offer every one of our citizens of high ability, whatever their social class, whether they are poor or rich, the opportunity to go to one of our top universities. This debate and that stimulated by the Chancellor's remarks have been useful, because they have provoked clashes between the forces of elitism and the values of equality. We know where we stand. I wonder whether the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats knows where he stands.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  "The Judge Over Your Shoulder"
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the date was of publication of the last edition of "The Judge Over Your Shoulder"; what plans he has to update it; if he will place a copy of the most up to date edition in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [128929]

  The Solicitor-General
  A third edition of "The Judge Over Your Shoulder" was published in March 2000. There are two versions: one essentially for administrators, and the other for lawyers.

  I am arranging for a copy of each version to be placed in the Library. They are also on the Treasury Solicitor's internet web site.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Solicitor-General which companies or partnerships have seconded staff to the Law Officers' Departments since May 1997; how many staff have been seconded; and who pays for seconded staff. [128470]

  The Solicitor-General
  Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations. Before an Interchange can occur, all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.

  Since May 1997, there have been no secondments of staff from outside the civil service to either the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers or the Treasury Solicitor's Department.

  Since May 1997, there have been four staff on secondment to the Serious Fraud Office. Two of the secondments had begun before May 1997. KPMG, Hacker Young, Pannell Kerr Foster (all accountancy firms) and Allen and Overy (a firm of solicitors) each sent one of their staff on secondment. The Serious Fraud Office bore all the cost of the staff member seconded from Allen and Overy and in the other cases made a major contribution to the cost.

  One person has been seconded to the Crown Prosecution Service from the Royal Bank of Scotland for a period of three weeks. The Royal Bank of Scotland bore the cost of this secondment.

PRIME MINISTER

  social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to appoint persons with earnings below half average earnings as(a) members and (b) advisers to the Social Exclusion Unit. [128050]

  The Prime Minister
  The Social Exclusion Unit is staffed by a mixture of civil servants and external secondees. They come from a number of Government Departments and organisations with experience of tackling social exclusion. The members of the Unit range from New Dealers to an assistant Director of a local authority. Their previous earnings are not a factor in their appointment.

  Advisers to the Unit are on secondment, and are not paid for by the Unit. They are appointed for their expertise and experience.

  Bilderberg Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers attended the session of the Bilderberg Conference in Sintra entitled, How Durable is the Current Rosy Complexion of European Politics; and what(a) written and (b) oral report of the Bilderberg Conference was submitted to him. [128134]

  The Prime Minister
  So far as I am aware, no Minister attended this conference.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent estimate he has made of the number of war crime murders committed in Kosovo, broken down by ethnic origin of victims(a) before NATO intervention, (b) after NATO air strikes commenced and (c) after the insertion of KFOR. [128108]

  The Prime Minister
  The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia estimate that 10,000 Kosovar Albanians were killed in Kosovo between June 1998 and 12 June 1999. We broadly share this assessment. Of these we estimate 500 were killed before 20 March 1999. KFOR states 430 murders were committed in Kosovo between 12 June and 31 December 1999 across all ethnic communities. There are no official figures for this year, but estimates suggest six murders per week are committed in Kosovo.

  Voluntary Sector (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations the Social Exclusion Unit has received on the effects of local authority cuts on the voluntary sector in Islington; and if he will make a statement. [127893]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 June 2000]: The Social Exclusion Unit has to date received no direct representations about the effects of local authority cuts on the voluntary sector in Islington.

  Vladimir Gusinsky
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he made to President Putin over the arrest of Vladimir Gusinsky. [128289]

  The Prime Minister
  We are following Mr. Gusinsky's case closely and have raised it with the Russian authorities on a number of occasions, to establish more details and to make them aware of the concerns the case has raised in the UK over media freedoms. We have also made it clear that if there is a case to answer it is important the due legal process is observed and that the judicial process is seen to be wholly independent.

  Intelligence and Security Services
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [129290]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's annual report for 1999 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(6) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(7) of the 1994 Act.

  Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has served as Commissioner under the Intelligence Services Act since the role was created in 1994. This is his last report. I am very grateful to him for all his work as Commissioner.

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [129291]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's annual report for 1999 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act and in line with the Commissioner's recommendation.

  Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has served as Commissioner under the Security Service Act since the role was created in 1989. This is his last report. I am very grateful to him for all his work as Commissioner.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under section 8(1) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [129292]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Nolan's report for 1999 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act and in accordance with the Commissioner's recommendations.
  104W
  Lord Nolan has served as Commissioner under the Interception of Communications Act since April 1994. This is his last report. I am very grateful to him for all his work as Commissioner.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hatching Eggs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the decision by the European Commission to decrease the export refunds for hatching eggs. [126821]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: The small change to the export refund for hatching eggs introduced in May was in response to a reduction in the euro/dollar exchange rate. To ignore such currency movements when considering export subsidies would be a breach of WTO requirements and would not represent effective use of EU funds.

  GM Seed
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received on the lowest percentage of GM contamination that can be practically tested for in ostensibly GM-free seed supplies. [126861]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: I am aware of possible analytical techniques which could be employed for detecting the presence of GM material in non-GM seeds, but have not received specific advice on the lowest level of GM contamination which can be reliably identified in non-GM seed. This question is being considered in the context of the on-going discussions taking place within the EC and the OECD on the methods of detection of GM seeds in non-GM seed.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department gave on the prosecution of Christopher Bowman for selling beef on the bone. [126909]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 20 June 2000]: The prosecution of Mr. Bowman was conducted by North Yorkshire County Council. The role of my Department in the case, therefore, was simply to supply evidence not advice.

  Meat Marketing
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of EU funds provided for the promotion and marketing of high-quality beef and veal was spent in Scotland in 1999–2000. [127696]

  Ms Quin
  In 1999–2000, the UK's allocation of EU funds for the promotion of quality beef and veal was £968,000. Of this, £168,000 (17 per cent.) was spent on promoting and marketing quality beef and veal in Scotland.

  Factortame Case
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to meet expenditure relating to payments of claims following judgment against the UK in the Factortame case. [129296]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Parliamentary approval to expenditure arising from the Factortame case is being sought in the Main Estimate for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Class X, Vote 2). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £9.735 million is being met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Day-old Chicks
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2000,Official Report, column 721W, on day-old chicks, if he will list each of the countries within and outside the EU from which day-old chicks were imported in 1999, and the numbers imported from each country. [113186]

  Ms Quin
  [pursuant to her reply, 8 March 2000, c. 721–22W]: The figures for the number of day-old chicks imported into the United Kingdom from the European Union (EU) in 1999, contained several inaccuracies. The table should read as follows:

  Thousand

  1999

  Number of chicks imported

  EU countries

  Austria

  9

  Belgium

  45

  Germany

  100

  Denmark

  411

  France

  3,103

  Republic of Ireland

  1,464

  Netherlands

  58

  Total

  5,190

  Non-EU countries

  USA

  174

  Canada

  18

  Total

  192

  Note:

  These figures are provisional and subject to amendment

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  JC2000
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church of England has for monitoring the schools that participated in JC2000. [128076]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  There is no formal church mechanism for monitoring schools which have taken part in JC2000, but I am very glad that thousands of schools did join in.

  The hon. Member is to be congratulated on the success of JC2000 which, as a member of the Committee, I am delighted to be associated with. JC2000 has been one of the most significant pieces of Christian input into the Millennium celebrations across the country. The pupils and teachers involved clearly enjoyed the project and
  106W
  I have no doubt that taking part has affected many young people's understanding of the Christian nature of this Millennium year.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Index of Local Deprivation
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will release the full underlying data set to be used in compiling the new Index of Local Deprivation. [127560]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The current review of the Index of Local Deprivation is on-going. This final index will include local authority district level scores and ranks. The scores and ranks at the ward level will be published at the same time and will be available for each domain of deprivation. The summary report will contain details about where to obtain, sometimes at a charge, the underlying data used to construct the 33 indicators.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to make an announcement about the new Index of Local Deprivation before 30 July. [127562]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  An announcement will be made to the House about the new Index of Deprivation as soon as the Government have completed their consideration of the responses to the consultation.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department will establish a comprehensive academic peer review of the new Index of Local Deprivation specifically to consider the methodological basis of the proposals. [127561]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The 1999 Review of the Index of Local Deprivation is being carried out by the University of Oxford. In addition to the review being overseen by an inter-department steering committee, the University of Oxford has consulted an advisory panel (with over 40 members) throughout the review. The advisory panel has consisted of a large number of peer academics both inside and outside of the University of Oxford, as well as local authority officials, research professionals and others.

  The University of Oxford has also facilitated extensive consultation throughout the 1999 Review. Respondents to the consultation have included other government departments, local authorities, research organisations, academics and other organisations.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the accuracy of London Underground's statistics on attributable delays; and if he will make a statement. [128042]

  Mr. Hill
  I am assured that the methodology and data used by London Underground Ltd. (LUL) to measure attributable delays are reliable. Attribution is undertaken by experienced operating representatives with the corroboration of their engineering counterparts. LUL have
  107W
  a vested interest in getting attribution right since analysis of such information is a vital tool in identifying causes of delays and monitoring the success of remedial action taken to prevent them.

  Motorcycles
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many motorcycles are registered in each(a) constituency and (b) local authority area. [128031]

  Mr. Hill
  The DETR receives data on the number of licensed vehicles from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency every quarter. The data are comprehensive enough to enable detailed geographical breakdowns, and data for each local authority area are attached. Sufficient information is not available to produce the data for constituencies.

  All vehicles with a motor cycle, scooter or moped body type classification are included. The most recent published data are for end of December 1998. Data for 1999 will be published in Vehicle Licensing Statistics on July 20.

  Motor cycles, scooters and mopeds licensed as at 31 December 1998

  Thousand

  The North

  Cumbria

  8.1

  Darlington UA

  1.2

  Durham

  4.7

  Hartlepool UA

  0.7

  Middlesbrough UA

  1.0

  Northumberland

  3.6

  Redcar and Cleveland UA

  1.6

  Stockton-on-Tees UA

  1.9

  Tyne and Wear

  7.0

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  East Riding of Yorkshire UA

  6.1

  Kingston upon Hull UA

  3.7

  North East Lincolnshire UA

  2.4

  North Lincolnshire UA

  3.7

  North Yorkshire

  10.1

  South Yorkshire

  12.8

  West Yorkshire

  21.5

  York UA

  4.1

  East Midlands

  Derby UA

  3.2

  Derbyshire

  12.7

  Leicester City UA

  2.0

  Leicestershire

  11.3

  Lincolnshire

  12.9

  Northamptonshire

  10.5

  Nottingham

  2.4

  Nottinghamshire

  11.5

  Rutland UA

  0.7

  East Anglia

  Cambridgeshire

  10.9

  Norfolk

  18.0

  Peterborough

  2.5

  Suffolk

  15.5

  The South East

  Bedfordshire

  6.3

  Bracknell Forest

  1.9

  Brighton and Hove UA

  2.6

  Buckinghamshire

  7.7

  East Sussex

  8.0

  Essex

  22.6

  108W

  Motor cycles, scooters and mopeds licensed as at 31 December 1998

  Thousand

  Hampshire

  26.5

  Hertfordshire

  17.3

  Isle of Wight UA

  3.3

  Kent

  23.0

  Luton UA

  1.8

  Medway

  4.0

  Milton Keynes UA

  3.0

  Oxfordshire

  12.1

  Portsmouth UA

  2.7

  Reading

  1.9

  Slough

  1.2

  Southampton UA

  3.3

  Southend-on-Sea

  2.2

  Surrey

  19.9

  Thurrock

  2.1

  West Berkshire

  2.9

  West Sussex

  12.5

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1.9

  Wokingham

  2.9

  Greater London

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.7

  Barnet

  3.0

  Bexley

  4.2

  Brent

  2.1

  Bromley

  5.1

  Camden

  2.2

  City of London

  0.1

  City of Westminster

  2.1

  Croydon

  4.6

  Ealing

  3.4

  Enfield

  2.8

  Greenwich

  2.3

  Hackney

  1.8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2.5

  Haringey

  2.0

  Harrow

  1.8

  Havering

  3.2

  Hillingdon

  3.2

  Hounslow

  3.0

  Islington

  2.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  2.6

  Lambeth

  3.3

  Lewisham

  2.9

  Merton

  2.6

  Newham

  1.4

  Redbridge

  2.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  3.2

  Southwark

  2.8

  Sutton

  3.3

  Tower Hamlets

  1.7

  Waltham Forest

  2.5

  Wandsworth

  4.3

  The South West

  Bath and North East Somerset UA

  3.3

  Bournemouth UA

  2.8

  Bristol UA

  6.3

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  10.6

  Devon

  14.7

  Dorset

  9.1

  Gloucestershire

  12.3

  North Somerset UA

  3.6

  Plymouth

  4.3

  Poole UA

  3.1

  Somerset

  11.0

  South Gloucestershire UA

  5.7

  Swindon UA

  4.2

  Torbay

  2.4

  Wiltshire

  9.4

  109W

  Motor cycles, scooters and mopeds licensed as at 31 December 1998

  Thousand

  West Midlands

  Herefordshire

  3.4

  Shropshire

  4.7

  Staffordshire

  13.6

  Stoke on Trent UA

  2.6

  Telford and Wrekin

  2.1

  Warwickshire

  9.3

  West Midlands

  23.4

  Worcestershire

  10.0

  The North West

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1.2

  Blackpool

  1.7

  Cheshire

  11.5

  Greater Manchester

  21.1

  Halton

  1.4

  Lancashire

  15.8

  Merseyside

  11.5

  Warrington

  2.8

  Scotland

  Aberdeen City UA

  2.3

  Aberdeenshire UA

  2.9

  Angus UA

  1.2

  Argyll and Bute UA

  0.8

  City of Dundee UA

  0.7

  City of Edinburgh UA

  3.3

  City of Glasgow UA

  1.6

  Clackmannanshire UA

  0.4

  Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar UA

  0.2

  Dumfries and Galloway UA

  1.8

  East Ayrshire UA

  0.7

  East Dunbartonshire UA

  0.6

  East Lothian UA

  0.8

  East Renfrewshire UA

  0.5

  Falkirk UA

  1.0

  Fife UA

  2.9

  Highland UA

  2.6

  Inverclyde UA

  0.4

  Midlothian UA

  0.7

  Moray UA

  1.1

  North Ayrshire UA

  0.9

  North Lanarkshire UA

  1.0

  Orkney Islands UA

  0.3

  Perth and Kinross UA

  1.3

  Renfrewshire UA

  0.8

  Shetland Islands UA

  0.3

  South Ayrshire UA

  0.8

  South Lanarkshire UA

  1.4

  Stirling UA

  0.6

  The Scottish Borders UA

  1.0

  West Dunbartonshire UA

  0.4

  West Lothian UA

  1.0

  Wales

  Blaenau Gwent UA

  0.6

  Bridgend UA

  1.3

  Caerphilly UA

  1.4

  Cardiff UA

  1.9

  Carmarthenshire UA

  2.1

  Ceredigion UA

  0.8

  Conwy UA

  1.4

  Denbighshire UA

  1.0

  Flintshire UA

  2.1

  Gwynedd UA

  1.3

  Isle of Anglesey UA

  0.9

  Merthyr Tydfil UA

  0.3

  Monmouthshire UA

  1.4

  Neath Port Talbot UA

  1.5

  Newport UA

  1.3

  Pembrokeshire UA

  1.5

  Powys UA

  1.8

  110W

  Motor cycles, scooters and mopeds licensed as at 31 December 1998

  Thousand

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff UA

  1.7

  Swansea UA

  1.9

  The Vale of Glamorgan UA

  1.4

  Torfaen UA

  1.0

  Wrexham UA

  1.7

  Local Authority unknown

  18.3

  Environment Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Environment Council held in Luxembourg on 22 and 23 June; and if he will make a statement. [128030]

  Mr. Meacher
  I represented the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 22 June 2000, accompanied by Sarah Boyack, Scottish Executive Minister for Environment and Transport. Political agreement was reached on two proposals, along with one set of Council Conclusions.

  Agreement was reached on two important air quality measures which will deliver significant reductions in transboundary pollutants contributing to problems of acidification and ground level ozone (summer-time smog) throughout the European Union. The first, the National Emissions Ceilings Directive, sets national emission ceilings for 2010 on four air pollutants (sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds and ammonia). I agreed to ceilings of 585, 1,167, 1,200 and 297 thousand tonnes respectively for each of the pollutants. A second common position, on an amendment of the 1988 Large Combustion Plants Directive, sets stricter limit values for emissions of oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide and dust from new plant. For existing (pre-1988) plant, limit values will need to be applied from 2008, or equivalent overall reductions achieved through a National Emissions Plan. However, plant with less than 20,000 hours operating life remaining on 1 January 2008 may be exempted. This agreement will see a reduction in acidifying emissions, while flexibility for industry, particularly the power sector, is safeguarded.

  In advance of the Sixth Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, due to take place at The Hague in November, Council Conclusions were agreed setting out the EU position on some of the key issues. Ministers agreed that eligibility for the Clean Development Mechanism should be on the basis of a positive list of safe environmentally sound projects, which excluded nuclear, and that the use of carbon sinks such as forests should not be extended, unless concerns about their scale, scientific and other uncertainties were addressed. The Conclusions also welcomed a Commission communication on a proposed European Climate Change Programme, and its Green Paper on Emissions Trading.

  The Presidency gave brief progress reports on proposals to promote sustainable urban development and to establish a priority list of dangerous substances of European significance whose release to the aquatic environment should be controlled. The Presidency also summarised the environmental legislation adopted under the co-decision procedure during the last six months, and highlighted the

  111W
  increasing importance of this procedure in the Presidency' work. Final outcomes were agreed on six dossiers: a Decision to monitor the CO2 emissions from new passenger cars; a Regulation controlling substances that deplete the ozone layer; a Directive amending Directive 74/150/EEC limiting gaseous and particulate pollutants by agricultural tractors; a Directive limiting noise emission by equipment used outdoors; a Directive on end of life vehicles; and the third EU LIFE Regulation.

  The Commission reported on the progress of a new Community strategy for chemicals, expected by the end of 2000 and a draft new framework for environmental state aids, on which there was a brief exchange of views between Member States. The Commission also gave a report on the progress towards completing risk assessments for brominated flame retardants, based on work carried out by the UK.

  The Commission presented two recently published proposals; one for a Directive on renewable energy, the other for a Directive ensuring proper treatment and disposal of waste from electrical and electronic equipment. Presentations were also given to Council on forthcoming proposals to integrate environmental consideration into public procurement rules and to update the 1991 Directive on batteries and accumulators containing dangerous substances.

  On a Danish point under Any Other Business, the Commission noted that it would be meeting an umbrella grouping of NGOs on 12 July to discuss their participation in the EU standardisation process. The Council also noted an Austrian intervention calling for a ban of tributyltin (TBT) in products with which human beings come into contact, following traces of TBT and other organotin compounds being found in nappies in Germany.

  SERPLAN
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions took place between his Department's(a) Ministers and (b) officials and members of SERPLAN prior to the vote by SERPLAN on house-building in the South-East on 12 June; and if he will list the members of SERPLAN involved in each case. [128163]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and I held a meeting with members of SERPLAN on 24 May 2000. 22 planning authorities from across the region attended. Throughout the consultation there have been a number of meetings with a wide range of interest groups including economic partnerships and environmental groups, some of which would have included members of SERPLAN.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will be taking to monitor the(a) number of abandoned vehicles on public highways and private property and (b) cost to individual local authorities of removing abandoned vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [128465]
  112W
  Mr. Hill
  There are no plans at present to maintain official records of such cases. The existing arrangements with local authorities will be reviewed as we develop proposals for implementing the proposed European End-of-Life Vehicles Directive in the UK.

  Tenant Compacts
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on the establishment of tenant compacts; and if he will make a statement. [128340]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local housing authorities are expected to introduce tenant participation compacts from 1 April 2000. I have myself witnessed the signing of these compacts in recent months. We have recently commissioned a major policy evaluation programme of research to look at how best value in housing and compacts are being introduced and developed across the country. The project is expected to run for three to five years; the initial findings will feed into policy development on these issues and will be available next year.

  SSA (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) by what date he requires the population data for Lincoln, in order to calculate the standard spending assessment for the coming three financial years; and if he will make a statement; [128366]

  (2) what progress the Office for National Statistics has made in assessing the impact of internal migration on the population in Lincoln, with special reference to the requirements of the standard spending assessment for the coming three years. [128338]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The method of revenue grant distribution in future years depends on the outcome of the review of revenue grant distribution now taking place. A Green Paper will be published later this summer setting out options for revenue grant distribution. This follows open and lengthy discussions between representatives of local and central government.

  Grants for 2001–02 will be based on the existing standard spending assessment (SSA) system. We announced in the White Paper "Modern Local Government—In Touch With The People", that during the review we intended to keep up to date the data on which grants are based. This would mean that grants for 2001–02 would use the Registrar General's estimates of population at 30 June 1999. These data should be available by 3 October 2000, the deadline for most data for use in the 2000–01 SSA calculations.

  The Registrar General continually looks for ways of improving his population estimates. I understand that his estimates for 30 June 1999, due to be published in August, will incorporate improvements to the internal migration component of the estimates that have been discussed with local government and other experts. The estimates will include new migration estimates for the previous year based on the new data source. This increases the population estimate for Lincoln for mid-1998 by over 200. I am aware that this matter and others have been the subject of recent correspondence between the council and the Office for National Statistics. The council had been

  113W
  concerned that the improvements would not be made until information from the 2001 census was available. The Registrar General does not intend to wait until then.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received from Lancaster City Council about amending the compulsory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation operating in Morecambe. [128355]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None, though we are aware that the City Council have been considering various aspects of their current registration scheme.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many houses in multiple occupation there are in Morecambe and Lunesdale. [128356]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Based on the information given to my Department by Lancaster City Council in July 1999, there are 1,800 houses in multiple occupation in the local authority area.

  Social Housing
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much additional funding has been allocated by the Government to Lancaster City Council for improving the quality of social housing since 1 May 1997. [128354]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The capital allocations for housing investment made to Lancaster City Council since 1997–98 are given in the table. The additional resources we have made available for housing investment were mainly distributed through the Capital Receipts Initiative in the years up to 1999–2000. In 2000–01 the extra resources were included in the Housing Investment Programme (HIP) allocation following the introduction of the single housing capital pot.

  £000

  Year

  HIP

  CRI

  Total

  1997–98

  1,814

  279

  2,093

  1998–99

  2,002

  1,014

  3,016

  1999–2000

  2,238

  1,101

  3,339

  2000–01

  3,942

  —

  3,942

  Climate Change
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in consultation with industry to implement

  speicies

  Units of estimation

  England

  Date of estimate

  Honey Buzzard

  Pairs

  112–34

  111997

  Red Kite

  Pairs

  157–61

  11997

  White-tailed Eagle

  Pairs

  No breeding population

  11997

  Marsh Harrier

  Females

  1127–145

  11997

  Hen Harrier

  Territorial pairs

  219

  21998

  Montagu's Harrier

  Females

  19–12

  11997

  Goshawk

  Pairs

  3120

  11997, 3, 41994, 51993

  114W
  the three proposals to reduce or minimise HFC use, as set out at paragraph 67, page 79, of the draft UK climate change programme. [128450]

  Mr. Meacher
  The consultation on the draft climate change programme ended on 2 June and we are currently analysing the responses made. Once this exercise has been completed we will begin to develop these proposals further in consultation with industry.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from industry in respect of the new policy on reduced dependence on HFC use, as set out in paragraphs 17 to 20 in the draft UK Climate Change Programme. [128449]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have received over 100 responses to the consultation on the draft climate change programme on HFCs. These responses are currently being analysed and the final climate change programme, which will be published later this year, will take account of the issues raised during the consultation.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will increase the Housing Corporation's approved development spending for rural areas. [128894]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Decisions on the future level of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme spending will depend on the outcome of this year's spending review. The Government's future policy on rural housing will be set out in the forthcoming Rural White Paper.

  Raptors
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the number of raptors of each species(a) breeding and (b) resident in England. [128825]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: A Raptor Working Group was set up in 1995 to consider issues arising from perceived conflicts between the recovery of some bird of prey populations and their impact on game birds and moorland management and on racing pigeons. Earlier this year, the group submitted its final report, which includes estimates of raptor population sizes. The figures are taken from the report and show the best estimates of sizes of breeding population for birds of prey in England using data and information, where possible, from published sources. The total number of birds of prey will be greater than these estimates in the post-breeding season owing to the number of fledged young and other non-breeding individuals.

  Copies of the report have been deposited in the House Library.
  115W

  Species

  Units of estimation

  England

  Date of estimate

  Sparrowhawk

  Pairs

  622,000

  61988–91

  Buzzard

  Pairs

  64,000–6,000

  61988–91, 71983

  Golden Eagle

  Pairs

  81

  81992

  Osprey

  Pairs

  No breeding population

  11997

  Kestrel

  Pairs

  635,500

  61988–91

  Merlin

  Pairs

  9401

  91993–94, 101993, 111992–95

  Hobby

  Pairs

  6500–900

  11997, 41994, 61988–91

  Peregrine

  Pairs

  12283

  121991

  1Ogilvie, MA & the Rare Breeding Birds Panel 1999b Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 1997. British Birds 92: 389–428.

  2Sim, IMW, Gibbons, DW, Bainbridge, I & Mattingley, W 1999 Status of the hen harrier Circus cyaneus in the UK and the Isle of Man in 1998. Draft report to Raptor Working Group.

  3Petty, SJ 1996 History of the northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis in Britain. In: The introduction and naturalisation of birds, ed. by JS Holmes and JR Simons, 95–102. London, HMSO.

  4Ogilvie, MA & the Rare Breeding Birds Panel 1996. Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom in 1994. British Birds 89: 387–417.

  5Shrubb, M. 1994. Welsh Bird Report No. 7 1993. Glamorgan, The Welsh Ornithological Society.

  6Gibbons, DW, Reid, JB & Chapman, RA 1993 The new atlas of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988–1991. London, T & AD Poyser.

  7Taylor, K, Hudson, R & Horne, G 1988. Buzzard breeding distribution and abundance in Britain and Northern Ireland in 1983. Bird Study 35: 109–118.

  8Green, RE 1996 The status of the golden eagle in Britain in 1992. Bird Study 43: 20–27.

  9Rebecca, G & Bainbridge, IP 1998. The breeding status of the merlin Falco columbarius in Britain in 1993–94. Bird Study 45: 172–187.

  10Williams, IT & Parr, S 1995. Breeding merlins Falco columbarius in Wales 1993. Welsh Birds 1: 14–20.

  11RSPB/Irish Raptor Study Group survey data.

  12Crick, HQP & Ratcliffe, DA 1995. The peregrine Falco peregrinus breeding population of the United Kingdom in 1991. Bird Study 42: 1–19.

  South Downs National Park
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the provisional timetable for the establishment of a South Downs National Park. [129115]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Countryside Agency is responsible for designating National Parks, subject to the confirmation of a designation order in each case by the Secretary of State. The agency currently estimates that a designation order for a National Park in the South Downs might be submitted to the Secretary of State in spring 2002. This timetable reflects the significant tasks to be addressed, including the identification of a boundary and making recommendations on the most effective administrative arrangements. The agency will be consulting local interests extensively on these matters.

  Advantage West Midlands
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Chief Executive of Advantage West Midlands. [129037]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I understand that, with effect from Friday 30 June, the contract of Advantage West Midlands' Chief Executive, Tony Cassidy, was ended by mutual consent.

  Advantage West Midlands will now seek to recruit a replacement. I am informed that in the meantime, the post will be filled on a temporary basis by John Edwards, regeneration director of Advantage West Midlands, and previously Chief Executive of the Rural Development Commission.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters 116W
  of (a) 8 March, (b) 6 April, (c) 5 May, (d) 1 June and (e) 29 June relating to her constituent Miss Haley Cresswell. [128918]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My reply was sent on 29 June. I am sorry the hon. Member had to wait so long for this reply. The correspondence raised issues of wider concern.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what monitoring his Department undertakes of Private Finance Initiative contracts undertaken by local government; and if he will make a statement. [129205]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Following endorsement by the inter-departmental Project Review Group, progress on prospective schemes is monitored to ensure that the final contract conforms with the approved business case. Following contract signature, the Department will be notified of when service payments commence. Payments and grant paid to the local authority are then monitored and subsequently audited by the Audit Commission. It is important that lessons are learnt from existing contracts. All authorities are required to share non-commercial documentation with other local authorities procuring similar projects, and lessons are used in the production of standardised contract documentation and other best-practice guidance.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the Government's response to the consultation on proposals for a Quality Assurance programme for combined heat and power. [129295]

  Mr. Meacher
  I announced the key decisions on the proposals following consultation in my statement to the House on 17 May. I have today placed the Government's full response to the consultation in the Library of the
  117W
  House. It will also be available on the DETR and CHPQA websites, and printed copies of the response are being sent to all those who commented on the CHPQA proposals.

  I am grateful to those who responded to the consultation, and for the valuable contribution from CHP users and suppliers and other interested parties. CHPQA has been designed to assure and improve the quality of CHP and stimulate CHP growth.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Dealing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on actions taken following the finding of a cache of arms in Antwerp in February 1999, in respect of the UK companies involved; what prosecutions have occurred; and what measures have been enforced to prevent repetition of similar arms dealing. [128111]

  Mr. Hain
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in answer to a similar question from the hon. Gentleman on 14 July 1999,Official Report, columns 239–40W, we have no information on the seizure of an arms consignment in February 1999 in Antwerp. But we are aware that a shipment of goods originating in Germany, destined for Eritrea, was seized by Belgian Customs authorities in Antwerp in August 1998. The matter remains with the Belgian courts. No charges have been brought as yet.

  A resumption of fighting between Ethiopia and Eritrea on 12 May led to the adoption of UN Resolution 1298 on 18 May, co-sponsored by the UK, imposing on both countries a mandatory arms embargo and a ban on the provision of related technical assistance or training.

  Step Change Project
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 308W, on the Step Change Project, if he will list the membership of the Ministerial Group for European Co-ordination and make a statement on MINECOR' s activities. [128779]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: The Ministerial Group for European Co-ordination works to achieve greater co-ordination of the presentation of Her Majesty's Government's European policies in the UK and overseas, and monitors the Government's efforts to develop closer co-operation with the EU partners/applicants.

  A list of current members of MINECOR has been deposited in the Library. The devolved administrations are also represented at MINECOR.

  Keith Vaz: Chair

  Lord Falconer

  Melanie Johnson

  Helen Liddell

  Tessa Jowell

  Joyce Quin

  118W

  Lord Whitty

  Angela Eagle

  Alan Howarth

  George Foulkes

  Baroness Symons

  Gisela Stuart

  Barbara Roche

  Adam Ingram

  David Lock

  Jack McConnell

  Rhodri Morgan

  Paul Murphy

  Brian Wilson

  Tony McNulty

  Baroness Ramsey

  Denis Haughey.

  North Moluccas
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning attacks by Jihad warriors on the village of Duma, North Moluccas and on the number of casualties which resulted. [128856]

  Mr. Battle
  We understand that between 100 and 158 people were killed and over 200 injured in the raid on the village of Duma on 19 June. The media reported that large numbers of armed extremists attacked the village, shooting at random and burning over 300 homes. The Regional Military Commander subsequently ordered the security forces to secure the area. On 26 June, President Wahid declared a state of civil emergency in Maluku; since then the situation appears to be calmer.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 43W, on QMV, if he will place the UK Government's written contribution to the meeting on 2 May in the Library. [128169]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 12 June 2000, Official Report, column 441W.

  EU Co-operation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of reinforced co-operation on EU matters; [128120]

  (2) what position the United Kingdom has taken in the IGC discussions on the issue of extending qualified majority voting to EU participation in the work of the WTO as set out in document CONFER 4780/00. [128129]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: The Government's position is clearly set out in the White Paper "IGC: Reform for Enlargement".

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position the United Kingdom has taken in the IGC discussions on the issue of
  119W
  creating new specific legal bases for the areas covered by Article 308, as set out in the document CONFER 4780/00. [128130]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: As the Government have made clear, this IGC is about reform for enlargement of the EU. In this context, we are sceptical about the need to look at specific legal bases for areas covered under Article 308.

  Kosovo
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the supply of demining equipment to non-Governmental organisations in Kosovo. [129387]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have approved the export to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) of protective body armour to Danish Church Aid and European Landmine Solutions, organisations engaged in humanitarian demining activities on behalf of the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK).

  These goods are on the Military List. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1160 (1998) prohibits the supply of arms and related material to the FRY. However UNSCR 1244 (1999), provides for the sale or supply or arms or related material for use by the international civil and security presence in Kosovo. We have notified the UN FRY Sanctions Committee of this export and they have raised no objection. The export of this equipment underlines UK support both for the peaceful reconstruction of Kosovo and the work of the UN Mines Action Programme.

WALES

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning difficulties in the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement. [126971]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues including the dairy industry. Recently we have welcomed the removal of dairy hygiene charges in England and Wales. and at the Prime Minister's Agriculture Summit at the end of March some £2.3 million extra agri-monetary compensation was awarded to Welsh dairy farmers.

  Interactive Voice Response Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many departmental telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by interactive voice response systems. [127403]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department does not use interactive voice response systems on any of its telephone lines.

  Nuclear Submarines (Berths)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent consultations he has had with the Ministry of Defence over the use of Welsh ports as emergency Z-berths for nuclear submarines. [127577]
  120W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Ministry of Defence does not have, nor does it plan to have, any emergency Z-berths in Welsh ports.

  Fisheries
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of angler-caught(a) salmon, (b) grilse and (c) sea trout caught in Wales in each of the last five years; and what his estimate is of the number of each of these categories of fish taken by seals in Welsh waters in each of these years. [128855]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: In Wales in the last five years the number of angler-caught (a) salmon, (b) grilse and (c) sea trout were:

  Declared rod catch of sea trout from Welsh rivers, 1995–99

  Number

  1995

  10,754

  1996

  13,123

  1997

  13,914

  1998

  24,401

  1999

  24,629

  Estimated number of grilse and MSW (multi sea wintering) salmon (corrected for under-reporting at a 10 per cent. increase) in Welsh rod catch, 1995–99

  Salmon (MSW)

  Grilse

  1995

  1,491

  3,070

  1996

  2,287

  3,728

  1997

  1,119

  2,865

  1998

  895

  3,863

  1999

  1,065

  2,339

  An estimated 40 per cent. of salmon and 50 per cent. of sea trout are returned (1999 figures) by Welsh anglers. Official statistics and estimates of fish taken by seals are not maintained.

  Responsibility for fisheries was transferred to the National Assembly for Wales from 1 July 1999 within the 12 nautical miles of fishing water surrounding the coast, as defined by the Government of Wales Act 1998.

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employees of his Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage this represents of total staff.[129094]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has 42 full-time staff and one part-timer. One member of staff has been recruited from the New Deal, representing 2.35 per cent. of total staff.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for(a) England and (b) each local education authority the number of additional free

  121W
  early years education places that would be required to meet the Government's target of free places being available for 66 per cent. of three-year-olds by 2002. [126810]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 21 June 2000): 190,000 additional new free early years education places for three-year-olds will be made available using the £390 million allocated by the Government. This will allow us to meet the national target of providing 66 per cent. of all three-year-olds in England with a free place.

  We are currently seeking to target those children in most social need. To this end different targets have been set with local authorities to reflect their position on the Government's Index of Local Deprivation.

  Based upon 1998 participation levels, the table shows the estimated number of new places which would be required in each local education authority area to take the number of free places available in that authority to the national target level of 66 per cent. It also shows our estimate of the percentage of three-year-olds in each area who will have a free place by April 2001.

  LEA Name

  New Places required to reach national target of 66 per cent.

  Percentage of children expected to have free places by April 2001

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  81.9

  Barnet

  695

  51.0

  Barnsley

  502

  79.3

  Bath and North-East Somerset

  899

  18.9

  Bedfordshire

  1,986

  27.4

  Bexley

  669

  44.9

  Birmingham

  2,611

  88.5

  Blackburn with Darwen

  557

  80.7

  Blackpool

  850

  77.9

  Bolton

  246

  79.7

  Bournemouth

  851

  41.9

  Bracknell Forest

  984

  11.8

  Bradford

  0

  83.3

  Brent

  494

  81.7

  Brighton and Hove

  907

  71.3

  Bristol

  588

  70.5

  Bromley

  2,022

  16.0

  Buckinghamshire

  3,392

  13.2

  Bury

  602

  44.2

  Calderdale

  416

  64.6

  Cambridgeshire

  3,504

  18.7

  Camden

  518

  80.7

  Cheshire

  2,953

  31.3

  City of London

  2

  64.0

  Cornwall

  2,575

  48.7

  Coventry

  639

  81.3

  Croydon

  1,276

  57.4

  Cumbria

  1,091

  48.5

  Darlington

  0

  89.0

  Derby

  466

  72.8

  Derbyshire

  2,420

  40.5

  Devon

  3,807

  17.2

  Doncaster

  67

  80.7

  Dorset

  2,456

  12.3

  Dudley

  274

  60.9

  Durham

  0

  76.9

  Ealing

  0

  79.7

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,546

  29.6

  East Sussex

  3,025

  13.0

  Enfield

  1,235

  67.4

  Essex

  8,740

  12.4

  Gateshead

  266

  80.7

  Gloucestershire

  4,355

  12.0

  Greenwich

  245

  84.2

  Hackney

  739

  86.4

  Halton

  335

  80.2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  297

  80.5

  122W

  LEA Name

  New places required to reach national target of 66 per cent.

  Percentage of children expected to have free places by April 2001

  Hampshire

  9,174

  5.8

  Haringey

  149

  83.5

  Harrow

  1,195

  30.1

  Hartlepool

  0

  100.0

  Havering

  1,158

  22.0

  Herefordshire

  1,056

  16.4

  Hertfordshire

  3,782

  39.4

  Hillingdon

  1,596

  37.5

  Hounslow

  293

  76.1

  Isle of Wight

  695

  50.8

  Isles of Scilly

  13

  95.0

  Islington

  574

  82.9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  601

  71.5

  Kent

  8,884

  12.3

  Kingston upon Hull

  0

  82.9

  Kingston upon Thames

  265

  52.9

  Kirklees

  799

  71.7

  Knowsley

  0

  97.3

  Lambeth

  868

  84.9

  Lancashire

  4,979

  44.1

  Leeds

  27

  79.2

  Leicester

  635

  83.1

  Leicestershire

  4,740

  5.8

  Lewisham

  946

  82.9

  Lincolnshire

  2,886

  26.9

  Liverpool

  0

  90.0

  Luton

  1,059

  70.1

  Manchester

  0

  89.9

  Medway

  1,756

  31.9

  Merton

  0

  68.6

  Middlesbrough

  0

  100.0

  Milton Keynes

  1,676

  12.1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  225

  83.9

  Newham

  686

  88.1

  Norfolk

  4,000

  22.7

  North-East Lincolnshire

  408

  76.5

  North Lincolnshire

  866

  48.6

  North Somerset

  1,512

  8.5

  North Tyneside

  0

  81.8

  North Yorkshire

  1,774

  34.6

  Northamptonshire

  3,006

  31.3

  Northumberland

  0

  68.1

  Nottingham

  246

  84.6

  Nottinghamshire

  2,126

  44.3

  Oldham

  560

  82.5

  Oxfordshire

  4,581

  13.3

  Peterborough

  1,258

  40.7

  Plymouth

  1,327

  63.9

  Poole

  1,043

  7.3

  Portsmouth

  1,071

  64.9

  Reading

  613

  43.7

  Redbridge

  1,221

  56.0

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0

  100.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  771

  30.5

  Rochdale

  427

  82.4

  Rotherham

  802

  78.0

  Rutland

  223

  12.3

  Salford

  0

  82.7

  Sandwell

  0

  88.0

  Sefton

  227

  73.7

  Sheffield

  1,535

  82.0

  Shropshire

  1,618

  16.8

  Slough

  487

  51.8

  Solihull

  158

  61.1

  Somerset

  3,185

  10.9

  South Gloucestershire

  1,704

  12.4

  South Tyneside

  0

  80.5

  Southampton

  1,369

  73.8

  Southend-on-Sea

  1,044

  44.8

  Southwark

  221

  85.4

  St. Helens

  443

  78.5

  Staffordshire

  3,672

  30.2

  Stockport

  831

  44.4

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0

  100.0

  123W

  LEA Name

  New places required to reach national target of 66 per cent

  Percentage of children expected to have expected to have free places by April 2001

  Stoke-on-Trent

  34

  79.0

  Suffolk

  4,857

  13.7

  Sunderland

  0

  83.2

  Surrey

  6,053

  19.8

  Sutton

  1,264

  13.2

  Swindon

  1,217

  19.1

  Tameside

  258

  77.7

  Telford and Wrekin

  901

  66.6

  Thurrock

  913

  46.8

  Torbay

  533

  50.3

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  85.9

  Trafford

  98

  64.4

  Wakefield

  153

  76.4

  Walsall

  0

  91.1

  Waltham Forest

  1,058

  80.7

  Wandsworth

  1,083

  78.8

  Warrington

  792

  36.3

  Warwickshire

  2,508

  25.8

  West Berkshire

  982

  14.5

  West Sussex

  4,529

  12.3

  Westminster

  692

  76.0

  Wigan

  1,326

  66.3

  Wiltshire

  3,265

  9.5

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  815

  19.8

  Wirral

  963

  77.7

  Wokingham

  1,122

  7.9

  Wolverhampton

  0

  83.9

  Worcestershire

  2,930

  23.0

  York

  625

  38.0

  European Schools (Dyslexic Pupils)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his policy towards European schools following UK teaching practices in respect of dyslexic pupils; which body is responsible for the establishment of curricula and teaching practice in European schools; and to which EU institution that body is responsible. [128110]

  Jacqui Smith
  The European schools have their own policy and procedures for the integration of pupils with special educational needs, including dyslexic pupils. Decisions on policy and curricular matters are for the European Schools Board of Governors, a body established by international treaty, on which the Governments of all 15 EU member states are represented.

  Child Care Schemes
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many child care schemes have been started up using New Opportunities Funds; how many of these schemes continued to operate after the first 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [128081]

  Ms Hodge
  By June 2000, awards totalling some £32 million were made to 1,017 individual schemes and to 172 consortia. Each consortium covers from three to more than 40 individual schemes.

  The first schemes received their grant in July 1999, and did not begin to function for at least a further month. No scheme has therefore been running for 12 months. NOF has reserved funds for projects that need additional funding, provided they meet certain criteria.
  124W
  Sustaining schemes in the long term is of paramount importance. Drawing on the experience of the early stages of the programme, I am soon to meet NOF' s Chairman Baroness Pitkeathly to consider how the programme can be developed to ensure that schemes can be sustained over time.

  School Security
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial support is available for measures to improve school security. [128268]

  Jacqui Smith
  My Department currently provides an annual grant, through the Standards Fund programme, to all local education authorities in England specifically to support measures to improve security in maintained schools in their areas. The Government grant available is £16.5 million, with local education authorities contributing an additional £5.5 million, making a total of £22 million per year.

  For 2000–01, Staffordshire local education authority received £290,050 from central Government to support school security measures.

  New Deal
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the New Deal for Young People on levels of long-term unemployment among young people in Morecambe and Lunesdale. [128342]

  Ms Jowell
  The New Deal for Young people is aimed at people aged 18 to 24 who have been claiming unemployment benefits for six months or more.

  Claimant unemployment among this group has fallen by 70 per cent. in the three years since April 1997 and by 56 per cent. since April 1998 when the New Deal was introduced. Part of this fall is due to the delivery of a strong and stable economy, but the New Deal for Young People has helped unemployment to fall even faster. The fall of 56 per cent. since the New Deal was introduced compares with a fall of 18 per cent. in total unemployment, 23 per cent. in total youth (18–24) unemployment and 26 per cent. in the total number unemployed for six months or more. The effect of the New Deal is confirmed by independent research from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

  In Morecambe and Lunesdale the falls in unemployment among the New Deal client group have also been substantially faster than for other groups. In the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency in the two years since April 1998, claimant unemployment among those aged 18–24 unemployed for six months or more has fallen by 59 per cent. from 220 to 91. This compares with a fall of 16 per cent. in total unemployment, 25 per cent. in total youth (18–24) unemployment, and 32 per cent. in the total number unemployed for six months or more.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people who have been participants in(a) the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds, (b) the New Deal for those aged 25 and over and (c) the New Deal for older workers have subsequently enrolled on the New Deal for a second time. [128818]
  125W
  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: Latest figures to the end of April 2000 show that 45,930 starts on the New Deal for Young People and 61,720 starts on the New Deal for long-term unemployed adults aged 25 or over were made by people who had previously been on the New Deal. The New Deal 50+ started nationally in April this year and therefore it is too soon for anyone to have re-entered the New Deal. We do not see New Deal as a short term investment and we welcome back those who need the further help that the New Deal offers.

  Behaviour Support
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to provide financial support for primary schools with children in need of behaviour support. [128290]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in April that nearly £8 million will be spent this financial year on extending the Learning Support Unit initiative to cover the primary sector. The intention is that, by the end of the year, 60 pilot units will be running in first phase Excellence In Cities areas. The units will be school-based centres for pupils at risk of exclusion due to behavioural problems, providing them with separate teaching and support programmes tailored to their particular needs.

  Additionally, £140 million is available from the Social Inclusion: Pupil Support Standards Fund Grant to help schools and local education authorities tackle poor behaviour and truancy; and a further £6 million has been allocated from the SEN Standards Fund to support projects in 46 local education authorities focusing on early identification and action for primary-age children with behavioural difficulties.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what further progress has been made in appointing the chairmen of the local Learning and Skills Councils. [129007]

  Mr. Wicks
  Following the appointment last week of the chairs of 21 local Learning and Skills Councils, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has today appointed a further 11 chairs. They are as follows:

  Newly appointed Chairs

  West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull

  John Towers

  The Black Country

  Luke Borwick

  Shropshire

  Andrew Pinder

  Staffordshire

  Anne Williams

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Ursula Russell

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  Chris Swan

  North West

  Lancashire

  Alan Dick

  Greater Manchester

  Anthony Goldstone OBE

  Cheshire/Warrington

  Brian Fleet

  Cumbria

  Robert Cairns

  Merseyside/Halton

  Jim Michie

  126W
  A list of all the successful candidates has been placed in the Libraries of the House. A list of the remaining appointments will be placed in the Libraries in due course.

  The local chairs bring with them a wealth of experience, not least from business, which will be a positive force for success in shaping the work of the Learning and Skills Council.

  Sport in Schools
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions his Department has held with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on extending the number of hours spent on sport in schools. [128823]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have set a very clear aspiration that all schools should provide two hours of physical activity a week, both within and outside lesson time. We are now working consistently with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to inspire schools and partners in the sport sector to deliver this through the Sports Strategy. The Implementation Group, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and I have established to drive forward the strategy, is meeting regularly and will report in December 2000.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cost of advisers to the public sector for private finance initiative projects in schools, as a proportion of the value of the contracts. [128588]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is not directly responsible for the procurement of schools PFI contracts, and therefore does not hold comprehensive information about the costs of external advice. The Department provides financial assistance towards such costs, which is supplemented by project sponsors from their own resources. Experience to date shows that the cost of external advisers for schools PFI projects varies according to the size of scheme and the internal expertise available to project sponsors. External fee costs for large projects involving many schools are typically 1 per cent. or less of total contract costs.

  Astra Training Services
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many former Astra Training Services employees have obtained employment following the implementation of the preferential training arrangements.[128871]

  Mr. Wicks
  No preferential training arrangements have been introduced for former Astra Training Services Ltd. employees. There is an ongoing commitment that former Astra staff will have a guaranteed interview for any externally advertised vacancies that arise within the Department for Education and Employment, including the Employment Service, for which they have the minimum competences being sought. In that regard, individuals who want to be considered for such vacancies have access to my Department's Learning and Development Centres to update their knowledge of the Department and its competence-based recruitment arrangements. However,
  127W
  no central record is kept of their success in gaining employment either in the Department, the wider civil service, or elsewhere.

  Deaf Children
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what appraisal he has made of the implications of universal hearing screening for neonates for the delivery of services by local education authorities to deaf children under the age of two years. [128325]

  Jacqui Smith
  Following advice from the National Screening Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health agreed that a pilot programme of neonatal hearing screening should be launched later this year. An announcement was made at the annual conference of the National Deaf Children's Society on Friday 23 June.

  Pilot programmes will be set up in 20 areas around the country to assess the full implications of introducing a universal neonatal hearing screening programme, including any consequential requirements for education services. This Department will work closely with the Department of Health to ensure that the impact on education services is fully assessed.

DEFENCE

  SIFF Programme
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence against what criteria proposals for his Department's forthcoming Successor Identification Friend or Foe programme will be assessed; and when he expects to make a decision on this project. [128256]

  Mr. Spellar
  Successor Identification Friend or Foe (SIFF) is a complex programme, involving some 40 sea, land and air platform types with total equipment requirements likely to number in the order of 1,000 transponders and 600 interrogators; each set of equipment has to be functionally and physically integrated with the host platform.

  Owing to the number and diversity of the platform types, it is not practical to adopt a single prime contractor strategy for management of the whole SIFF programme. As part of the deliverables from the Assessment Phase, "Demonstration and Manufacture" tenders have been submitted by two competing potential suppliers, BAE SYSTEMS and Raytheon Systems Ltd. for supply of equipment and integration with many of the platform types, and by individual platform design authorities for integration with the remainder of the platforms. Evaluation of these tenders is an extensive task, aimed at ensuring that the decision on the choice of equipment supplier and the phasing of the work to be undertaken by the platform design authorities is made on the best overall balance of operational and value-for-money grounds. All relevant assessment criteria, including commercial, technical, logistics, cost and programme management aspects, will be taken into account in this process and I hope that we will be in a position to announce a decision on the programme during the summer.

  HMS Tireless
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason and for what period the crew of HMS Tireless was accommodated in hotels overseas; what has been the cost per night per person; and if he will make a statement. [128267]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Tireless arrived in Gibraltar on 19 May with a propulsion defect. 58 members of the 130-man crew were returned to the UK; the remaining crew are the minimum required for safe upkeep of the vessel. As facilities on board are extremely limited and not conducive to prolonged use alongside, it is normal practice to accommodate submarine personnel ashore if a submarine is alongside for more than three days. Hotel accommodation is being used on a short-term basis as there is currently no suitable service accommodation available. The cost per night including allowances is as follows: Officers £117.60, Senior Rates £92.60 and Junior Rates £75.10/80.10. RFA Fort Rosalie will arrive in Gibraltar by 6 July and she will provide accommodation for all personnel from Tireless for the duration of the repair work.

  War Widows
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the review of pensions for war widows. [128472]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department is carrying out a major review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. This review is looking at all aspects of pensions for members of the armed forces and their dependants, including widows' pensions, and the question of paying widows' pension for life. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to hope to make an announcement about the review during the summer. War widows' pensions are the responsibility of the DSS War Pensions Agency.

  MOD Assets
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last agreed guidelines with HM Treasury for greater commercial utilisation of MOD property and assets; and what proportion of its commercial returns may be retained by the MOD under such guidelines. [128270]

  Mr. Spellar
  The commercial exploitation of Ministry of Defence assets is conducted in accordance with Treasury guidelines, which are circulated to Departments from time to time, most recently in a Policy and Guidance Note, "Selling Government Services Into Wider Markets", issued in July 1998. As a general rule, the guidelines give each Department generating receipts the right to retain these commercial returns in their entirety.

  Anti-submarine Exercises
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what anti-submarine warfare exercises involving more than two vessels have been carried out by the Royal Navy in the past year; which ships and submarines took part; and where the exercises were held. [128766]
  129W
  Mr. Spellar
  Ships regularly conduct anti-submarine and it is warfare training on an opportunity basis and it is not possible to detail every exercise or training opportunity.

  Event

  Time

  Units involved

  Location

  Submarine Command Course

  June 1999

  HMS Sovereign

  Scottish Exercise Areas

  HMS Sheffield

  Area Capability Training

  June 1999

  HMS Monmouth

  West of UK and Minches

  HMS Sovereign

  Joint Maritime Course (JMC 992)

  June 1999

  HMS Illustrious

  West of UK and Minches

  HMS Monmouth

  HMS Sheffield

  NATO Exercise 'Northern Light'

  September 1999

  HMS Trenchant

  Bay to Biscay

  HMS Turbulent

  HMS Coventry

  HMS Campbeltown

  HMS Cumberland

  HMS Gloucester

  HMS Illustrious

  HMS Manchester

  HMS Montrose

  HMS Sheffield

  Area Capability Training

  October—November 1999

  HMS Iron Duke

  West of UK and Minches

  HMS Montrose

  HMS Norfolk

  HMS Superb

  Joint Maritime Course (JMC 001)

  February—March 2000

  HMS Splendid

  West of UK and Minches

  HMS Grafton

  HMS Westminster

  American Undersea Testing and Evaluation Centre

  April 2000

  HMS Superb

  Tongue of the Ocean, Bahamas

  HMS Norfolk

  NATO Exercise 'Linked Seas'

  May 2000

  HMS Campbeltown

  Bay of Biscay

  HMS Glasgow

  HMS Gloucester

  HMS Liverpool

  HMS Northumberland

  HMS Westminster

  HMS Sovereign

  Submarine Command Course

  May—June 2000

  HMS Sovereign

  Scottish Exercise Areas and Northern Fleet Exercise Areas

  HMS Norfolk

  HMS Northumberland

  HMS Cumberland

  Area Capability Training

  June 2000

  HMS Sovereign

  West of UK and Minches

  HMS Norfolk

  HMS Northumberland

  Joint Maritime Course (JMC 002)

  June 2000

  HMS Cumberland

  West of UK and Minches

  HMS Iron Duke

  HMS Invincible

  HMS Norfolk

  HMS Northumberland

  HMS Somerset

  Flag Officer Sea Training

  Weekly

  All ships undergoing Basic pre-Deployment Operational Sea Training Conduct, on average, 12 hours of ASW training per week

  South Coast Exercise Areas

  Sea Eagle Missile
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the Sea Eagle has been withdrawn from service. [128767]

  Mr. Spellar
  Work undertaken in the Strategic Defence Review showed that we needed less capability in the field of open ocean anti-surface ship warfare. To this end, it was decided to withdraw the Sea Eagle missile from both the Tornado GRIB and the Sea Harrier, as part of a coherent programme of reduced investment in this area of our maritime capability. Instead, our future investment will be in heavier weapons with larger ranges, such as Harpoon.
  130W
  The following pre-planned exercise were undertaken where on of the prinicipal objectives was anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Operational capability.

  Royal Artillery Day, Larkhill
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department and to the Royal Artillery by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about Royal Artillery Day at Larkhill; and if he will make a statement. [128474]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: No representations have been received from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. There have, however, been detailed negotiations with English Nature over the firing arrangements for the Royal Artillery Day at Larkhill in order to minimise disturbance to nesting sites for stone curlews. English Nature consider that the arrangements

  131W
  in place do not present a significant risk of disturbance, especially as the nesting plots in question have been vacated with no sign of return. English Nature have expressed their thanks for the Ministry of Defence's efforts on this issue.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Beckenham will receive an answer to her question tabled for answer on 17 May on the Love Bug computer virus. [128545]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: I have replied today.

  Chinook Crash
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence in Westminster Hall on 27 June 2000, on the Chinook crash, that the pilots could and should have either turned away immediately or slowed down and climbed to a safe altitude, on what evidence he relied to establish, to the standard of proof required by the RAF, that at the relevant time(a) Flight Lieutenant Cook and (b) Flight Lieutenant Tapper could have turned away or slowed down and climbed to a safe altitude. [128555]

  Mr. Spellar
  The RAF Board of Inquiry found nothing that would have prevented the pilots from maintaining safe flight in accordance with Visual Flight Rules or Instrument Flight Rules.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the local Bosnian police report on the fatal accident on Monday 7 July involving Foden Thompson Carmichael FWD EW79AA, near Mrkonjic Grad. [127474]

  Mr. Spellar
  A brief report by the local Bosnian police was completed on 7 July 1997. It consists of a summary of the accident and notification that the Military Police took control of the investigation. It has been translated from the original Serbo-Croat; however, permission is required from the originator of the report for its release. My officials are now in consultation with the appropriate Bosnian authorities seeking release of the documents to a third party. I will write to the hon. Member when a decision has been reached.

  Lemming UGV
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation his Department has made of the Lemming UGV; what plans it has to purchase this surveillance system; and if he will make a statement.[127179]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department is aware of the Lemming Unmanned Ground Vehicle through its information exchange links with the US. No UK evaluation of the Lemming has been made and there are no present plans to purchase this system.

  Robotic Surveillance System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to acquire an updated robotic surveillance system; and if he will make a statement. [127178]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no current plans to acquire a land-based robotic surveillance system. Research is, however, being conducted into the potential of robotics to meet possible future requirements.

  Queen's Birthday Parade
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to issue lightweight summer uniforms to the service personnel taking part in the Queen's birthday parade in circumstances where the temperature is forecast to be well in excess of the seasonal norm. [127229]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army ceremonial Full Dress uniform which is worn by all troops on the Queen's Birthday Parade, and by the Royal Colonels, is designed for a temperate climate. Army Bands do, however, wear their Full Dress uniform in hot climates abroad, such as Cyprus. A lightweight version could not be justified financially for the very few occasions when such a uniform might be deemed appropriate.

  Farnborough Airshow
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department is giving to the organisers of this year's Farnborough Airshow; and what assistance his Department is providing to enable overseas visitors to attend the show. [127876]

  Mr. Spellar
  In support of the Government's commitment to a strong UK defence industry, my Department undertakes a broad range of activities in support of The Society of British Aerospace Companies' organisation of this prestigious show to help ensure its continued position as one of the world's premier aerospace exhibitions. Normal marketing support to UK exhibitors is provided by the Defence Export Services Organisation, and other assistance ranges from providing the exhibition site, airfield support services and facilities, through to helping the organisers ensure the maximum exposure of UK products to potential customers by supporting official inward missions.

  Radiation Detectors
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the IPM-7 type radiation detectors at Faslane base meet the standard required for the function they are put to; what standard his Department requires of BRDL at Rosyth; and what differences there are between the operations at Rosyth and Faslane. [128027]

  Mr. Spellar
  The IPM-7 type radiation detectors are calibrated at least once a year in accordance with legislative requirements. The monitoring arrangements used at Rosyth are legally the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the dockyard company and are not under the control of the MOD.
  133W
  It is not possible to make comparisons between Faslane and Rosyth as all nuclear safety matters relating to Rosyth Royal Dockyard are a matter for Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd., the owners of the dockyard. It is a condition of their contract with the MOD that they must comply with all nuclear safety regulations.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often the Electra ratemeter and BP7 probes are given a functional response check; and how often they are calibrated at each site where they are in use. [128032]

  Mr. Spellar
  At Her Majesty's Naval Bases Devonport and Clyde, the Electra ratemeter and BP7 probes undergo various daily function checks and are calibrated at least once a year in accordance with legislative requirements.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what differences exist in the checks for radioactive contamination between personnel working(a) on reactor compartments and (b) in an active processing facility and nuclear repair workshops. [128033]

  Mr. Spellar
  All service and civilian staff working in reactor compartments at Her Majesty's Naval Base Faslane are checked fully for contamination on completion of their work using an Electra ratemeter with BP7 probe. This supplements routine contamination monitoring of work areas. Additionally, those working in the Active Processing Facility and Nuclear Repair Workshop are monitored using IPM-7 type portal radiation detectors.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Mk10 probe came into service; how many are in use and at what locations; and what plans he has to replace them. [128028]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Mk10 ratemeter came into service in 1976. There are approximately 65 Mk10 ratemeters currently available for use at the naval bases and on board submarines. The Mk10 ratemeters are programmed for replacement in the financial year 2002–03.

  Computer Viruses
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what precise time his Department became aware of the computer virus known as the Love Bug. [122589]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence first became aware of the computer virus known as the Love Bug at approximately 9.30 am on 4 May 2000.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employees of his Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage this represents of total staff. [129089]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The NIO currently has 11 New Deal employees, representing 0.8 per cent. of total staff. NIO' s target under the scheme is to appoint 15 New Deal employees, representing 1 per cent. of total staff. To meet its target the Department has an on-going recruitment competition from which it will appoint a further four New Deal employees.

  Diplock Courts
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the review of the Diplock court arrangements. [129297]

  Mr. Ingram
  The review of the Diplock arrangements has now been completed and a report presented to the Secretary of State. I have today placed copies of the Review Group's report in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Respiratory Diseases
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many posthumous claims have been received from the dependants of former miners suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema; how many of these claims have so far been processed; and what estimate he has made of when all such claims will have been dealt with. [124949]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: To date we have received 36,889 claims for respiratory diseases from the widows and families of deceased former miners.

  Where the condition caused or materially contributed to the miner's death, we have been paying bereavement awards to widows on the production of the death certificate since last year. To date we have paid some £30 million in over 2,700 cases. In addition, we are processing claims from widows and dependants through the full medical assessment process as we receive the necessary claims forms from solicitors. This process has been agreed with the solicitors representing the miners and is designed to calculate the compensation that would have been due to the deceased miner, but is now due to the widow and dependants. So far we have completed nearly 300 such assessments for deceased claims, but we expect this number to increase significantly over the coming weeks as the relevant medical records are obtained.

  We anticipate that all existing claims will be completed in two to three years' time. This compares with 15 to 20 years if individual cases were dealt with the conventional way through the Courts.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what increase in non-fossil fuel resources and/or reduction in energy demand would be needed to compensate for the expected closure of almost all existing UK nuclear plant by 2020. [127480]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Nuclear output in 1999 is estimated to have been about 88TWh, forming some 28 per cent. of the total net supply from major power producers. In the DTI's recent Working Paper on energy projections, nuclear output was projected to fall to around 27TWh in 2020, representing a reduction of 61TWh from the 1999 level. If non-fossil sources were to substitute for the 61TWh of output entirely, this would require an increase in output from non-fossil sources of 500 per cent. from current levels or an increase of 67 per cent. from the projected level in 2020. To compensate for the 61TWh
  135W
  of output through reductions in electricity use, including losses, would require electricity demand in 2020 to be some 17 per cent. less than projected.

  Internet
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulatory procedures are in place to ensure the competitive balance of the internet.[128498]

  Ms Hewitt
  Many activities in the internet sector can be subject to regulation by OFTEL under telecoms regulations. One of OFTEL's key objectives in the area of internet markets is to ensure that the UK regulatory framework is appropriate to encourage the development of the internet so that the UK can be a world leader in e-commerce. Further, qualifying mergers are considered under the EC Merger Regulation, or the Fair Trading Act 1973, as appropriate, taking into account the impact of the merger on all relevant markets.

  999 Calls
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he ensures that OFTEL meets its responsibilities to ensure that 999 calls receive priority over other telephone calls and are correctly routed; and if he will publish OFTEL data on the performance of the three companies which handle 999 calls in their call centres. [128499]

  Ms Hewitt
  OFTEL actively participates in the Home Office's 999 Liaison Committee which provides a forum for the emergency authorities and telecommunications companies to identify and resolve issues regarding the emergency calls service.

  All Public Telecommunications Operators are required under their licences to provide a free 999/112 emergency calls service. Each Operator makes arrangements with BT, Cable & Wireless or Kingston Communications for the answering of such calls and their onward connection to the individual emergency services. The Operators licences also require that they take all reasonably practicable steps to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, the availability and integrity of their networks and the services that run over them, with particular regard to the needs of the Emergency Services. 999 calls receive absolute priority over all other calls and there are several in-built safeguards to ensure that these calls are routed and answered with the highest reliability.

  OFTEL monitors the performance of the emergency calls service and receives reports from BT and other operators of all occasions when access to the 999 service is temporarily lost. Major incidents are investigated by OFTEL, which may recommend remedial actions.

  The performance of the emergency calls service is published by OFTEL each year. The results for 1999 were as follows:
  British Telecom took 22.3 million 999 calls of which it answered 95.7 per cent. within 5 seconds and 99.5 per cent. within 15 seconds;
  Cable and Wireless took 4.4 million 999 calls of which it answered 92.1 per cent. within 5 seconds and 95.9 per cent. within 15 seconds;
  Kingston Communications handled 0.23 million 999 calls of which it answered 99.97 per cent. within 15 seconds.
  136W
  OFTEL intend to publish this year's information on their website.

  Electricity Pylons
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much compensation the National Grid Company will pay to landowners on whose land trees must be felled or lopped along the proposed route of pylons from Lackenby to Shipton; [128369]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the National Grid Company on the felling and lopping of trees along the route of the proposed pylons from Lackenby via Picton to Shipton by Bellingborough; and if he will make a statement; [128368]

  (3) what (a) notification and (b) information he has received from the National Grid Company of the specific location of trees to be felled or lopped along the proposed route of pylons from Lackenby to Shipton; [128370]

  (4) what consultations the National Grid Company has held with the affected landowners who will be subject to trees being felled or lopped along the proposed pylons route from Lackenby to Shipton. [128367]

  Mrs. Liddell
  On 7 December 1999, the National Grid Company applied to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for determination under a planning condition requiring a replacement tree planting scheme to be agreed before the North Yorks power line could be implemented. The Department is currently considering the matter in the light of the views of the Company, the relevant local planning authority and the affected landowners who have responded to the Department's consultation. My right hon. Friend's responsibility is to approve or not approve a tree planting scheme. The purpose of the scheme is to mitigate the impact of the consented development. The question of compensation is not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

  Gas and Electricity Industries
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in developing the future regulatory and consumer representation arrangements for the gas and electricity industries; and if he will make a statement. [129299]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Utilities Bill currently before Parliament will result in substantial benefits to consumers. In order to provide a sound basis for the implementation of those aspects of the new legislation for which it will have responsibility, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets plans to undertake preparatory work right away. My Department also needs to undertake some preparatory work on appointments to the new Gas and Electricity Markets Authority and Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, which will be established once the Utilities Bill get Royal Assent. However, while candidates designate will be identified by the recruitment process, no appointments will be made until the Utilities Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Parliamentary approval to these activities will be sought in Estimates for the OFGEM Vote (Class IX, Vote 10) and DTI Vote (Class IX, Vote 1). Pending that approval,

  137W
  urgent preparatory expenditure estimated at £1 million for OFGEM and £0.3 million for DTI will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 June 2000,Official Report, column 1102, on electricity trading arrangements, if he will publish the names and qualifications of the Embedded Generation Working Group, its terms of reference and work programming; and if he will make a statement. [128848]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The names, positions and contact details for the joint industry-government working group on embedded generation network access are published on the DTI website at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/egwg/ along with its terms of reference, work programming, and minutes of past plenary meetings. This group focuses on network access issues. The position of such generators in respect of the new electricity trading arrangements (NETA) is handled separately.

  Within the NETA process, a number of expert groups have been established, including the Specials Expert Group, the work of which includes the position of licence exempt generators under NETA. The terms of reference of the expert groups was published in paper DISG 21/04 which is available on the Ofgem website. They are
  "to assist the Business Requirements and Review Team in reviewing Programme products assessing Change Requests and providing guidance and advice to the Programme. In all these instances, the basis of the activity will be to seek to ensure that the deliverables from the Programme are compliant with stakeholder requirements".
  The Specials Expert Group has developed a range of proposals to assist licence exempt generators to manage their commercial position in the NETA market, and that work continues. The membership of the Group is: Tony Bramley (Tanaris Energy); Graham Meeks (ETSU); David Smol (ILEX); Louise Elder (NGC); Robert Hockland (Scottish and Southern); Peter Clubb (ALEC); Stephen Andrews (ILEX); Andrew Wood (NFPA); Afrose Miah (PowerGen); Wyn Jones (Alcan); Liz Aveyard (Corns); Bob Brown (Norweb); Andrew MacDonald (Concert Energy); Steve Garrett (Slough Heat and Power); and Maurice Smith (Campbell Carr).

  Post Offices
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many post offices have closed in(a) Derbyshire and (b) each Derbyshire parliamentary constituency since 1979; [129010]

  (2) how many post offices were closed in (a) Derbyshire and (b) each Derbyshire parliamentary constituency between 1979 and 1997. [129009]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Offices that it does not hold historical data by county or parliamentary constituency for the numbers of post offices which have closed or opened.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there are in(a) Derbyshire and (b) Amber Valley constituency. [129003]
  138W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that as at October 1999, the latest date for which such information is available, there were 37 post offices in the Amber Valley constituency and 337 in the county of Derbyshire.

  Export Licence Application No. 9764
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on export licence application No. 9764 to Turkey. [128927]

  Dr. Howells
  The application is currently under consideration in conjunction with other Government departments. A decision on the licence application will be reached as quickly as possible consistent with the need to give full consideration to the issue involved.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of tests currently being carried out to assess the medical benefits of cannabis. [127540]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Medical Research Council is supporting a clinical trial to look at the efficacy of cannabis extracts in the treatment of spasticity in multiple sclerosis patients. The trial was announced in December 1999 and is being run by Dr. John Zajicek (Derriford Hospital, Plymouth) and the MRC Clinical Trials Unit.

  The trial is making good progress; local ethical committee approval has been obtained in principle and an application has been made to the Medicines Control Agency for the appropriate licence. The cannabinoids will be given exclusively in capsule form. Recruitment of patients is planned to start later in the summer. The results will be available in about 2.5 years, after formal scientific assessment of the results has taken place.

  Energy (Office Buildings)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the increase in energy consumption in commercial buildings, including the office sector, in the last 15 years for which figures are available. [127452]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [pursuant to the reply, 26 June 2000, c. 375W]: The original reply was incorrect, and should have been as follows.

  Energy consumption by commercial and other services (including agriculture and public administration) increased by 22 per cent. between 1984 and 1999.

HEALTH

  Smoking
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the protection of young people from the dangers of tobacco smoking. [127524]

  Mr. Hutton
  As part of its comprehensive programme of action to tackle smoking, the Government are taking a number of measures which will protect children against the dangers of tobacco. We will shortly announce measures to
  139W
  strengthen enforcement of legislation on under-age sales of cigarettes, encouragement of proof-of-age cards and a targeted education campaign aimed at young people.

  Surgical Procedures
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in the number of surgical procedures carried out by independent healthcare providers on behalf of the NHS in the last three years. [127525]

  Ms Stuart
  This information is not collected centrally. However, in the last three years the total spent outside the National Health Service on all in-patient and day cases (surgical and medical) has risen from £86 million to £103 million, an increase of around £17 million. This remains around 1 per cent. of the total NHS spend on the same cases in the same period.

  Children (Faltering Growth)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce new guidelines to help young children with faltering growth, taking account of recent research published by the Children's Society. [127526]

  Yvette Cooper
  The research undertaken by the Children's Society provides an overview of current practices and the effectiveness of interventions. It gives useful information for professionals working with children. The Department, in providing grant aid, has supported the society in establishing the Feeding Matters programme. Sharing the successful outcomes of these programmes and projects such as Sure Start will enable more families to receive this support.

  Primary Care Groups and Trusts
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the delivery of patient care through primary care trusts; and if he will make a statement. [127527]

  Mr. Denham
  I and my officials have regular meetings with a range of national and local stakeholders to discuss such issues.

  Mr. Raney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the operation of primary care groups. [127545]

  Mr. Denham
  My officials and I have regular meetings with a range of national and local stakeholders to discuss such issues.

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of doctors working in the NHS(a) currently and (b) between 1992 and 1997. [127528]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently over 90,000 doctors working in the National Health Service; 4,000 more than there were in 1997. Money we made available from the first Comprehensive Spending Review will enable the NHS to take on up to 7,000 more doctors by March 2002.

  Census Forms (Trent)
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions he has drawn from interim analysis of the national health service census forms returned by residents of the Trent region. [127529]

  Mr. Denham
  Of almost 29,000 suggestions made by members of the public within the Trent region, it can be concluded that their main concerns are the need for more capacity (27 per cent.), "doing things differently" (18 per cent.) and waiting (16 per cent.). These are consistent with the top three concerns expressed by the public nationally.

  Intermediate Care (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of intermediate care in Worcestershire. [127530]

  Yvette Cooper
  Worcestershire Health Authority has substantially increased its spending on intermediate care in the current financial year. During the last 12 months a number of services have been developed and implemented within Worcestershire which have enabled patients to be cared for in clinically appropriate environments which meet their individual needs.

  MRSA
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to reduce deaths from methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus. [127531]

  Mr. Denham
  Tackling hospital-acquired infection, including MRSA, underpins the priorities identified in the National Priorities Guidance. We have developed and issued national standards for infection control that place responsibility on Chief Executives of National Health Service trusts to deliver locally. Progress on compliance with these standards will be independently reviewed and monitored by both the Audit Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement.

  Scientific Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase recruitment and retention of scientific staff in the NHS. [127532]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Advisory Group for Scientists and Technicians has been charged with developing plans to improve work force planning, education, training and career development among that group of staff. The Department of Health is also developing a specific strategy for improving recruitment and retention, liaising closely with employers, professional bodies and trade unions to raise the profile of the work of scientists.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of cottage hospitals in South Staffordshire. [127533]

  Yvette Cooper
  South Staffordshire Health Authority has undertaken a wide ranging strategic review of services. Following this period of informal consultation, specific proposals will be presented for formal public
  141W
  consultation. It would therefore not be possible for me to comment at this time on the future provision of services at specific sites in South Staffordshire.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that, following diagnosis, persons with MS have access to a named consultant neurologist to help them manage their condition. [127534]

  Mr. Hutton
  Multiple sclerosis can be very difficult to diagnose. The usual treatment path is for a patient to be referred to a consultant neurologist by their general practitioner. Once the relationship is established between the patient and the consultant, it would be normal for the patient, whenever it is clinically necessary, to continue seeing that consultant for the management of their condition.

  Cataract Services
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on cataract services in the NHS. [127535]

  Mr. Denham
  We intend to improve access to treatment for people who need cataract surgery. We are investing £20 million over two years to modernise cataract services. This will ensure quicker and more efficient services for patients and increase the number of cataract operations performed to 250,000 by the year 2003.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the risk to health of people living near telecommunications masts. [127536]

  Yvette Cooper
  The recently published report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (the Stewart Group) concluded that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to health to people living near base stations, but that gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the planned level of capital investment in the NHS over the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [127537]

  Mr. Denham
  The planned level of Capital Investment in the National Health Service, including the Private Finance Initiative, is £1.942 billion in 1999–2000 and £2,736 billion in 2000–01.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the ability of the health authority funding formula to reflect health service needs in each area. [127544]

  Mr. Denham
  The current formula includes a wide range of health and socio-economic indicators associated with the need for healthcare.
  142W
  There have, however, been growing concerns about how well the formula matches cash to health need. The healthcare needs of populations must be the driving force in determining where cash goes. We have therefore asked the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to oversee a wide-ranging review of the formula.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the sums required and (b) the percentage increase in funding required to achieve financial balance in each NHS health authority area by 2000–01; and what percentage of the additional NHS funding recently announced is required to achieve financial balance in each case. [128554]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authorities do not spend money on achieving financial balance. In consultation with local stakeholders they use their allocations to commission services for their local populations. In planning their spending they are required to live within the resources available.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of NHS dental services. [127538]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are aware of the problems in accessing National Health Service dentistry in some parts of the country and have taken steps to address them. Improving access to services will be an integral part of the Government's plans to modernise NHS dentistry, which will be published in conjunction with the National Plan for the New NHS.

  Walk-in Centres
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards establishing the planned new NHS walk-in centres. [127539]

  Mr. Denham
  36 National Health Service Walk-in Centre pilots were approved last year. 21 have opened to date, with the remaining sites to open by December 2000. NHS walk-in centres will improve access to and convenience of services for patients.

  Patient Choice
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about patient choice in the NHS. [127541]

  Mr. Denham
  The rights of patients are one of the issues being considered in the preparation of the National Plan.

  Consultants
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to monitor the performance levels of NHS consultants. [127542]

  Mr. Denham
  We are currently negotiating a new contract for National Health Service consultants and have agreed with the British Medical Association the key areas to be negotiated over the next few months. That will include the introduction of employer-based appraisal for all consultants which, coupled with tighter job planning
  143W
  mechanisms, will provide NHS managers with a more effective framework to manage the performance and time of their consultants.

  Alcohol Strategy
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the consultation paper on a national alcohol strategy; and if he will make a statement. [127546]

  Yvette Cooper
  We plan to publish a consultation paper later this year, which will allow a period for comment prior to the publication of the strategy.

  Health Inequalities (London)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to reduce health inequalities in London. [127547]

  Yvette Cooper
  Action to reduce inequalities in health is a major priority, as are addressing black and minority ethnic health, regenerating deprived areas and improving transport. The reduction in health inequalities is a shared priority for local health and social services.

  A London health strategy has been developed over the last year by a partnership with representatives from business, local government, environment, leisure and housing organisations, the National Health Service, academic institutions and voluntary and community groups.

  The London health strategy will reduce inequalities in health and this work will complement the implementation of major government initiatives to tackle inequalities and focus them on the particular problems being faced in London.

  National Plan (Beds)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he is making on providing for additional beds under the national plan; and if he will make a statement. [127543]

  Mr. Denham
  We will be publishing the national plan in July.

  Freeman Hospital, Newcastle
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the maximum waiting times are for a consultant appointment at the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle; and if he will make a statement. [127804]

  Mr. Denham
  Latest published data for the quarter ending 31 March 2000 show that 75 per cent. of patients referred by their general practitioner to the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals National Health Service Trust are seen within 13 weeks for first out-patient appointments and 95 per cent. are seen within 26 weeks. Lengthy waits being experienced for orthopaedic surgery are being addressed by the appointment of a new consultant.

  Prescription Drugs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 10 most expensive drugs, in 144W
  terms of treatment per patient per year, prescribed by the NHS and the number of patients involved in each case in the last year for which figures are available. [127862]

  Ms Stuart
  It is not possible to provide information in the form requested because individual patients require different treatment regimes, nor is information collected on the numbers of patients receiving medicines.

  However, as a general rule the most expensive treatments per patient per year are those used to treat very rare diseases or rare complications of diseases, e.g. Gaucher's Disease or complication of haemophilia.

  Nursing Vacancies (Advertising)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on advertising for nursing vacancies in newspapers and journals by each hospital trust in England and Wales in 1998–99. [128083]

  Ms Stuart
  Information on how much is spent on advertising in newspapers and journals by each hospital trust in England and Wales for nursing vacancies is not held centrally.

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce legislation to secure a greater supply of organs for transplant; and if he will make a statement. [128113]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no plans at this time to introduce legislation to change the way in which organs are donated for transplant.

  Our current publicity campaign, which was launched in 1998, is on-going and encourages people to join the National Health Service Organ Donor Register, carry the donor card and, most importantly, discuss their wishes with their friends and family.

  Medical Services (Cleveland)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many doctors have joined the NHS in each year since 1990 and how many have joined in total since May 1997(a) nationally, (b) in Teesside and (c) in the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East; and if he will make a statement; [128511]

  (2) how many nurses have joined the NHS in each year since 1990; how many joined in total since May 1997 (a) nationally, (b) in Teesside and (c) in the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East; and if he will make a statement. [128514]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table. Information is not collected for the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East.

  Number of NHS Doctors1 in Tees Health Authority and England, 1990–99

  Headcount

  Tees HA2

  England

  1990

  881

  101,243

  19913

  949

  102,568

  19923

  999

  103,925

  19933

  1,109

  105,740

  19943

  1,151

  106,685

  145W

  Number of NHS Doctors1 in Tees Health Authority and England, 1990–99

  Headcount

  Tees HA2

  England

  1995

  1,217

  109,869

  1996

  1,294

  112,206

  1997

  1,382

  115,439

  1998

  1,408

  117,927

  1999

  1,452

  120,347

  1Includes all hospital medical staff (except Clinical Assistants and Hospital Practitioners, most of whom also work as GMPs); all General Medical Practitioners (except retainers); Public Health Medicine and Community Health Service Medical staff. Excludes locum doctors.

  2GMP data relate to Cleveland FPC for 1990, Cleveland FHSA for 1991 to 1995 and Tees HA from 1996 onwards.

  3Figures for 1991 to 1994 may not be fully comparable with other data due to under-recording of fundholding practice staff by FHSAs. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census at 30 September each year

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics at 1 October each year

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and practice nurses, in England and Tees Regional Health Authority, as at 30 September each year

  Whole time equivalents

  England

  Tees HA

  1990

  403,100

  n/a

  1991

  400,980

  n/a

  1992

  387,910

  n/a

  1993

  371,060

  n/a

  1994

  357,780

  n/a

  1995

  340,190

  4,130

  1996

  342,480

  4,400

  1997

  340,700

  4,460

  1998

  342,550

  4,760

  1999

  349,270

  4,870

  n/a = not applicable

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  3. A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Junior Doctors
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of the European Working Time Directive on junior doctors; and how many junior doctors are working in excess of the directive-recommended hours. [128802]

  Mr. Denham
  We welcome the agreement reached between the Council and the European Parliament to extend the Working Time Directive to junior doctors. The transition period of up to twelve years for implementing the Directive will allow junior doctors' working hours to be reduced in a planned and sustained way while, at the same time, protecting patient services and safeguarding our ambitious and much-needed programme of modernisation for the National Health Service.
  146W
  The transition period requires, in its initial phase, that no junior doctor should work more than 56 hours a week by 2007. NHS trusts' figures for March 2000 show that 64 per cent. of junior doctors in England meet the full range of hours and rest period targets set out in the juniors' New Deal, including the requirement that they do not work more than 56 hours a week. The 56 hour limit will be incorporated into all junior doctor contracts from August 2003.

  Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to end the practice of seeking references from hon. Members on shortlisted applicants for appointment to(a) NHS trusts, (b) health authorities and (c) primary care trusts, since the publication of the Fritchie report. [129030]

  Ms Stuart
  A response to Dame Rennie Fritchie's report on appointments to National Health Service boards will be made shortly. This will address the recommendation that comments should no longer be sought from hon. Members on shortlisted candidates for chair appointments.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) shortlisted applicants for and (b) appointments as (i) chairman and (ii) non-executive director of primary care trusts have declared political activity for (A) the Labour Party, (B) the Conservative Party and (C) the Liberal Democrat Party. [129029]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested as at 3 July 2000 is given in the table.

  Labour

  Conservative

  Liberal Democrat

  Ind./No Political activity

  Non-executives

  Short-listed candidates

  39

  12

  4

  95

  Appointed candidates

  15

  8

  2

  53

  Success rate (per cent.)

  38.5

  66

  50

  55.8

  Chairs

  Short-listed candidates

  11

  5

  2

  21

  Appointed candidates

  5

  2

  2

  13

  Success rate (per cent.)

  45

  40

  100

  62

  Access to Health Care
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce regional variations in access to health care. [127517]

  Mr. Denham
  We are setting standards through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the National Service Frameworks. We are ensuring local delivery through clinical governance and monitoring delivery through the performance assessment framework and the Commission for Health Improvement. We are working with relevant parties, utilising the record increases in National Health Service funding announced in the Budget to improve NHS performance.

  Community Care Services
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost for(a) Scotland and (b) the UK of abolishing charging for essential non-residential community care services. [128132]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1998–99, councils in England raised £295 million in sales, fees and charges from all clients of all ages for non-residential services. The responsibility for information relating to Scotland is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Prescription Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the level of accuracy of his Department's most recent measurement of prescription fraud. [128913]

  Ms Stuart
  The measurement exercise was designed so as to ensure that the variation in the results due to sampling should be no more than 1 per cent. (So that for an estimate of x per cent. the true value would have a 95 per cent. confidence interval of x plus 1 per cent. and x minus 1 per cent. or better). In fact the final estimate of the fraud/in error rate had 95 per cent. confidence limits of plus or minus 0.6 per cent.

  A sample of forms dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors to people claiming exemption from payment for prescription charges was selected using robust statistical techniques. The selected prescription forms were then subjected to a stringent investigative process to establish whether the patient who had made the claim had done so correctly, in error or fraudulently. Each case was investigated and examined individually and, where necessary, patients were contacted to establish the reasons for inconsistencies in the information given by them. The National Audit Office have examined the methodology used to arrive at the estimates and found that it was sound.

  Buddying Schemes
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the buddying schemes for people with disabilities in England which are run by(a) community health trusts, (b) social services departments and (c) voluntary organisations; and if he will make a statement. [128836]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. It is for health authority and local authority commissioners to decide whether to commission buddying services locally.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is available from his Department to finance buddying schemes for people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [128835]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department provides grants to voluntary organisations through the scheme administered under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. Some of these grants may, from time to time, be used to fund buddying schemes.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total funding available from(a) central Government and (b) voluntary organisations
  148W
  for the running of buddying schemes for people with disabilities in England; and if he will make a statement. [128837]

  Mr. Hutton
  No Section 64 grants are currently provided specifically to fund buddying schemes. Information about funding from voluntary organisations is not available centrally.

  NICE
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to hear oral evidence from multiple sclerosis patients; [129116]

  (2) what guidance he has given to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence about taking evidence from patients. [129117]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) determines its own processes, within broad guidance from Ministers set out in a "Memorandum of Understanding" of August 1999. We have asked NICE to follow a transparent and well-structured process for its appraisals, giving appropriate interested parties the opportunity to submit evidence, to comment on draft conclusions, and to appeal to a panel independent of those involved in the original judgment. For their appraisal of beta interferon NICE have sought evidence from patient representative organisations and we anticipate that NICE will be well aware from this of the views of individual multiple sclerosis patients.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of(a) 3 March, (b) 6 April, (c) 5 May, (d) 1 June and (e) 29 June relating to her constituent Mrs. K. Costas. [128917]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon. Member on 3 July.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of(a) 6 April, (b) 5 May, (c) 1 June and (d) 29 June relating to her constituent, Mr. John Huggett. [128915]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon. Member on 3 July.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what costs the NHS has incurred as a consequence of the National Changeover Plan. [128914]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service is carrying out a measure of pre-planning for the possible introduction of the euro as set out in the second Outline National Changeover Plan published on 9 March 2000. The costs of this on-going exercise are contained within normal running costs and cannot be separately identified.

  Healthy Living Centres
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of healthy living centres in the Government's public health strategy. [127513]
  149W
  Yvette Cooper
  The New Opportunities Fund is responsible for funding the healthy living centre initiative. Healthy living centre applicants need to demonstrate that their projects will support national and local health strategies. Healthy living centres will have a key role to play in reducing inequalities and supporting the work of other statutory and voluntary agencies locally. Healthy living centres funded through this initiative will promote good health in its broadest sense.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what cost savings are planned for the rest of the year at the Dome. [123984]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: NMEC is achieving £20 million cost savings over the project's remaining lifetime which will bring the project back to its original cash ceiling budget of £758 million. In addition, NMEC is continuing to focus on cost efficiency and cost savings and aims to deliver more.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the basis on which the estimated closure costs of the Dome have been calculated. [126872]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: The closure costs of the Millennium Dome will be subject to the nature of the proposal from the winning bidder in the Legacy competition. Any non-planned closure costs would be determined by the nature and quantum of contractual liabilities at that point in time, including staff termination payments, supplier and contractor payments and legal bills.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of sponsorship payments due to the new Millennium Experience Company in respect of the Dome had been received on time by 31 May. [126649]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: All sponsor contracts are individually tailored for each sponsorship, including phasing of sponsorship payments. At 31 May, all contractual sponsorship payments had been made. At that stage the contract with Boots was nearing finalisation and the company had paid amounts in advance of signature. The Boots contract has now been signed and all due payments have been made.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the cost of making admission to the Dome free from 1 July to the end of the year. [127485]

  Janet Anderson
  On the basis of ticket income foregone against the planned visitor volume, the cost of free entry from 1 July would be about £40 million.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what type of information on ticket sales to the Millennium Dome has been released to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on a commercial-in-confidence basis which has not been made publicly available. [125529]
  150W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  No information on ticket sales has been made available to the Select Committee on a commercial-in-confidence basis which has not been made publicly available. Information on visitor figures is regularly posted on the Dome's website (www.Dome2000.co.uk).

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment the New Millennium Experience Company has made of its ability to meet its published commercial income target. [125027]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]: NMEC has already made it clear that the original business plan assumptions were over-optimistic and its revised business plan, on the basis of 6 million revenue-generating visitors, forecasts commercial income (tickets, merchandise, food, corporate hospitality and events) of £86.1 million. Part of the difference between the original and current forecasts is mitigated by the revenue contingency factored into the original budget. The remaining difference formed part of the NMEC's applications for additional Lottery grant in January 2000 and May 2000. Despite the revision of the business assumptions the Dome is the most successful paying visitor attraction in the UK, achieving 3 million visitors in six months, and is the second most successful in Europe.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will answer the questions from the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central on the NMEC, tabled for answer on 9 June. [128620]

  Janet Anderson
  I answered my hon. Friend's questions (125528, 125530 and 125531) on the NMEC on 29 June 2000,Official Report, columns 618–19W. I am answering question No. 125529 today.

  Flaxmill Project
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for how long the English Heritage grant will be available for the Flaxmill project in Shrewsbury; and if he will make a statement. [125945]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The English Heritage grant will be available as long as it is needed to get this important project off the ground. English Heritage grants are normally time limited and conditional on works starting within six months, and being completed within two years, of the date of offer. However, in this case English Heritage have agreed to hold their grants offer open in the hope that their funding partners will be able to find their share of the funds needed to secure the future of this Grade I listed building at risk.

  Listed Churches
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Lottery money, and how many grants, have been allocated to restoration of listed churches in each year since 1995; and what plans he has to increase the resources available for the restoration and maintenance of listed churches. [128515]
  151W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  We have contacted the Heritage Lottery Fund and English Heritage to request the information required, and I will write to the right hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Library of the House.

  National Lottery
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps is he taking to ensure that small community-based projects have increased access to Lottery funding. [128351]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has encouraged the distributing bodies to continue and enhance the cross-distributor small grants programme, Awards for All, which distributes grants of £500–£5,000 to community-based groups for arts, sports, heritage, charitable and other community activities. The average size of a Lottery grant today is £40,000, down from a peak of more than £250,000 in 1995–96, which means that many more groups are able to benefit from Lottery funds.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money the National Lottery raised in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what was the average weekly figure for that period. [128358]

  Kate Hoey
  In the 12 months to the end of May 2000, the National Lottery raised a total of £1.789 billion for good causes (including money earned on the balance of the National Lottery distribution fund). This equates to an average of £34 million per week.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is taking to ensure equitable distribution of Lottery funding throughout the United Kingdom. [128347]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government are committed to ensuring that Lottery funding is distributed fairly both geographically and across all groups of society. This is reflected in the changes made to Lottery distribution through the National Lottery Act, 1998, and through the revised Policy Directions which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued in summer 1998. My Department and the Lottery distributors have set up an action team to help ensure that areas of low take-up fare better from the Lottery in future.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he takes to monitor the extent to which Lottery funds are equitably distributed throughout the United Kingdom. [128349]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department monitors the Lottery awards given to each constituency. The policy directions issued to each distributor require them to take account of the need to ensure that all parts of the country have access to funding.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the projects for which Lottery funding has been applied for to date. [128345]
  152W
  Kate Hoey
  Applications for Lottery funds are made in confidence and therefore no complete list of projects that have applied for Lottery funds is available. A list of successful applications is available on my Department's website at www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that seaside towns receive Lottery funding for regeneration projects. [128344]

  Kate Hoey
  The National Lottery funds numerous projects which bring widespread benefits to seaside towns. Research jointly commissioned by my Department and the Lottery distributors into Lottery funding in the coalfields and other areas does however suggest that resort and retirement towns have made relatively fewer applications and have received less per capita than the national average. We have set up an action team to take forward recommendations in this research and will explore ways of ensuring that all areas, including seaside towns, receive their fair share in future.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the maximum percentage of funding a project can attract in Lottery funding. [128444]

  Kate Hoey
  Each National Lottery distributor sets its own levels of expected partnership funding. In doing so they seek an element of partnership funding commensurate with the ability of different kinds of applicants, or applicants in particular areas, to obtain such support. In some instances this may result in 100 per cent. National Lottery funding. Volunteer time and other contributions in kind may be considered as providing partnership support.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he takes to advertise funding opportunities through the Lottery to voluntary and community groups. [128350]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department has published and distributed leaflets drawing attention to the Lottery funding available. Similar information is available on the DCMS website www.culture.gov.uk. My Department is also working with the distributing bodies, local authorities and others to improve the flow of information to voluntary and community groups.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total value of Lottery ticket sales is in the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency since the Lottery began. [128357]

  Kate Hoey
  In the first five years of the Lottery's operation (that is, up to 13 November 1999), ticket sales in the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency were £31,646,302. No more recent breakdown of Lottery ticket sales by constituency is available.

  World Cup 2006
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with the FA, the Premier League and Sport England regarding his continued support for the bid to host the World Cup in 2006; and if he will make a statement. [128799]
  153W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: I have discussed the bid for the 2006 World Cup with the Football Association and with the Prime Minister's Special Envoy over the last week. Despite recent events at the European Football Championships, the bid will not be withdrawn. The Government agree with the FA that the England bid is of the highest technical quality, and will continue to offer its full support.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects accounts of England 2006 to be published; and if he will make a statement. [128800]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: The 2006 World Cup bid is a bid by the Football Association. Reference to the costs of the bid are made in the FA's accounts for the years ended 31 December 1998 and 1999, and are expected to appear in the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2000. Any decision to publish full accounts for the bid is for the FA to make.

  Sport England allocated £3 million towards the cost of the bid, which is expected to total an estimated £9 million by the time that the FIFA Executive Council announces its decision on 7 July. Although it is not a Lottery condition to require published accounts, Sport England closely monitors how the Lottery grant is spent.

  Young Athletes (International Competitions)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the contribution of private companies in the United Kingdom in providing financial support to young athletes competing for Great Britain in international competitions; and if he will make a statement. [128384]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have the information, which is not readily available within my Department.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial support is available to young athletes competing for Great Britain in international competitions; what percentage of such financial support is provided by private companies through sponsorship; and if he will make a statement. [128383]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have the information and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will amend the BBC Agreement to enable the Department of Social Security to make certain payments to the BBC in recognition of the fact that, from 1 November, people aged 75 or over will become entitled to free television licences. [129384]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The amendment to the BBC Agreement [Command 4797] has been laid before the House of Commons today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office.

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 27 June 2000,154W
  Official Report, column 442W, what the cost of producing the annual report of his Department was in each of the two most recent years in which they were published, excluding the cost of buying back copies for free distribution from The Stationery Office. [129184]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The costs incurred producing the Departmental Annual Report in each of the two most recent years, excluding the cost of buying back copies for free distribution from the Stationery Office were:

  £000

  1999

  46.6

  2000

  47.9

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Government will publish its review of the 1979 vaccine damage payment scheme. [128036]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 719.

  Housing Benefit
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claim Housing Benefit in Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency. [128352]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Housing Benefit claims and recipients for Lancaster city council which includes the constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale 1998–99

  Number

  New and renewal claims to

  Housing Benefit—April 1998 to March 1999

  18,000

  Housing Benefit recipients—August 1999

  8,650

  Notes

  1. Numbers in receipt of Housing Benefit for Lancaster city council have been rounded to the nearest 10 cases.

  2. The numbers of claims to Housing Benefit have been rounded to two significant figures.

  3. The Department collects data by local authority.

  Sources

  For claims—Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly Administrative Returns April 1998—March 1999.

  For recipients—Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly Caseload Stock Counts Returns August 1999.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average rent limit in England is for the payment of Housing Benefit. [128353]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent steps his Department has taken to tackle Housing Benefit fraud. [128458]

  Angela Eagle
  "Safeguarding Social Security" published in March 1999 makes it clear that we want a benefit system which is secure from start to finish. We are committed to taking tough action against Housing Benefit fraud. We have already reformed the anti-fraud financial incentive scheme for local authorities to ensure they continue to be rewarded for detecting cases of genuine benefit fraud and non-residency, but also have the opportunity to earn rewards for successfully prosecuting fraud cases and for adopting the Department's Verification Framework. The Verification Framework helps to secure the administration of Housing Benefit through a series of additional checks, carried out throughout the life of a benefit claim, and 249 local authorities have been paid or accepted funds to implement the Verification Framework.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is conducting inspections of local authorities; to date 58 reports have been published. Last month the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate issued new good practice guidance to improve service delivery and help tackle fraud and error. We have made it abundantly clear to all authorities that when inspections show persistent failings we will use our powers to direct authorities on the standards they are to meet and the timescales for achieving them.

  272 local authorities are currently using the Royal Mail "do not redirect" scheme which prevents benefit claimants from using postal redirection arrangements to make false claims to benefit from multiple addresses. To reduce the scope for fraud and error and to streamline the administration of Housing Benefit we have installed Remote Access Terminals to give authorities direct 'on line' access to a range of relevant information on other DSS benefit systems. 388 authorities currently operate at least one terminal and we plan to install terminals in a further 16 authorities by the end of September 2000.

  We are also introducing electronic transfer of data to speed up the transfer of information from the Benefits Agency to local authorities and further reduce the scope for fraud and error. So far 191 local authorities have the equipment installed; by this Autumn we expect nearly all local authorities to be using this technology.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the estimated cost of Housing Benefit fraud was in 1999–2000 in(a) England and (b) Morecambe and Lunesdale. [128443]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows. The latest estimates are derived from the National Housing Benefit Accuracy Review 1997–98 which estimated losses of £490 million in England with a margin of error of approximately ±35 per cent. (£330 million–£670 million).

  Note:

  It is not possible to provide estimates at individual constituency level.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to measure Housing Benefit fraud in those local authorities not included in the 156W
  revised area benefit reviews; how many local authorities will be covered by such actions; when such actions will be completed; and to what level of accuracy he estimates such measurements will be made. [128912]

  Angela Eagle
  Fraud measurement is being extended to all local authorities for Standard Housing Benefit from 2001. The first results will be available from March 2002.

  On the basis of the size and structure of the sample of Housing Benefit cases currently being examined in the Area Benefit Reviews programme, it is predicted that the margin of error around the estimate of the value of losses due to fraud and error will be between ±10 per cent. and ±20 per cent.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of suspected Housing Benefit fraud there were in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; how many of these cases went to court; and how many of them resulted in a successful prosecution. [128910]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  The table shows the number of cases where Housing Benefit (HB) fraud has been established on the balance of probabilities by local authorities, the number of cases which were referred by local authorities to lawyers for prosecution action and the total number of successful prosecutions. It does not include cases involving benefit fraud where Housing Benefit is one among several benefits being claimed and the Benefits Agency have investigated the case.

  Number of cases suspected of HB/CTB fraud and prosecutions in 1997–98 to 1998–99: Great Britain

  Thousand

  Total number of cases

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Cases where fraud established and weekly benefit savings claimed

  220

  160

  Total number of cases referred for prosecution

  1.3

  1.9

  Total number of successful prosecutions

  0.7

  0.8

  Notes:

  1. Includes all cases where fraud is suspected including those that are not live, or involve a landlord, or organised fraud

  2. Figures are rounded to two significant figures

  3. The Department also tackles HB/CTB fraud as a by-product of investigating Income Support (IS) fraud. The above table contains all cases where fraud was established and weekly benefit savings were claimed by Local Authorities. All cases discovered by the Department are not included. Therefore, the total number of cases where HB/CTB fraud was established is much higher than stated above.

  Source:

  Administrative Returns 1995–96 to 1998–99.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), of 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 213W, on secondments, if he will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded to his Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128247]
  157W
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 29 June 2000]: Of the four people listed, the staff member from the Guardian Media Group plc was seconded to the Department as a Grade 7 policy adviser on the Welfare Reform Unit where he helped in the development of thinking on welfare reform and its subsequent presentation.

  The secondee from Sacker and Partners was a trainee solicitor who worked in the Office of the Solicitor providing advice on legal aspects of pensions and also the European Community.

  The secondee from CSL Management Services came into the Department as an administrative officer in the Chatham Local Benefits Office where he worked on the Area Benefit Review Team co-ordinating activity on housing benefit.

  The Business Development Manager from Oracle was seconded into the Department as a senior manager in the Modern Service Team advising on electronic Government issues and project approval.

  For reasons of confidentiality names of individuals have not been given.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he(a) received and (b) will publish the Faculty and Institute of Acturaries' report on the minimum funding requirement; [128471]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received the report from the Institute of Actuaries on the Minimum Funding Requirement; and when it will be published. [128529]

  Mr. Rooker
  We received the report from the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries on the review of the minimum funding requirement at the end of May. We are considering it and we will be issuing a consultation paper on any proposals for change. We plan to publish the actuaries' report alongside the consultation document.

  Mothers (Income)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average weekly income is of mothers with children aged three. [129002]

  Angela Eagle
  The majority of mothers live in families with a partner, and the latest estimate for the gross income of families with children aged three is £521 a week.
  Notes:

  1. Figures quoted are derived from the Family Resources Survey and are therefore subject to sampling error.

  2. The individual income refers to the income accruing to women in their own right and includes earnings, income from self-employment, investments and occupational pensions/annuities, benefit income and income from miscellaneous other sources. This estimate is from the Women's Individual Income 1996–97 dataset and is at 1996–7 survey prices.

  3. Family income has been provided because the majority of mothers live with a partner and it is generally assumed that there is a certain amount of sharing of income within families. This estimate is based on 1997–8 data and is set at April 1999 prices.

  4. The net cost of council tax is deducted from family income but not from women's individual income.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the figures for the(a) GDP per head and (b) highest family income for those children termed as living in poverty in the UK according to the recent UNICEF report in each of the last 21 years. [129026]

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

  Over the period 1979 to 1997 GDP per head grew by 40 per cent. whereas the highest equivalised household income of a child in poverty grew by only 30 per cent.

  £ per annum

  Year

  GDP per head1

  Highest equivalised househole income of a child in poverty (as defined by UNICEF)2

  1979

  9,176

  5,147

  1980

  8,961

  n/a

  1981

  8,843

  4,765

  1982

  9,008

  n/a

  1983

  9,335

  n/a

  1984

  9,539

  n/a

  1985

  9,871

  n/a

  1986

  10,257

  n/a

  1987

  10,683

  5,631

  1988

  11,207

  5,799

  1989

  11,408

  5,813

  1990

  11,440

  5,820

  1991

  11,221

  6,094

  1992

  11,188

  6,423

  1993

  11,411

  6,521

  1994

  11,870

  6,378

  1995

  12,158

  6,388

  1996

  12,428

  6,602

  1997

  12,819

  6,756

  1998

  13,070

  n/a

  1999

  n/a

  n/a

  1Constant 1995 prices

  2April 1999 prices

  Notes:

  1. GDP per head is for the UK, taken from ONS series YBGS—Gross domestic product at market prices, shown in 1995 prices.

  2. The highest household income for those children living in poverty (as defined by UNICEF) is 50 per cent. of median equivalised household income before housing costs shown for Great Britain, using data from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) Series. These figures are based on the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) from 1979 to 1993, and on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) from 1994–95 onwards. These are not consistent with the UK estimates contained in the UNICEF Innocent Report Card "A League Table of Child Poverty in Rich Nations", which are based on different data and methods of estimation.

  3. Estimates from the FES relate to the UK while those from the FRS relate to GB. In addition, the estimates derived from the two surveys use slightly different definitions of income: FRS results therefore are not precisely comparable with those from the FES but are considered to be broadly comparable. Self-employed households have been excluded from the analysis.

  4. Estimates from the Family Expenditure Survey from 1987 to 1993 are based on a two year rolling average method, and refer to combined years—for example, in the table 1987 is 1987 + 1998.

  5. Estimates from the Family Resources Survey are based on data for financial years from 1994–95 onwards. For example, 1994 refers to the financial year 1994–95.

  6. Estimates of 50 per cent. of median income before housing costs are based on survey data, and so will be subject to the normal problems associated with survey data including sampling variation and measurement error.

  7. Figures for GDP per head and median equivalised household income are not directly comparable, as GDP per head is not equivalised, and they are shown in different price bases.

  8. Figures are rounded to the nearest £1.

  Wrongful Imprisonment
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will protect the benefit position of individuals who were wrongly imprisoned as a result of a conviction that was subsequently overturned. [129385]

  Mr. Rooker
  In future individuals who have been wrongly convicted will be able to receive National Insurance credits covering the period of wrongful imprisonment. This will protect their entitlement to the State Pension and Incapacity Benefit for that period and ensure that they are not disadvantaged.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the reports of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Hart district council and Lancaster city council. [129386]

  Mr. Rooker
  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reports have been published today in respect of Hart district council and Lancaster city council and copies of these reports have been placed in the Library.

  Both reports contain recommendations to address weaknesses and help the councils to improve their administration and counter fraud activity for Housing and Council Tax Benefits.

  Inspectors report a commitment by Lancaster city council to tackling fraud but considered there was a need to support this commitment in operational terms. The BFI raises a number of concerns including a need for Lancaster city council to address urgently its inadequate management information systems and limited management checking regime.

  In their report on Hart district council inspectors found some good working practices, but weaknesses were identified in a number of key areas. There were several areas where the council had failed to make sure benefit payments were free from fraud and error and where they failed to comply with the law.

  The report on Hart district council notes a need for the council to tighten verification procedures so, as a minimum, they match the standards outlined in the Verification Framework. Inspectors found the council's counter-fraud activity to be ineffective and although high level counter-fraud policies had been developed, these had not been underpinned with detailed operational measures. The BFI also reports that these policies did not have the commitment of staff or management to implement them.

  The Secretary of State is now considering both these reports and will be asking both councils for their proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the total cost of administering the extended Winter Fuel Payment scheme for men; [128526]

  (2) how many men have been sent letters relating to the extended Winter Fuel Payment scheme; [128527]
  160W
  (3) how many completed forms relating to the extended Winter Fuel Payment scheme for men have been received by his Department; [128528]

  (4) how many phone calls relating to the extended Winter Fuel Payment scheme for men have been dealt with by, the Winter Fuel Payments Helpline. [128530]

  Angela Eagle
  The estimated cost of administering the extended Winter Fuel Payment scheme is in the order of £25 million; this includes additional costs associated with handling this years retrospective payments.

  During April we wrote to around 20,000 people, who had already registered their details. From 5 May, over a five-week period, a mailshot took place to all those identified as being eligible under the new arrangements. Over this period we wrote to around 1.7 million people.

  The number of completed claim forms received to date is 1,067,119, which include 6,119 that have been downloaded from the internet. As well as the men aged between 60–64 who may now be eligible, this figure includes claim forms from women aged 60 or over who have not previously received a winter fuel payment as they were not in receipt of the State Retirement Pension or one of the other qualifying benefits.

  To date a total of 217,615 calls have been made to the Winter Fuel Helpline.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of extending Winter Fuel Payments to all disabled people in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK who receive Income Support. [128170]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The annual cost of extending Winter Fuel Payments to people in Scotland who are in receipt of Income Support with a disability premium, is estimated to be £20 million in 2000–01. The equivalent cost for the whole of Great Britain is estimated to be £140 million.
  Notes:

  1. Information for Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  2. Estimates exclude those in receipt of a disability premium who are in residential care or nursing homes.

  3. Estimates include those in receipt of income-based Jobseeker's Allowance with a disability premium.

  4. Figures include an adjustment to take into account reduced payments to people aged 60 or over not in receipt of Income Support who live in the same household as a claimant of Income Support with a disability premium.

  5. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10 million

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost in Scotland and the UK(a) to allow carers over the age of 65 years to claim Invalid Care Allowance and (b) to introduce a (i) five per cent. and (ii) 10 per cent. increase for Invalid Care Allowance after two years of caring in (A) Scotland and (B) the UK [128175]
  161W
  Mr. Bayley
  Information is not available in the format The requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Estimate cost of extending new claims entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) for those aged 65 or over, 2001–02

  £million

  Estimate Cost

  Scotland

  5

  Greater Britain

  30

  Notes

  1. Costs rounded to nearest five million, cash prices.

  2. Estimates are based on Family Resources Survey 1997–98 and 1998–99, and caseload forecasts.

  3. As estimates based on survey data the above will be subject to sampling error. The limitations of modelling entitlement from available survey data on the number of hours that individuals spend providing care mean that the above estimates should be treated with caution—there is evidence of under-reporting of hours spent providing care.

  4. It is assumed that all normal ICA entitlement rules remain in place after any abolition of the upper age limit for new claims. Costs include the effects on Income Support (IS) carer premium and consequent effects on Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit.

  5. Costing does not include any behavioural effects that might arise as consequence of change or IS floaters on.

  6. Proportion of extra expenditure in Scotland assumed to be in line with proportion of those with disability benefits potentially qualifying for ICA in Scotland.

  7. Costs are provided for GB and Scotland only. Information on benefits in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Estimate cost of 5 per cent., 10 per cent. Increase in ICA after two years spent providing care, 2001–02

  £ million

  5 per cent. Increase to ICA

  10 per cent. Increase to ICA

  Scotland

  2

  4

  GB

  20

  40

  Notes:

  1. Costs rounded to nearest five million for GB, one million for Scotland.

  2. Costs include offsetting IRB effects.

  3. Two years spent providing care interpreted as two years on ICA, percentage increase taken as applying to dependant increases as well as basic ICA.

  4. Proportion of extra expenditure in Scotland assumed to be in line with proportion of those with disability benefits potentially qualifying for ICA in Scotland.

  5. Costs are provided for GB and Scotland only. Information on benefits in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Source:

  ICAU July 100 per cent. sample count, ICA forecasts

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost for(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom of (i) abolishing the 21 hour study rule for Invalid Care Allowance and (ii) extending invalid care allowance for eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for. [128128]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  162W

  The estimated cost for Great Britain and Scotland of extending Invalid Care Allowance for eight Weeks after the death of the person being cared for, 2001–02

  £million

  Estimate Cost

  Greater Britain

  2

  Scotland

  0.2

  Notes:

  1. Costs for GB rounded to the nearest million pounds. Costs for Scotland rounded to the nearest £100K.

  2. The costs incorporate knock-on effects to Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  3. Information on benefits in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he estimates it would cost in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK to (i) increase Invalid Care Allowance to the level of the basic state pension, (ii) raise the earnings limit for ICA to the equivalent of the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions and (iii) introduce a taper on ICA set at 50 per cent. of earnings over the (1) existing earnings limit and (2) earnings limit in (ii) above. [128131]

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

  The estimated cost when increasing the rate of Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) to the standard retirement pension

  £ million

  Costs

  2001–02

  GB

  355

  Scotland

  40

  Notes:

  1. Costs are rounded to the nearest five million and provided in cash prices

  2. Costs are based on the Department's Analytical Services Division's forecast of ICA recipients

  3. The cost for Scotland is apportioned using 1998–99 admin data on qualifying benefits obtained from the Scottish Information Centres

  4. Costs are provided for GB and Scotland only. Information on benefits in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  5. Income related benefit offset effects are incorporated into the above costs

  6. Any behavioural effects that may result due to a change in the policy are not taken into account

  7. The estimated cost is calculated by increasing the level of ICA to the level of the Basic State Retirement Pension, currently set at £67.50.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of increasing disability benefits by(a) 5 per cent. and (b) 10 per cent. for people in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK. [128235]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  163W

  Estimates for Scotland and Great Britain of the total costs in 2001–2002 of increases in Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance

  £ million

  5 per cent. increase

  10 per cent. increase

  Scotland

  80

  160

  Great Britain

  700

  1,410

  Notes:

  1. Costs rounded to the nearest ten million and presented in cash prices.

  2. Costs are derived from expenditure forecasts by Analytical Services Division.

  3. Information on benefits in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost for Scotland and the UK of extending the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to disabled people aged over 65 years. [128173]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  The costs of extending the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to disabled people aged over 65 years for Scotland and Great Britain

  £ billion

  Cost

  Great Britain

  2.6

  Scotland

  0.3

  Notes:

  1. Costs are in cash prices and rounded to nearest hundred million.

  2. Estimates derived from model of entitlement based on 1996–97 Disability Survey and forecast caseloads.

  3. Estimates are subject to a significant margin of error reflecting underlying uncertainties of modelling entitlement from available survey data.

  4. Estimated costs include effects on income related benefits.

  5. Costs for Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Carers
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of(a) doubling the carers premium and (b) raising the level of Income Support by (i) five per cent. and (ii) 10 per cent. for carers aged under 25 years in (A) Scotland and (B) the UK. [128176]

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

  Cost for Scotland, 2001–02

  £ million

  Cost of doubling carer premium

  20

  Cost of increasing IS Personal allowance by 5 per cent. for carers aged under 25

  0.4

  Cost of increasing IS personal allowance by 10 per cent. For carers aged under 25

  0.7

  164W

  Cost for GB, 2001–02

  £ million

  Cost of doubling carer premium

  180

  Cost of increasing IS personal allowance by 5 per cent. for carers aged under 25

  3.5

  Cost of increasing IS personal allowance by 10 per cent. for carers aged under 25

  6.5

  Notes:

  1. The estimates for doubling the carer premium assume that the carer premium will be raised to £28.30 for all recipients (presently £14.15 per week).

  2. Costs are presented in cash prices. Costs of doubling the carer premium are rounded to the nearest £5 million. Costs of increasing current IS personal allowance for carers in receipt of the carer premium who are under the age of 25 is rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  3. Costs are adjusted using administrative data and include Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit costs.

  4. Information for Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Source

  Costs are derived from the April 2000 Policy Simulation Model which is based on the 1997–8 Family Resources Survey (FRS).

  Euro 2000
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases arising from people travelling to the Euro 2000 Football Championship are being investigated by the Benefits Agency and have had benefits withdrawn as a result of travelling to the Euro 2000 Football Championship; and what benefits were withdrawn. [128532]

  Mr. Rooker
  Nearly 1,000 names of those expelled from Belgium during Euro 2000 have been checked against departmental records of those receiving benefits. As a result, the cases of over 50 individuals have been referred for further detailed investigation by Benefits Agency investigators.

  Of the 50 cases, 31 relate to Jobseeker's Allowance, 10 to Income Support (in lieu of Incapacity Benefit), seven to Incapacity Benefit and two to Disability Living Allowance.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Freemasons
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many forms were sent to(a) judges and (b) magistrates asking if they are freemasons; how many replies stated they (i) are and (ii) are not freemasons; and how many declined to answer. [129108]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr.Kidney) on 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 455W.

  Judges (Conflicts of Interest)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will put a copy of the final version of his advice to judges on avoiding conflicts of interest in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [128930]
  165W
  Mr. Lock
  Copies of the revised guidance for judges on outside activities and interests were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 15 June 2000. I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) on 15 June 2000,Official Report, column 724W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 15 May on behalf of his constituent Mr. Sheeks. [127378]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 June 2000]: I wrote to the right hon. Member on 29 June 2000.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) individual documents, (b) immigration case files and (c) passports were lost by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each year since 1992.[127974]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not available.

  Since its expansion last October, the Integrated Casework Directorate's (ICD's) Return of Passport Unit has received 11,687 requests for the return of documents and, of those, a total of 147 lost passport letters have been issued. Lost passport letters are issued in respect of items which cannot be traced at the time a request for them is made, but which may subsequently be found.

  The number of principal files recorded as lost on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's file tracking system each year since 1993 (when the system was introduced) is as follows: 1993–97; 1994—368; 1995—534; 1996—1,160; 1997—1,599; 1998—2,095; 1999—2,567; and 2000—2,054. There are currently 8,440 files still recorded as lost.

  A number of measures have been taken to prevent the loss of passports and other documents, including the introduction last autumn of new document handling processes and an expanded Return of Passport Unit in the ICD. Work is in progress on clearing the backlog of general and settlement casework and returning applicants' documents to them.

  All valuable documents are now returned to applicants by recorded delivery post and new processes are being developed for dealing with packages which are returned undelivered.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many written parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April; and how many have not received substantive answers, citing disproportionate cost as the reason. [128018]
  166W
  Mr. Straw
  My Department answered a total of 2,751 written parliamentary questions between 19 October 1999–20 April 2000, of which 23 were not given a substantive answer because to do so would have incurred disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current cost of maintaining an asylum seeker, whose court case is under review, for one month; what is the current average time for reviewing asylum claims from the moment of first claim to final resolution; and if he will make a statement. [128237]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is that in 1999–2000 the total cost of supporting asylum seekers was £590 million.

  Information on the average decision time from initial claim to final resolution and on the cost of supporting an asylum seeker for one month is not currently available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of the decision process was for each category of asylum seeker in the last 12 months. [128565]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on the average decision time from initial claim to final resolution for each category of asylum seeker is not currently available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions apply to asylum seekers undertaking voluntary activity; what plans he has to review these restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [128567]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are no restrictions on asylum seekers participating in genuine voluntary work. Difficulties may arise however where a person seeks to perform voluntary work but where there is some form of remuneration such as "expenses" or remuneration in kind. It is then much more difficult to determine whether the work is genuinely voluntary or whether there is an element of employment involved.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of his Department's staff have been involved in asylum casework in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [128566]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department does not hold records prior to 1996 and for later years the information does not exist in the form requested. The only readily available information, set out in the table, is for the numbers of staff employed in the Asylum Directorate between 1996 and 1998.

  As at 1 April

  Number of staff

  1996

  1782.4

  1997

  1689.0

  1998

  1524.4

  1999

  Not readily available

  2000

  702

  1Full-time equivalents

  The numbers for 1996 to 1998 include those who support and manage the staff who make the decisions, as well as the decision makers. Comparisons between 1996

  167W
  to 1998 figures and those for 1999 and 2000 are difficult because of the reorganisation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in December 1998. Asylum applications were previously handled in a dedicated asylum directorate. In 1999 they were dealt with in integrated teams which also dealt with a variety of other immigration issues, and thus a separate figure is not available. Currently, asylum applications are dealt with in dedicated teams.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes will be required to domestic legislation to permit partial UK participation in the Schengen Agreement. [128138]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are currently examining what changes will be needed to United Kingdom primary legislation in order to implement the United Kingdom's partial participation in the Schengen acquis. We anticipate a need for primary legislation relating to police co-operation in connection with cross-border surveillance and to areas of judicial co-operation. The latter aspect is linked to the legislative requirements for ratification of the European Union's Conventions on Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition. Further discussion is taking place with our Schengen partners to clarify whether the application of certain provisions on data protection will require amendment to current data protection legislation.

  Metropolitan Police Authority
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is the representative on the Metropolitan Police Authority whose responsibilities cover the area of Leyton and Wanstead. [128103]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that the Metropolitan Police Authority is currently considering whether each of their members should be given responsibility for particular areas within the Metropolitan Police District and, if so, how.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account the Immigration Service takes of ticketless airline travel in reaching immigration decisions; and if he will make a statement. [128106]

  Mrs. Roche
  The lack of a ticket is not in itself conclusive when an Immigration Officer reaches a decision about the admissibility of a passenger under the Immigration Rules. Immigration Officers often ask passengers to show their onward or return tickets as evidence of their intention to leave the United Kingdom, but where a passenger has booked a ticket using modern Information Technology methods—so called "ticketless travel"—he/she will normally be in possession of a printed itinerary giving full details of his/her travel plans. In the absence of such evidence Immigration Officers have the option of contacting the airline concerned to 168W
  verify that a booking exists. A passenger will not be unduly delayed for this purpose unless it is considered essential to the resolution of the case to verify that he/she has an onward or return booking, and this cannot be done easily.

  Public Entertainment Licences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public entertainment licences have been(a) revoked and (b) not renewed by local authorities under the terms of the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Act 1997 since 1 May 1998. [128272]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally. Contacts with the police and the club trade suggest, however, that the powers of the Act have not yet been used by a local authority to revoke or refuse the renewal of a public entertainments licence.

  The provisions of the Act are to be used as a last resort and the Home Office guidance on the implementation of the Act encourages close liaison between the police, club owners and local authorities.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department upon how many public entertainment licences new conditions have been imposed by local authorities under the terms of the Public Entertainment Licences (Drug Misuse) Act 1997 since 1 May 1998. [128273]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally. Contacts with the police and the club trade suggest, however, that the powers in the Act have not yet been used by a local authority to impose new conditions on a public entertainments licence.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were reported to the Metropolitan police on Monday 26 June; and if he will make a statement. [128274]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not yet available for Monday 26 June, but on the latest Monday for which the information is currently available, which was Monday 22 May 2000, 3,542 crimes were reported to the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by division of the Metropolitan Police Service the ratio of(a) reported crimes, (b) burglaries and (c) calls from computer-aided despatch per officer in each of the last five years. [128312]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Metropolitan police that the information could not be made available in the form requested for each of the last five years except at disproportionate cost. It should, however, be possible to provide the information for the last two years shortly, and I will write to the hon. Member when it is available.

  Modes of Trial
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the defendants included in the pre-Narey pilot data who elected to be tried at
  169W
  Crown court, (a) pleaded guilty to the same or to more serious offences than those they were charged with at the time of their election, (b) pleaded guilty to fewer or to less serious offences than those with which they were charged at the time of their election and (c) pleaded not guilty and went to trial at Crown court. [128549]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office Research Development and Statistical Directorate is currently conducting an analysis of the alteration to charges in the sample and the results will be available later this year.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many defendants in the pre-Narey pilot data were charged with either-way offences; and of these how many(a) were directed by magistrates to be tried at Crown court, (b) elected to be tried at Crown court and (c) consented to be tried, or otherwise had their cases disposed of, by the magistrates courts. [128548]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The sample covered a total of 2,948 defendants charged with triable-either-way offences. This included 1,969 cases dealt with in the magistrates courts or in the Youth Court and 979 cases committed to the Crown court. Of the 979 defendants, 155 elected Crown court trial and 747 were directed to the Crown court. However, the number of Crown court cases in the sample was boosted in order to provide adequate numbers for analysis. This means that the committal rate is higher than the national rate. We took account of this difference when analysing the data.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the defendants included in the pre-Narey pilot data charged with either-way offences were from ethnic minority backgrounds; and how many such defendants(a) elected to be tried at Crown court and pleaded guilty to the same, or more serious offences, than those they were charged with at the time of their election, (b) elected to be tried at Crown court and pleaded guilty to fewer, or to less serious offences than those with which they were charged at the time of their election and (c) pleaded not guilty and went to trial at Crown court. [128550]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not available on the ethnic origin of defendants in the sample.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the guilty plea rate among defendants included in the pre-Narey pilot data was representative of the guilty plea rate nationally. [128551]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The guilty plea rates in the sample were broadly in line with national rates.

  Fire and Rescue Service
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) women and (b) men are in each Fire and Rescue Service, broken down by (i) rank and (ii) retained and other status. [128337]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All fire brigades in England and Wales are required to provide annually to Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate statistical information about 170W
  personnel employed, analysed by gender and ethnic origin. The tables—which provide a breakdown by gender for uniformed and non-uniformed personnel and by rank (for the whole-time and retained services), based on statistical returns from the fire services for England and Wales at 31 March 1999—have been placed in the Library.

  Fines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to improve the enforcement of fines. [128393]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: I am working closely with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to improve the enforcement of fines.

  Research is being carried out under the Government's Crime Reduction Programme to identify best practice in fine enforcement, to introduce a range of enforcement strategies in a number of pilot courts, and to evaluate the relative cost and effectiveness of those strategies. The project is due to be completed in autumn 2001.

  In April 2001, responsibility for the execution of fines warrants will be transferred from the police to Magistrates Courts Committees. The fact that responsibility will rest with the courts will provide a sharper and clearer focus than the present arrangements, while the application and monitoring of administrative targets will ensure that the work receives a high priority within individual courts. As a result, more money—including compensation for the victims of crime—should be collected.

  Measures in the Access to Justice Act 1999, which are also due to be implemented in April 2001, will allow the courts to check whether other Government agencies hold an up-to-date address for a 'missing' fine defaulter. This should prove helpful in reducing the currently high levels of financial penalties that have to be 'written off' because the offender cannot be traced.

  A report on the pilot studies conducted on alternative means of dealing with fine defaulters introduced in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 was published in February this year. A decision on the future of these measures will be made in due course.

  Finally, following a relaxation in Treasury rules governing receipts, we are exploring the feasibility of developing a scheme which will allow a proportion of the income from fines to be retained ('netted-off) by the courts and used to make further improvements in enforcement rates.

  Crime Reduction
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timetable is for assessment of each of the category of projects under the crime reduction programme; and if he will make a statement. [128524]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The provisional timetable is shown in the table.
  171W

  Outputs

  Programme/project

  2000

  2001

  2002+

  Local Initiatives

  Burglary Reduction

  Final process evaluation reports of round 1 projects November 2000

  Final outcome evaluation reports of round 1 projects December 2001

  Final cost-effectiveness evaluation reports of round 1 projects March 2002

  Final programme evaluation report of round 2 and 3 projects December 2004

  Local Initiatives

  Targeted Policing (Evaluation of Round 2 projects yet to be commissioned)

  Stop and search report on 'street population' October 2000

  Final report of FSS pathfinder projects March 2001

  Final outcome evaluation reports of round 1 projects March—June 2002

  Final process evaluation reports on round 1 projects December 2001

  Crime Stoppers report February 2001

  Violence against women(Projects yet to be decided)

  Early Interventions

  Effective school management

  Final outcome evaluations December 2001

  Early Interventions

  'On Track'

  National evaluation year 1 report September 2001

  National evaluation final report October 2002

  Youth Inclusion

  Evaluation to be undertaken by the Youth Justice Board. Report expected March 2002

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  (Main programme projects yet to be decided)

  Evaluation of selected existing schemes October 2000

  Design against crime

  RSA assessment of student design award process January 2001. Evaluation of impact of Crime Prevention Foresight Panel's report on other Foresight Panels' report July 2001

  Final evaluation report on Design Council initiative April 2004 Overall evaluation report of student design award process December 2004

  Pilot virtual reality lighting impact evaluation report November 2001

  Report on effectiveness of Foresight Panel dissemination process mid 2002 Evaluation of activities spawned by CP Panel, mid 2002, and their impact, mid 2003. Evaluation report on improvement in lighting design process early 2003

  CCTV Capital Modernisation Fund

  (Projected dates—evaluations yet to be commissioned)

  In-depth scheme evaluation reports from December 2001

  Programme level report mid 2002

  Sentencing Policy

  Cost-effectiveness findings on existing adult Restorative Justice schemes July 2000

  Cost-effectiveness report on enforcement of financial penalties schemes October 2001

  Final outcome report on professional/sentencer awareness schemes February 2002

  Drug arrest referrals

  Six month report due October 2000 (London). Evaluations outside London yet to be decided

  12 month report due April 2001 and 18 month report due October 2001 (London)

  Two year report due April 2002 and final outcome evaluation report due April 2003 (London)

  Treatment of offenders

  Final outcome report of basic skills pathfinder project October 2004

  Final outcome report of resettlement of short-term prisoners projects September 2004

  Final outcome reports of community service pathfinder projects autumn 2004

  Final outcome report of offending behaviour pathfinder projects autumn 2004

  172W 173W
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the targets set by his Department for the reduction of crime, the date the targets were set and the timescale of the targets; what further targets he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [128525]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In September 1998, the Government set a target for a 30 per cent. reduction in thefts of and from motor vehicles. This target covers the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2004.

  In addition, by 31 March 2000, all police authorities in England and Wales were required to set for themselves five-year targets for reductions in domestic burglary and vehicle crime. The police authorities in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire and the Metropolitan Police Service were also required to set five-year targets for reductions in robbery. These targets cover the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2005 and have been published in each police authority's Best Value Performance Plan for 2000–01. The full list of these targets, as they appear in Best Value Performance Plans, is available on the website of the Association of Police Authorities—www.apa.police.uk.

  In their Best Value Performance Plans, police authorities have also set a number of other crime reduction targets which reflect local priorities.

  Local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships will set targets for April 2001.

  The Home Office Public Service Agreement, which will be published to coincide with the outcome of the Spending Review 2000, is also likely to contain targets reflecting key aspects of the Department's business.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Executive NDPBs: Net revenue cost

  1. Alcohol Education and Research Council

  0

  0

  0

  2. Commission for Racial Equality

  14,825

  16,425

  16,835

  3. Community Development Foundation

  1,090

  14,363

  14,643

  4. Criminal Cases Review Commission

  4,300

  4,800

  5,400

  5. Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority1

  125,200

  142,100

  214,600

  6. Gaming Board

  1

  232

  -336

  7. Horserace Betting Levy Board

  0

  0

  0

  8. Horserace Totalisator Board (The Tote)

  0

  0

  0

  9. Office of the Data Protection Registrar

  -3,324

  -880

  3,143

  10. Parole Board

  2,669

  2,672

  3,100

  11. Police Complaints Authority

  3,410

  3,444

  3,468

  12. Police Information Technology Organisation

  36,229

  52,055

  33,781

  13. Youth Justice Board (YJB)

  900

  36,528

  234,019

  Advisory NDPBs: Net revenue cost

  1. Advisory Board on Restricted Patients

  60

  66

  n/a

  2. Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

  20

  22

  n/a

  3. Animal Procedures Committee

  285

  315

  295

  4. Firearms Consultative Committee

  4

  6

  20

  5. Metropolitan Police Committee

  29

  36

  8

  6. Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  299

  797

  1,731

  7. Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  29

  39

  61

  8. Poisons Board

  0

  0

  n/a

  9. Police Negotiating Board

  70

  79

  47

  10. Race Relations Forum

  4

  23

  23

  1Compensation and Administration costs combined

  Note:

  Cost rounded to the £000

  National Crime Squad
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of the evidence which he has disclosed to the Court in the judicial review application by Williams Jeffery Barber on behalf of the National Crime Squad and others. [128923]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not submit evidence in this case, in which the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad and National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is an independent body, sought judicial review of a decision by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  NDPBs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the net revenue cost was in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and what the planned revenue cost is for 2000–01 of each of the executive and advisory non-Departmental public bodies listed on pages 88 to 96 of his Annual report for 1999–2000. [128926]

  Mr. Straw
  The net revenue cost and planned costs for the Home Office Executive and Advisory Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are set out in the following table. I have taken "net revenue costs" to mean the Grant in Aid for Executive NDPBs minus any receipts payable to the Exchequer offsetting costs.

  Neither the Tote nor the Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) have any revenue cost, as they are self-financing. The expenses payable to the Alcohol Education and Research Council are within the travel and subsistence budget of the Liquor Gambling and Data Protection Unit.

  It is not possible to estimate the planned costs for some Advisory Bodies, as the members of those bodies only receive expenses when necessary.

  Visas
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in 1999 applied for permission to switch their visa category; how many such applications were approved; what the net cost was to public funds of handling these applications; and if he will make a statement. [128925]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information relates to decisions taken on all applications to switch category after entering the country. In 1999, 40,900 principal applicants switched into a non-asylum category and 2,700 were refused. This excludes 41,700 (provisional) applications for asylum made by principal applicants after entry. I regret that the costs incurred dealing with applications to switch category cannot be separated from the overall costs of the Integrated Casework Directorate.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will call for a report on progress made with the police investigation into events at Porton Down; and if he will make a statement. [127379]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Investigations are continuing. I refer to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 June 2000,Official Report, column 98W.

  Prison Incidents
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by(a) prison and (b) categories of prisoners the number of incidents of (i) self-harm, (ii) indiscipline, (iii) assaults by prisoners on staff, (iv) assaults by prisoners on prisoners, (v) assaults by staff on prisoners, (vi) drug seizures, (vii) positive drug tests, indicating the type of drug involved and (viii) failure to complete mandatory drug tests, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [127918]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have placed the information requested in the Library.

  Complete records are only available centrally for periods since 1996–97. Only prisons that were operational for the years 1996–97 to 1999–2000 have been included.

  The Prison Service does not collect incident data by category of prisoner. Instead the category of prison is shown. Prisons are categorised by their main function only.

  Freemasons
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many forms were sent to police officers of all ranks asking if they are freemasons; how many replies stated they(a) were and (b) were not freemasons; and how many declined to answer. [129109]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Some 151,091 forms were sent to police officers and civilian support staff in 32 police forces in England and Wales. Of those, 610 who responded declared that they were freemasons, 49,431 declared that they were not freemasons, and 101,042 did not respond or responded by declining to say whether or not they were freemasons. A breakdown of figures between officers and support staff is not available.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families have been in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit in each month since March. [126911]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 21 June 2000]: Provisional estimates of the number of families in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit at each end-month are as follows:

  Thousand

  March 2000

  1,052

  April 2000

  1,053

  Estimated figures for the corresponding months last year are as follows:

  Thousand

  March 1999

  822

  April 1999

  823

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 7 June 2000,Official Report, column 274W, how many pensioner households there are in the Christchurch constituency comprising one or more people aged 75 years or over; and what was the basis for his calculation of the number of pensioners aged 75 years and over in that constituency. [125976]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 15 June 2000]: The latest available information comes from the 1991 Census New Parliamentary Constituency Monitor for the South West Government Office Region, published by the Office for National Statistics. It shows the population of the Christchurch constituency as 80,938, of which 5.3 per cent. were men aged 75 and over and 8.4 per cent. were women aged 75 and over. The Monitor does not give information on pensioner households broken down by age.

  Land Value Taxation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on land value taxation; and what taxation concessions are available for brownfield development. [127455]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: There is no specific tax on the value of land. Profits or gains from the sale of land and from development itself may be chargeable to income tax, corporation tax or capital gains tax. Sales of land are generally subject to stamp duty.

  The Government will consult interested parties about a possible relief from stamp duty for new developments on brownfield sites.

  Tobacco Taxation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield from increasing tobacco taxation by(a) 5p, (b) 10p and (c) 20p per packet of cigarettes. [127601]
  177W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: Indicative estimates of the revenue effects of changes in tobacco taxation were published in the Treasury's "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" in November 1999.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition is used of socially disadvantaged individuals by the European Community in the context of requiring particular attention in the single currency information campaign. [128135]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Commission defines vulnerable groups as those people who do not have easy access to traditional information flows, for example, those who are visually impaired or hearing impaired.

  Incontinence Pads
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for the reimbursement of VAT paid on incontinence pads have been received in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available. [128491]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No VAT is charged on incontinence products supplied to an incontinent person living in their own home or to charitable providers of care.

  MOD Assets
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the use made by the Ministry of Defence of Treasury Guidelines for greater commercial utilisation of Ministry of Defence property and assets. [128269]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Ministry of Defence's progress in making best use of its asset base, including commercial opportunities, is assessed in the Departmental Investment Strategy, which will be published in the autumn.

  Taxpayers (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent guidance he has given to the Inland Revenue about prosecuting those who are late in paying taxes. [129005]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's prosecution policy was published on 29 November 1999 and remains in force. It can be read on the Inland Revenue's website, www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk.

  National Insurance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many married women who have retained the right to reduced liability for National Insurance contributions would qualify for(a) the minimum 25 per cent. State Retirement Pension and (b) an increased percentage of retirement pension, if they revoked the
  178W
  reduced liability option from the April 2000–01 tax year; and what the estimated amount of pension foregone would be in each case. [128599]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the numbers of married women with a valid election to pay reduced rate National Insurance contributions who would qualify for a minimum State Retirement Pension if they revoked their elections.

  Foreign Taxation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the(a) French and (b) Belgian authorities have recently requested help in recovering tax from UK citizens. [128636]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Assistance in recovering tax for the French or Belgian authorities is available only in relation to indirect taxes under EC Directive 76–308.

  In the last three months there have been no requests from the French authorities for assistance, and in the same period the Belgian authorities requested help on two VAT cases amounting to £3,348.48 and six Excise duty cases amounting to £61,708.03.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's progress in meeting its targets for answering parliamentary questions; [129069]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's progress on its targets for answering parliamentary questions. [129220]

  Mr. Timms
  The Treasury is on track to meet its targets for answering parliamentary questions in the present session.

  VAT
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to zero rate the VAT payable by disabled people on the repair of their cars; and if he will make a statement. [129034]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is already VAT relief on the service of repair or maintenance of motor vehicles designed or substantially and permanently adapted to carry a disabled person in a wheelchair or on a stretcher. There is also relief for disabled people leasing vehicles through the Motability scheme: the leases for these vehicles cover servicing and repair.

  Alternative Care
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of reducing VAT by(a) 5 per cent. and (b) 10 per cent. on privately purchased alternative care for people in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK. [128174]

  Dawn Primarolo
  VAT is not charged on supplies of privately purchased care for people in residential and nursing homes in the UK.

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

CPA Conference: Government Representation
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede asked Her Majesty's Government:
What part the Government and the Prime Minister will play in the meetings of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to be held in London and Edinburgh in September.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, as is customary, a Minister will lead the UK delegation at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's annual conference in September. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for International Development, Mr Foulkes, will take on this role. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the opening ceremony and give a speech at the opening plenary session.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I am pleased to hear that so many government Ministers will be represented at the conference. What are my noble friend's hopes for the high level group of Ministers which will meet at the conference? What aspirations does she have for this series of meetings?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we very much welcome the important CPA meeting which is an opportunity for parliamentarians from the Commonwealth to come together to discuss issues of real importance. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Durban Ministers agreed to establish a high level group to review the role of the Commonwealth and advise how best it could respond to the challenges of the new century. The group has not yet met but the first official level meeting is planned for late July in Pretoria, South Africa. The Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Sir John Kerr, will represent the UK at that meeting. It is hoped that the Heads of Government will meet in September in New York.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Commonwealth today should increasingly be regarded as a valuable resource and a network to serve both global and British interests? Does she accept—this is not a party point—that when the Foreign Secretary came to office his mission statement, which gave high priority to the
1380
Commonwealth, raised a number of expectations? Does she think that those expectations have been fulfilled? Can she say precisely whether more or fewer people are now employed in the Commonwealth section of the Foreign Office than was the case three years ago?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to highlight the mission statement made in 1997 by my right honourable friend. He gave a commitment to strengthen the Commonwealth and to improve the prosperity of its members and co-operation between them. Her Majesty's Government have delivered on that promise and have done much to strengthen it. I cannot give the precise numbers of people working in the various sections of the Foreign Office. However, since 1997 our ability to work with our Commonwealth partners has been strengthened and we have gained much from that. It is an initiative that we intend to continue to pursue with increasing vigour.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, given that the Commonwealth is a unique association of both developed and developing countries, will the Minister consider suggesting to the Commonwealth Secretariat that it might be useful to provide some of the legal and expert assistance that developing countries desperately need in their negotiations with the World Trade Organisation? Will she consider suggesting that that might be one of the most useful roles that the Commonwealth could fulfil in the first decade of the new century?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly join with the noble Baroness in highlighting the need for legal and expert assistance. At the Heads of Government meeting it is hoped that there will be a review of the role that should properly be played by the Commonwealth in the next century. We hope that officials will take that matter forward in South Africa and that it will be pursued in September. I assure the noble Baroness that our endeavours will be focused on ensuring that the best opportunities are reaped from the association with the Commonwealth.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will attend the Commonwealth parliamentary meeting. Can we be assured that diaries will have room to enable meetings to take place with representatives of other governments and to make necessary ministerial visits? The noble Baroness will be well aware that the Foreign Minister had to cancel his visit to Warsaw the other weekend, as I believe that she went instead. The Prime Minister has cancelled two visits to Warsaw in the past year. I understand that there is a queue of Prime Ministers from applicant countries of eastern Europe who await an opportunity to visit London to talk to our Prime Minister. There is a general sense, particularly in the east European countries, that British Ministers do not have time in

1381
their diaries to allocate to this important aspect of British foreign policy. Will the Minister give us encouragement on that matter?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have taken every opportunity to see Heads of Government. The noble Lord will know that a huge amount of work has been carried out recently in the international sphere because of the security issues that have been uppermost in people's minds. I assure the noble Lord that the Government will continue to make every effort to meet Heads of Government as we understand that it is a priority.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will there be any discussion at the CPA meeting or in the margins on compliance with the Harare Declaration? Have the Government any new proposals on mechanisms to ensure that Commonwealth countries will observe its terms once they have signed up to it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that the whole House will understand the nature of a CPA conference. It provides an opportunity for parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth to come together to discuss matters which are of importance to them in relation to their regions and for the regions to come together to discuss those issues. We hope that good, positive lines that can be followed thereafter will come out of the conference. But its most important role is as a vehicle which enables Commonwealth parliamentarians to come together to discuss and consider how best to help one another.

Pathologists
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to alleviate the shortage of pathologists in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we are taking action to alleviate the shortage of pathologists across the workforce. We are continuing to invest in more higher specialist trainees. In addition, the medical workforce planning review, launched in April this year, will look at the staffing needs of different care groups to meet the needs of patients.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, can he tell us the shortfall? As it takes a qualified doctor another five years to become a pathologist, is not this shortfall of great concern?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no doubt that pathologists have an extremely valuable role to play in the National Health Service. There have been concerns in relation to shortages, especially in
1382
relation to histopathologists. We are dealing with this as rapidly as we can. We shall increase the number of specialist registrar training places from 888 at the moment to 1,300 by 2006; that includes 40 extra specialist registrar training posts this year. That will go a long way towards dealing with the shortages. We shall keep the matter under annual review.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we are dealing in a very competitive area, in which salaries in the private sector are far higher than those in the National Health Service? With all the good will in the world, unless an adjustment is made to that particular salary scale it will be extremely difficult to fill many of the vacancies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend raises a number of issues. Clearly consultant pathologists receive the same salary as other consultants in the health service; they are also eligible for discretionary points. So far as concerns the pay levels of staff generally, I believe that, through the pay body recommendations and other awards that have been given to staff, we have fully recognised their value. For example, we have taken into account the recommendations of the pay review bodies, and have thus ensured that the amounts recommended have been paid in full. That is in contrast to the staging system with which the previous government so disenchanted members of staff. We have to do much better in terms of the support that we give to staff, including professional development and other support measures.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister referred to the number of training places that are being created—and, of course, they are welcome but, as his own consultation document, A Health Service of all the talents: Developing the NHS workforce, acknowledged, the rule whereby 50 per cent of the cost of those training places must be borne by the trusts is one of the key problems in manpower planning at the moment. What can the Minister say about that? What has been the result of the consultations, which were due to finish in mid-June?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in essence, a national levy provides 50 per cent of the basic salary costs for senior house officers and specialist registrars. NHS trusts have to find the remainder of the costs. I recognise that this is a particular issue and that there have been concerns that some trusts were not prepared to fund the extra number of specialist registrar places. I am glad to say that trusts have indicated that they wish to take up the 40 extra places which will be coming on-stream this year. We shall, of course, keep the situation under review. We have made it clear to NHS trusts that we expect them to invest in these posts.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, forensic pathology plays a very important part in dealing with crime. Is there a shortage of forensic pathologists?

1383
Does that impact on the National Health Service? I should declare an interest as an honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists—why I do not know, except that I feel it may have designs on the two kippers that I call my lungs.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the royal college has certainly chosen well. The main shortage is in relation to histopathologists, whose role is to examine human tissues and undertake post mortems. I am not aware of the statistics in relation to forensic pathologists but I shall be happy to look into the matter further. My understanding is that the key problem is in relation to histopathologists, where we wish to see a large increase in the number of specialist registrar posts.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the major problem concerns recruitment into histopathology? There are currently more than 100 unfilled histopathology posts in the UK, which is 10 per cent of the total. The problem goes back to recruitment into the training grade posts and the funding issue to which my noble friend referred. Does the Minister agree that the Government should focus their efforts on enhancing recruitment into the specialty and on ensuring that the trusts fund those posts?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not disagree with any of the points raised by my noble friend. Certainly the increase in the number of specialist registrar training places is based on the assumption that they will be funded by NHS trusts—which I fully expect them to be. That will mean that more people will be coming through in the future to fill consultant posts. Equally, I accept that we need to attract medical students into considering pathology as a suitable specialism for them to enter. We are working well with the Royal College of Pathologists. We need to work together to show medical students the attractions of the pathology profession. I believe that pathologists have a very important role to play in the NHS.
Earl Howe: My Lords, last year the Government announced a £10 million capital fund for modernising pathology services in the NHS. Can the Minister say whether all that money has been allocated and whether he thinks that £10 million is adequate?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we need to invest in pathology services. At the moment the National Health Service has a high level of pathology services, but there has been under-investment. Certainly in the future we need to look at ways to ensure that resources are made available in order to develop those services and to ensure that the quality of the kit and the actual facilities are of a high standard. In terms of future investment, within the national plan
1384
we are in the process of developing proposals for services. Inevitably we shall be looking at pathology developments within that.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer me when I asked him about the shortfall.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have specific figures for a shortfall. Those are issues which fall to be dealt with locally. But I have said that I believe that the increase in the number of specialist registrar training places will enable us to overcome many of the problems that undoubtedly are occurring at the moment.

Agency Nurses: Percentages
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentage of nurses employed in London hospitals are agency nurses.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no data are collected on the number of agency staff working in London at any one time. But the Government have already indicated in their response to the Health Select Committee that the NHS needs to reduce its dependency on temporary staffing. We are ensuring that it takes action to do so.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather inadequate reply. Does he agree with me that sometimes agency nurses with inadequate training are placed on highly specialised wards? Does he further agree with me that this puts patients in a vulnerable position? The nurses feel inadequate. When will sisters come back to work on the wards to give this much needed instruction?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, sisters play a vital role in leadership in wards. The Government are determined to give as much support as they possibly can to their work. I fully accept the noble Baroness's point. We must ensure that when agency nurses are placed in ward situations they are suitably qualified and are able to accept the responsibility placed on them. Part of the work that we are undertaking, both at national level and in London, is to ensure that we develop good practice so that trusts use agency nurses appropriately where they have to be used, and to ensure that we have other mechanisms by which trusts—perhaps through nurse banks, sharing services between different trusts—can reduce the need for agency nurses.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I respectfully direct the Minister to the Question and ask him whether he would be good enough to answer it and refrain from bamboozling this House with verbiage?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that I did answer the Question. I said that no data have been

1385
collected on the number of agency staff working in London at any time. The issue is a serious one. An analysis of the amount of money spent by NHS trusts on agency staff indicates that in London it varies as a percentage of employee costs from between 2 per cent and 15 per cent, with an average of around 9 per cent. It is the Government's contention that while there will always be a need for agency nurses, that figure is too high and we need to reduce our dependency; hence the work both in London and nationally to deal with the problem.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can my noble friend kindly explain why an efficiently run National Health Service needs to use any agency nurses except in cases of dire emergency? Could it be the result of bad planning in the past?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the party opposite has a good deal to answer for. It has a good deal to answer for as regards its decision in the 1990s to reduce the number of nurse training places. Noble Lords will know that we have reversed that trend and increased dramatically the number of nurse training places. In answer to my noble friend I would say that there will always be a need for some agency staff—to cover increased demand for staff when it is uncertain how many staff one needs, periods of high activity and to cover holiday periods and sickness. I would say also that when nurses return to work as nurses, which we want to encourage, there is some evidence that many of them prefer to return through agency nursing programmes. The way to tackle this issue is: first, to increase our efforts to recruit more nurses—and that is happening—secondly, to increase the number of nurse-training places—and that is happening—and, thirdly, to increase the use of nurse banks—and that is happening. In combination, I think that we can reduce the number of agency nurses.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister referred to the success of the nursing recruitment drives. The fact is that in the past year the cost of agency nurses has increased on a national basis from £264 million to £344 million. It was recently reported that we are recruiting nurses from as far afield as China. Surely the Minister cannot claim that that is a success.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the national nurse recruitment campaign has been successful. For instance, nearly 14,000 qualified nurses and midwives have approached their local education consortia for information about either becoming nurses or returning to nursing and 3,845 nurses and midwives have already returned to employment in the NHS in England. A further 2,000 are preparing to join them after completing refresher training. With regard to the recruitment of overseas nurses, the health service has always recruited nurses from overseas. That has been beneficial both to the UK and to those countries. It has
1386
enabled links to be maintained. It helps our health exports. It is done on an ethical basis. I see no problem with that.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, with regard to returning nurses, is it not a fact that when nurses leave the NHS and return at a later stage they take up their jobs at a lower salary than when they left? Would it not be extremely helpful in terms of keeping up NHS nurse numbers if that problem was looked at?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I know that it is an issue which has been raised. It has also been raised in relation to nurses who, for instance, have perhaps left the NHS, gone to work abroad for some time and enhanced their experience and leadership skills but have then found it difficult when they came back to the NHS to be employed at their old grade. This is an issue which needs to be tackled both by individual trusts and by the various strategies we have in relation to nurse pay and conditions. There is no doubt that the quality of our nursing workforce is very high. We must reward them for that.

NHS: Planning for Single Currency
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
What instructions they have given to National Health Service hospitals to make funds available for preparations for Britain to join the euro.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as set out in the Government's second outline national changeover plan, the NHS is carrying out a measure of preplanning for the possibility of UK entry into the single currency. All parts of the public sector, including the NHS, need to plan for the possibility of UK entry to ensure that any changeover, if it takes place, takes place in a smooth and cost-effective way.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the extreme concern being expressed by the trusts on this matter? Can he tell the House exactly how much money hospitals will have to contribute for this purpose? What proportion of that money are the Government providing? Does he not agree that a diminution of funds must inevitably mean a lessening of patient care? How on earth, anyway, will patients benefit from our joining the euro? Is not the NHS in enough trouble without adding this burden on top?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the NHS is not in trouble. It has just had an injection of a record amount of resources which will enable it to grow by one-third over four years. The noble Baroness referred to the concern expressed by trusts. It is difficult to find any issue in the NHS about which one individual trust is not deeply concerned. All that has happened is that each NHS organisation has been asked to consider and

1387
prepare plans in order for it to evaluate what it would take to embrace the changeover if that were to happen. With regard to expenditure, we would expect that task, which has to be completed by every organisation by the end of September, to be carried out by staff already working in the organisation.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that many people will be slightly puzzled by what is going on? What conceivable implication can membership of the euro have for good or ill for the National Health Service? It is simply another currency that might be carried by patients coming from France, Germany, China or anywhere else. I ask my question purely out of interest.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if at any stage it was decided that this country should enter the euro, that would have an impact on the National Health Service, particularly during a transitional period.
Noble Lords: How?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In a number of ways, my Lords. For instance, on day one of entry into the EMU, if that were to happen, the NHS could expect to receive euro invoices. That might have to be covered by multi-currency financial systems. That would then require training for NHS finance staff. It might involve the organisation in dual pricing during the transitional period. That would have an impact on similar organisations. It is sensible that the NHS should be reflecting at the moment on what it would have to do if changeover occurred.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is this not—
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, there seems to be some competitive calling for both my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and my noble friend Lord Shore. Perhaps we may hear them both if they ask brief questions.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is this not a simple question of sensible forward planning by a sensible public service? Do not the suppliers of the National Health Service already submit some of their invoices in euros? Are there not some circumstances in which we require to be paid in euros? Is not such a preparation a necessary basis on which people can carry out sensible planning and have a sensible choice in a referendum when it comes?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is certainly a helpful intervention. We want a National Health Service that plans for the future. If this country decides to join a single currency it is important that the NHS is well prepared for it. The exercise that is taking
1388
place at the moment is to ensure that the NHS fully understands the implications so that if and when entry into the euro occurs it is able to do so.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Civil List. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on football hooliganism.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 29,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 30 to 47,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 48 to 63,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 64 to 80,
Schedules 4 and 5,
Clause 81.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 5 [Resource accounts: preparation]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, any money paid by a government department to the New Millennium Experience Company shall be included in that department's accounts prepared under this section subject to the provisions of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government will be aware of public concern about the funding of the Millennium Dome. The Dome is run by the New Millennium Experience Company. It became a non-departmental public body in 1997 when its shares were transferred to a government Minister. That is currently the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who is the sole shareholder of the NMEC. The company also remains a company under the Companies Act.
Over the past three years the finances of the Dome have been marked by a lack of transparency. My amendment tries to shine a little light on the

1389
relationship between the Government and the NMEC. A detailed analysis is for another day's debate and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Lamont has a Dinner Hour debate on Wednesday 12th July on this very subject.
My amendment would make sure that every government department that had financial dealings of any kind with the NMEC would have to show those dealings in its accounts. One might ask why I am so cynical that I suspect that the accounts would not be transparent. The answer is that over the past year or so I have watched a drip-feed of money going to the Millennium Dome. Lottery funds are the public's money. Concern has been expressed about the manner and timing of those transfers of money.
Yesterday I looked at the website of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That still states that the NMEC,
"has an overall cash budget of £758 million to meet the costs of all aspects of the project".
That statement ignores the fact that so many extra amounts of lottery cash have been lent or given to the Dome—I am not sure which in many cases—over and above what was originally intended to be the investment—a good investment—from the lottery.
Earlier this year, the new chief executive, M. Gerbeau, denied claims that he was going to ask the Millennium Commission for another bail-out sum of £20 million. That statement was made in the middle of April. However, one month later M. Gerbeau asked the commission for £29 million and, of course, he received the money. When giving evidence to the Select Committee last week, M. Gerbeau admitted that on the very day that the grant of money was made, in practice the Dome was on the verge of bankruptcy.
Noble Lords will be aware, following exchanges on a Private Notice Question in this House at the time, that the Millennium Commission made that grant of money only after seeking and obtaining from the Government a letter of direction. The reason for obtaining such a letter of direction was in order that the Millennium Commission could cover its own back because it believed that it was making a grant of funding that would not demonstrate value for money for the public. It is therefore reassuring to know, at least as a result of that event, that those matters will be subject to reference to the National Audit Office.
Last week, M. Gerbeau again said that he would not approach the Millennium Commission for further funding. Should we believe his statement? I certainly hope that that is the case, but I should like to ask a question: what will happen if the Dome requires more money to help get it through the operating period covered by the summer and towards the end of the year? I ask that question because M. Gerbeau has given assurances that the Dome will not close down until the end of the year. Where would M. Gerbeau go for additional moneys?
These issues provide the basis for my amendment. I should like to establish whether plans are in place for the Dome's finances to be shored up using other
1390
resources that might lie within the control or influence of the Government. Can the Minister give an assurance that, if I were to withdraw my amendment, any money subsequently given, lent or in any way made available to the Dome by any government department for any period will then be recorded on the balance sheets of the government department concerned in a clear and transparent manner? I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I support the amendment. My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns has set out clearly the issues which concern her. Of course, both my noble friend and the Minister who is to reply have been deeply involved in issues surrounding the Dome for a considerable time.
In subsequent amendments we shall turn to the question of how the finances of non-departmental public bodies should be treated. However, the Dome is a specific case on which I think it is appropriate to focus at this point, not only for the reasons given by my noble friend but also because the question of whether such bodies should be audited by the National Audit Office is extremely important. No doubt the Minister will be able to confirm immediately whether the organisation concerned with the Dome will be audited by the National Audit Office as regards both financial propriety and value for money.
As far as concerns propriety, in the light of the remarks made by my noble friend and of the evidence submitted to the Select Committee to which she referred, it appears that the organisation may be in danger of finding itself trading in a condition of insolvency. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether that will be the case. It is important to ensure that the assets and liabilities of the organisation are set out clearly by the government department which has responsibility, at least to a certain extent, for its operation.
As to value for money, it is important to establish whether the National Audit Office will be able to look into the affairs of the Dome with that in mind. Inquiries based on value for money objectives were established some 20 years ago in the National Audit Office. Those inquiries are of great value. It is always a matter of concern if a letter of direction has to be issued to a particular body. If I understand correctly, the letter was issued on the grounds that further investment would not—I repeat, would not—represent value for money.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on all these points. I think that my noble friend was right to draw the attention of the House to this matter in the context of the Bill as a whole.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by my noble friend, which I describe as the "throwing good money after bad" amendment. In it my noble friend seeks to ensure that the shambles which has taken place in the past cannot continue without a great deal more accountability than has been seen to be the case so far as concerns the tragedy of the Dome.

1391
On this occasion, can the Minister take the opportunity to dissociate himself and the Government from the statement made yesterday by Mr Ayling who, when looking for another scapegoat, declared that the whole problem lay in the fact that the public had let the Dome down by not visiting it sufficiently?
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I admire the ingenuity of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in using this Bill in order to try to introduce a debate on the finances of the Dome. I admire, too, the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in using the amendment to anticipate matters which I believe should be more properly debated in later amendments. The House will forgive me if I reply to the amendment rather than to the speeches.
I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that all moneys paid out by a government department will be included in its accounts and subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Because the first accounts under this clause will be for 2001–02 at the earliest, it is likely that most payments concerned with the New Millennium Experience will be accounted for under the current system of cash-based appropriation accounts rather than under the resource-based system introduced by the Bill. To the extent that any payments relating to this matter are relevant to accounts prepared under this clause, then they will be included in those accounts. However, I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to refer specifically to this issue on the face of the Bill.
The only remark that I should like to make in addition to that explanation, in response to the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, concerning the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General—this point might not arise naturally out of our debates on later amendments—is that I understand that the National Audit Office has already announced that it will be carrying out a value for money study into the Dome.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, even if he believes that he was replying only to the amendment rather than to the speeches made in support of it. Perhaps I may assure him that, in framing my speech, I did so very much with the public interest in mind, which also forms the basis of my amendment. I am grateful, too, for the support of my noble friends.
However, I am concerned that the Minister states that the Bill already allows for the fact that there will be clarity as regards the accounts for moneys "paid out"—I believe that the Minister used those words. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that I am concerned also with moneys made available to the Dome and then repaid during the year. This matter is one to which I shall return in greater detail on another day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("Treasury") and insert ("Financial Reporting Advisory Board").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to a long series of amendments grouped with it. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to make a few opening remarks because the amendments cover an important part of the Bill.
Perhaps I may express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the two letters that he has written to me following our discussions in Grand Committee. Against the background of the provisions set out in the Bill, the Government have announced that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, is to chair a group which will look into various aspects of the Government's financial affairs. That is very welcome, as was the letter from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in which lie drew attention to a Written Answer he gave a few days ago concerning the membership of the steering group to review the audit and accounting arrangements for central government. I agree with what the noble Lord said in his letter; namely, that the group will comprise a highly distinguished membership. We shall not see the "usual suspects", but rather a number of people who have vast experience in this area and on whose judgment one can reasonably rely.
The list, in alphabetical order, begins with the Comptroller and Auditor General and ends with Mr Alan Williams, a member of the Public Accounts Committee in another place. I mention Mr Williams because he was my peer for some 20 years. I assure the House that he is a man of the utmost integrity and reliability. This matter is important, and the Government have done well in their selection, although I understand that there will be additions to the list and that the terms of reference have not yet been considered.
The fact that this initiative has been taken should not in any way inhibit your Lordships from expressing views on the various amendments on the Marshalled List. Many of the arguments in favour of them are simply overwhelming. Should further thought be necessary in the light of the study group findings, we can rely on further legislation to put the matter right. In a sense, the Bill is a missed opportunity. There have been only two or three Bills of this kind in the past century. Time having been found for the Bill, to discover that other matters still need to be considered is unfortunate.
Another point on which I am not entirely clear relates to the proposals for the new investigation. What is the relationship between the so-called steering group to which I have referred and the group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman? There is presently some confusion. Will the steering group be concerned simply with such matters as terms of reference, or will it be concerned with the content of what is eventually reported to Parliament?
I turn now to the second letter that the Minister was kind enough to write to me, relating specifically to the amendments. There is a problem in that it is difficult to group the amendments in any way other than that

1393
chosen; namely, to include the whole lot, regardless of the content. I see that the Minister agrees. I have made several attempts over the past 48 hours to find a tidier method, but I fear that it is not possible; therefore, my remarks will inevitably be rather discursive. The grouping is unfortunate because the individual amendments cover a considerable number of clauses and extend across the Bill. So, again, the way in which we are discussing these matters is not simple.
Problems arise both in regard to the government amendments and my own. Instead of dividing the issue of who should set accountancy standards from the content of the accounts, all the provisions are contained in single amendments, making it impossible to split them; it is equally impossible to group them in any way other than altogether. I fear that my amendments, especially those that are consequential, are not appropriate at certain points in the Bill.
Essentially, there are three points to deal with. First, who sets the standards on which government accounts should be based? Secondly, what form should the accounts take? Thirdly, and most importantly, should the standards and bases of the accounts be set by the Treasury or by some independent body? It will probably be most convenient if I speak to the government amendments and my amendments to them, rather than to my own amendments, since much of the ground covered is the same.
My amendments refer to the financial resources advisory committee and suggest that throughout the Bill it should be that body, rather than the Treasury, which should determine the accounting basis to be used by the Government. Much the same ground is covered by the government amendments, in particular Amendments Nos. 7, 21 and 26. Amendment No. 7 covers both points. The first part of the amendment states that the Treasury shall,
"have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Accounting Standards Board Limited or any other body prescribed".
The second part suggests that there should be a statement of financial position, a cash flow statement, and so on. The two aspects are taken together.
On the question of who should set the accounts, I suggest in my amendments that it should be the financial resources advisory committee, whereas the Government say that it should be the accounting standards board. I do not necessarily have any problem with that. The Government refer again in Amendment No. 21 to the accountancy standards board. Finally, in Amendment No. 26, they change tack and suggest that a body shall be set up—which I understand is to be the FRAB, although it is not mentioned in terms—to advise on certain aspects of the accounts. As regards the first two amendments, it is appropriate that the body should be the accounting standards board limited; and so far as concerns further advice, in the third amendment it is the FRAB. So there is no great problem with that.
I turn to the second aspect of the government amendments; namely, the content of the accounts. The Government suggest that it should include a statement
1394
of financial performance, a statement of financial position, and a cash flow statement. That is a concession on the part of the Government since we discussed the matter in Grand Committee. At that stage, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was inclined to argue that this provision need not appear on the face of the Bill, so the change is to be welcomed. What I am not clear about is to what extent the government proposals are in reality coextensive with the suggestion that I make in the corresponding amendments from this side of the House. For example, does a statement of financial position mean a balance sheet; and, if it does not, why does the provision not say so?
This is a matter of particular concern. One of the major changes that will take place as a result of a movement to resource accounting is that for the first time there will be what amounts to a balance sheet for individual government departments and indeed for the whole of government accounts. This is a substantial advance and is to be welcomed. However, as one of my other amendments points out, it is important that there should be a balance sheet and that it should include contingent liabilities as well as other liabilities. The relevance of that is particularly appropriate in the area of social security, for which I have responsibility, especially in regard to pensions in the Department of Social Security accounts. It would be helpful if we could be clear that the Government's amendments on the matter and my own are coextensive.
The Minister's letter spells out what he has in mind. I imagine that he will say much the same in response to this debate. But the crucial matter is in the amendments that I have tabled to the government amendments, in particular my Amendment No. 22 to government Amendment No. 21, and my Amendment No. 27 to government Amendment No. 26.
The amendments propose that, in taking action under the Bill, the Government should accept whatever is proposed by the Accounting Standards Board and the FRAB. We are very concerned that the Government, in particular the Treasury, should not determine the form of the accounts. I have already quoted the example of the working families' tax credit which is treated as a tax reduction rather than an increase in public expenditure. The Government should not decide the way in which their accounts are presented; otherwise, there is far too much scope for presenting the figures in a way that is not in accordance with the underlying reality.
We on this side of the House strongly believe that, if this is the way in which the Government wish to deal with the matter, these two bodies should determine the accounting standards, in particular the adjustments to be made, because government accounts cannot be exactly the same as a company's accounts. At the end of the day, those bodies rather than the Treasury should be the final arbiter of the form and shape of the government accounts. It would be very strange if individual companies in this country could determine for themselves the accounting standards. Unless these amendments are accepted, essentially that is the position in which the Government will find themselves. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we very much welcome the amendments tabled by the Government since the debate on this matter in Committee. We believe that the Government have moved a considerable way. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made clear, at root is a real issue of substance; namely, whether the Treasury should itself set the guidelines. We on these Benches believe that the amendments tabled by the Minister now make it clear that, although the Treasury will still issue directives to departments—that is appropriate because it is to departments that directives are issued—they will be subject to standards laid down by the Accounting Standards Board. The Financial Reporting Advisory Board will review those standards and provide advice upon them. In his letter the Minister spelt out precisely the way in which that would be constituted. The deliberations of the board will be reported on and those reports will be made public by being laid before the House of Commons. In all these respects the Government have moved a considerable way in the direction that we indicated in Committee and, in that sense, we are prepared to accept the amendments.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 3 in this group. I am not absolutely sure that I understood everything that my noble friend said. However, when considering public policy, of which NATS is a good example, ideas frequently hit the buffers of Treasury rules. Furthermore, noble Lords will recall my recent Unstarred Question regarding MoD policy to make certain TA personnel redundant and the payback period. Even the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, found the Treasury rules somewhat peculiar. In the case that I raised, redundancy payments were termed "transfer payments". Such payments are not relevant to the calculation of a payback period or the economic case for any particular policy. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, who I see in his place, also took part in the debate. While he implied that he did not understand my Question, he also found the Minister's reliance on Treasury rules bizarre. No one suggested that the Minister was wrong.
My amendment is not party political. Ministers of either party frequently find themselves frustrated by Treasury rules. Can the Minister help the House by shedding light on those rules? For example, are they published anywhere; if so, under whose authority? Finally and generally, is there any way in which Ministers, advisers and opposition spokesmen can check their policies in advance against the Treasury rules without first consulting the Treasury?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for his acceptance that in practice it is impossible to divide up the issues that are dealt with by these amendments. I shall introduce the government amendments. I shall go on to say a word about the opposition amendments to
1396
those amendments and then deal with the other opposition amendments which follow from Amendment No. 2.
There are four government amendments in this group. The first three, Amendments Nos. 7, 21 and 29, are in the same form. Amendment No. 7 is perhaps the most important because it relates to resource accounts as we have been debating them in practice. Amendment No. 21 relates to "Whole of government accounts" in Clause 9. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has chosen to table amendments to Amendment No. 21 rather than to Amendment No. 7, but I do not think that it matters; the principle is the same in either case. Amendment No. 29 in Schedule 1 relates to "Whole of Government of Wales accounts". However, it has the same wording as Amendments Nos. 7 and 21. Following that, I shall say a word about Amendment No. 26 which introduces the advisory board.
The Bill already provides that resource accounts and whole of government accounts will be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice and will need to show a true and fair view. The Government believed that these rigorous conditions were sufficient to ensure that the accounts would be produced in accordance with best professional practice and to the highest standard. However, having listened to what was said in Committee, we have tabled amendments—I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her acknowledgement—further to clarify the basis on which these accounts will be prepared.
Government Amendment No. 7 lays down in more detail than we have hitherto provided the financial statements that must be prepared for resource accounts. Rather than do this by reference to current accounting requirements, as proposed by the Opposition in Committee, the amendment relates to the fundamental financial statements as defined by the Accounting Standards Board in its Statement of Principles for Financial Reporting. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that that includes the preparation and publication of a balance sheet. We hope that it satisfies the concerns in this area which were expressed in Committee while at the same time being sufficiently "future proof" to enable resource accounts to adapt to changes in financial reporting requirements as and when necessary. It would not make sense for us to require primary legislation of this kind every time the ASB changed the description of the accounts or its own name. For example, if that body became the standards board for accounting we would have to introduce a Bill to allow for that.
We must be able to adapt resource accounts to changes in the financial reporting requirements as and when necessary. This amendment makes it clear that the Treasury will have regard to the guidance issued by the Accounting Standards Board, or any of its successors, while ensuring that the resource accounts show a true and fair view and comply with generally accepted accounting practice. Amendments Nos. 21 and 29 apply similar requirements to whole of government accounts. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 tabled by the Opposition would apply to any of the

1397
three amendments to which I have just spoken. Amendment No. 22 would require us to accept, rather than have regard to, guidance issued by the Accounting Standards Board.
As I said, there will be occasions when, due to the particular nature of central government accounts, we will have to adapt standard practice, and the Government have said so. I believe everybody has agreed in previous debate that that is necessary. So placing a duty to follow the Accounting Standards Board guidance in all cases is not appropriate. It could in certain circumstances conflict with the overriding requirement that accounts show a true and fair view. Normally, of course, following relevant accounting standards is essential to meet the requirements of a true and fair view, but it is an accepted part of accounting practice that if a particular body in complying fully with a standard prevents a true and fair view from being shown, the standard should be departed from in order to ensure that the true and fair view is preserved. That is known as the true and fair override.
Amendment No. 22 would require additional words to be added to the descriptor of Section 256 of the Companies Act.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I am having difficulty in understanding precisely what he is saying.
Presumably, the point about standards changing can be taken into account if the legislation states that the Treasury shall accept whatever changes are proposed. That would be a dynamic approach. Regarding the point about true and fair view, clearly it would be the case that the Accounting Standards Board would also take that into account.
I have some difficulty in understanding why the noble Lord believes that to be too inflexible to be practicable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is because the Accounting Standards Board itself uses the word "guidance" for the way in which it expects people to conform to the standard which it applies. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, with his great experience of government, will recognise that it is normal that regard is had to guidance and that guidance is not accepted as such. I will give an explanation at a later stage as to why acceptance is less appropriate.
Regarding the other part of Amendment No. 23, which relates to Section 256 of the Companies Act, "Accounting Standards" is the formal side-heading of that section of the Companies Act and it would not be appropriate to change it in this House.
A reference has been included to Section 256 of the Companies Act to ensure that if the Accounting Standards Board is replaced in the future by a new accounting standards-setting body then regard would automatically be had to the standards issued by that new body.
1398
I now turn to government Amendment No. 26, which is concerned with the Financial Reporting Advisory Board. The existing provisions of the Bill, further reinforced by the government amendments just referred to, would ensure that resource accounts will be prepared in accordance with best practice and in accordance with the guidance issued by the Accounting Standards Board or its successor.
However, it has always been made clear that there will be occasions where, because of the particular requirements of central government accounts, it will be necessary to adapt standard accounting practice.
The Financial Reporting Advisory Board was set up in 1996 to provide advice on accounting matters generally, but in particular to advise on appropriate accounting treatments in areas where some adaptation of standard practice was required.
It is believed that the current arrangements for the FRAB are working well and that the FRAB is recognised to be independent. Indeed, nobody in this House has suggested anything to the contrary.
An excellent illustration of how the process currently works is the FRAB's newly published report on the 1999/2000 edition of the Resource Accounting Manual. It reports on all the matters considered by the board during the year, together with a commentary on key issues, and the outcome of the board's deliberations. All matters of ongoing concern to the board are also documented.
However, to address the concerns which have been expressed about the way the board works and to reinforce the independence of the process, the Government have brought forward Amendment No. 26 which would place the following duties on the Treasury.
The Treasury, before determining the accounting policies for resource accounts and whole of government accounts, would be required to consult with a group of persons—which is, of course, currently the Financial Reporting Advisory Board—who appear to it appropriate to advise on financial reporting principles and standards.
The Treasury must consult with the Comptroller and Auditor General in determining the composition of the group. Of course that has been done with the FRAB, although in practice the Treasury would also consult with a wider range of other interested parties.
The group would be required to prepare an annual report of its activities, which must be laid before the House of Commons.
The requirements ensure that the Treasury must seek independent expert advice on accounting matters. Furthermore, by requiring the group to report to the House of Commons, the Government will also ensure that where the Treasury does not accept that advice the disagreement would be brought to the attention of Parliament. It is important to ensure that on the face of the Bill, rather than that there should be an acceptance of guidance as proposed in the amendments.

1399
Opposition Amendment No. 27 is an amendment to Amendment No. 26 and would require the Treasury to accept any recommendations made by the group. It is much too prescriptive. It would turn what is an advisory body into the standard-setter. The amendment requires the group to prepare a report which will be laid before the House of Commons, ensuring that disagreement and the reasons for it are in the public domain.
There has been a good deal of give and take between the Treasury and the board, and an example of that can be found in the new report at paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 regarding the treatment of non-operational heritage assets. The board believes, as a matter of accounting principle, that all these assets should be valued and should appear on departmental balance sheets. But the Treasury, in consultation with the National Audit Office, has argued that the case for doing that is unproven as the cost of obtaining reliable valuations may outweigh the benefits of including such assets on the balance sheet. Imagine if the Victoria and Albert Museum were told to obtain valuations for all of the many thousands of items in its possession. The board therefore accepts that the current treatment of these assets should remain for the present.
The Government believe, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, indicated in Grand Committee, that the Government's amendments cover the essence of the points made in very useful debate, and do not need further amendment.
I turn now to other opposition amendments. The most important of those are Amendments Nos. 5 and 20, which would require balance sheets in both resource accounts and the whole of government accounts. It is to he hoped that the Opposition will accept that Amendments Nos. 7, 21 and 29 go further than these proposals by requiring a statement of financial position, including a balance sheet and a cash flow statement.
Furthermore, the Opposition proposals specify that contingent liability should be included in balance sheets. That, of course, would contravene the ASB's financial reporting standard 12, which makes it clear that contingent liability should not be recognised in the financial statements but should be disclosed in the notes to the account. The Government have adopted the requirements of FRS No. 12 in the Resource Accounting Manual.
Amendment No. 28 attempts to place the Financial Reporting Advisory Board on a statutory basis. It is entirely unclear what the effect of that would be. The clause states nothing about who the members should be; who should appoint the members; how it should go about its work; or to whom it should report. It is believed that the clear duties which the Government have placed on the Treasury in Amendment No. 26, and the transparency of those duties, will ensure that in the accounting policy setting that is in contrast with Amendment No. 28.
The many amendments which replace the Treasury with the FRAB would also give rise to some illogical effects. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would make the
1400
FRAB itself responsible for preparing the whole of government accounts and determining which bodies should be included in those accounts, as well as determining the accounting standards to be followed. That is strange since the objection to the Bill is that it allows the Treasury both to set the rules and to prepare the accounts. Again, the amendments have not been offered to Clause 10, so the FRAB would prepare the accounts but it would be for the Treasury to determine what information should be included in the accounts, and it would be for the Treasury to collect the information. That is not logical.
Finally, perhaps I may comment on whether the ASB or the FRAB should set the standards. That is the crux of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that we have mixed up the two issues. That is not the case. The presumption is that the Accounting Standards Board standards will apply to the Government's accounts unless they do not apply to the public sector as there are good public expenditure control reasons for adopting a different treatment. All matters dealt within the Resource Accounting Manual must be reviewed by the Financial Reporting Advisory Board. Our Amendment No. 26 makes those powers transparent and will require the board to report on the manual's compliance with generally accepted accounting practice and the steps to be taken to address any departures.
That also answers the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. What he calls "Treasury rules" are the Resource Accounting Manual. That substantial document is published annually and he is welcome to have a copy in order to study it in advance of his contribution to our debates on the Transport Bill.
I believe that the government amendments address the essential issues debated in Grand Committee. I believe that they are preferable to the Opposition's amendments and I commend them to the House.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. As I indicated earlier, his letters on the subject were most useful. His comments on the form the accounts should take will require careful study. I take his point about contingent liabilities being in the notes to the accounts rather than on the balance sheet. However, as regards pensions, we may well find that the notes to the accounts cover an amount far greater than almost any other item in the whole of government expenditure. We shall need to scrutinise that most carefully.
In my opening remarks I conceded that there were certain deficiencies in my amendments and thought it better to deal with the Government's amendments and my amendments to them. I do not accept the Minister's point about the inflexibility of an arrangement in which the ASB and the FRAB fulfil the functions he mentioned but the Government cannot automatically accept their recommendations.
As the Minister rightly said, the crux of the matter is who, at the end of the day, determines what the standards should be. The Government's amendments seem to us to give them and the Treasury in particular

1401
too much flexibility. Our experience of the presentation of government accounts shows that they may give a misleading impression of what is happening. I give the classic example of the working families' tax credit.
For that reason, while I do not propose to move the main group of amendments, at an appropriate moment I shall ask my noble friends to support me in the Lobby in taking the feeling of the House as regards my Amendment No. 22 as an amendment to Amendment No. 21. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) For the purpose of subsection (3)(a) and (b) the Treasury shall in particular—

(a) have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Accounting Standards Board Limited or any other body prescribed for the purposes of section 256 of the Companies Act 1985 (accounting standards), and

(b) require resource accounts to include, subject to paragraph (a), a statement of financial performance, a statement of financial position and a cash flow statement.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Other departmental accounts]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]

The Civil List
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement on the Civil List which supports Her Majesty the Queen in carrying out her official duties as head of state.
"The Civil List Act 1972, requires the royal trustees—my right honourable friend the Chancellor, the Queen's Treasurer and I—to report at least once every 10 years on the royal finances and to make recommendations to the Government for future Civil List arrangements. The current 10-year period ends later this year. We have therefore reviewed the current arrangements and are today laying a report before the House.
"It proposes that the amount of the Civil List should remain exactly the same over the next decade as it has over the preceding one. It also proposes that the Civil List should take on some costs of the monarchy currently met from other sources.
"The report also sets out not only expenditure on the Civil List but on the monarchy more widely. This includes the grants-in-aid for the royal palaces
1402
and travel and spending undertaken by government departments. The report records the very substantial savings of 55 per cent in real terms over the past 10 years on spending on the monarchy generally.
"The annual figure for the Civil List was set by the previous government at £7.9 million in 1990. With Her Majesty the Queen's agreement, and following consultation with the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the Government propose that the annual payment should remain at £7.9 million for the next 10-year period. By the year 2010 therefore the cost of the Queen's Civil List will have remained at exactly the same level for 20 years.
"In addition, there will be costs transferred from public spending of other departments which will now be met by the Queen's Civil List. All in all, this will represent a substantial saving as a result of lower inflation and the efficiency of the way in which the Queen's expenses have been managed.
"The principal additions to Civil List expenditure will be pension contributions to be paid to the Consolidated Fund and some of the running costs of the royal palaces which are currently funded within the Property Services grant-in-aid. In total, around £25 million of extra spending over the next 10 years will be transferred to Civil List expenditure from other sources.
"By expanding the costs for which the Royal Household is directly responsible, we will contribute to the continuing drive for efficiency to which I know they are committed.
"We are able to make these proposals for two reasons. First, the Royal Household has achieved very substantial efficiencies in the Civil List over the past decade, amounting to some 10 per cent in real terms. Indeed, the actual increase in expenditure over the decade has been held below inflation.
"In addition, when the figure of £7.9 million was set 10 years ago, it allowed for an inflation rate of 7.5 per cent per annum, in line with the average annual inflation of the 1980s. Inflation has turned out much lower than was allowed for. As a result of these factors, a surplus of £35 million on the Civil List has accumulated, including interest of around £12 million.
"Under the Civil List Act 1972, Civil List provision may be increased by order but it may not be reduced. However, the Act also provides that any surplus at the end of one Civil List period is carried forward to meet official expenditure in later years. This is what will now happen.
"We expect, nevertheless, that there will be a prudent balance at the end of the period, amounting to around one year's spending at that time. That will enable unforeseen eventualities to be met, should any arise. If not, the surplus will be available to fund Civil List spending during the current reign from 2011 onwards.
"The Queen, supported by other members of the Royal Family, carries out a wide range of duties on behalf of the nation as head of state. The

1403
arrangements that I have announced will provide proper support for Her Majesty in that role. They also reflect the principles which Parliament has embodied in legislation, and which I am happy to reaffirm. They support continuing improvements in efficiency by ensuring that financial and management responsibility go hand in hand. And they are in keeping with the honour and dignity of the Crown, the importance of the role carried out for the nation and the high regard and affection in which the Queen and Royal Family are held".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I assure her that we welcome and support the stability which the arrangement she has announced will provide for the Queen and the Royal Household. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing loyal admiration for the way in which Her Majesty continues to contribute so generously to the overall costs of the monarchy and for the way in which the running expenses of the monarchy have been contained. It has been done so well that may be the Treasury should invite those responsible in the Royal Household to give advice to the Government.
The institution of the monarchy is of inestimable value to this country. No one has given such sterling service to the nation as Her Majesty over almost 50 years including all the other hardworking members of the Royal Family, not least Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, whom we have particularly in mind this year.
One only has to contemplate the expense of heads of state in other countries to realise the value for money that we get from our Royal Family, even if that narrow mercenary consideration were all that mattered which, of course, is not the case. If one must look at the cold figures of the balance sheet only, will the noble Baroness agree with me that the monarchy and all the traditions that surround it attract huge sums to this country from overseas visitors?
I have only one question of substance. The deal that was struck in 1991 was on the basis of an average inflation figure which was not reached. If the figure for inflation increases over the course of the next few years, will the figure given in the Statement be reviewed?
Finally, in welcoming the Statement I invite the noble Baroness, as Leader of the House, and on behalf of this House, to agree with me that a hereditary monarchy is a binding thread that has run through the history of our country for well over a thousand years and that it is our firm and common cross-party resolve that it should continue to do so?
4.1 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I also welcome the repetition of the
1404
Statement by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I welcome what appears to be a sensible outcome to the latest review by the royal trustees. However, I mention in passing that the report to which the Statement refers was not available in the Printed Paper Office at 3.45 this afternoon. It would be helpful to all Members of the House if such a report could have been available at the time the Statement was taken.
Apart from the outcome, I too welcome the substantial overall savings on the monarchy in the past 10 years, which reflect our reasonable expectations in today's world. By that I mean that there should be proper support for the Royal Family in the performance of its constitutional duties, but without extravagance.
I also welcome—I believe that everyone will have learnt from it—that there is much greater transparency and openness as regards royal finances although there may still be some way to go. At one time there was great reluctance to reveal more than the very minimum of the royal finances. I believe that everyone has benefited, including the Royal Family. If anything, this openness has strengthened the monarchy by showing a much greater willingness to discuss the realities.
Some of the figures are not entirely clear to me—that is why I would have enjoyed reading the report—especially as regards the consequences of lower inflation. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred very properly to inflation over the next 10 years. I thought he referred to any variance from the figure that has been assumed. The fault may be mine, but I cannot find in the Statement any indication of the assumptions about the rate of inflation which have gone into this particular agreement. If the understanding of the rate of inflation on the previous occasion, based on the figure for the 1980s, was indicated here of 7.5 per cent, there must be an equivalent figure based on the rate of inflation in the 1990s. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that that is the case and say what the figure has been.
Finally, as I understand from the wording of the Statement, were there to be a succession to the throne in the next 10 years of this present agreement, the Civil List would then be open to further renewal. Can the noble Baroness confirm that that is the case?
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their positive response to the Statement. I believe they said that it was a sensible agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the stability which the Statement created. I believe that those sentiments are accepted and agreed around the House. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was, as I mentioned in the Statement, a party to the understandings contained in the agreement. One assumes that the basic understandings were accepted by his party.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, made an important point about transparency. One of the interesting factors about the way in which the Civil List, relations

1405
and the financial basis reached with the monarchy have developed in this country is that if one makes international comparisons, particularly European ones, one realises that we now have the most transparent system that can compare with any other. That is a great tribute to Her Majesty the Queen and those who serve her in that capacity.
A question was raised about the inflation rate over the next 10 years. As I understand it, the projected inflation rate on which the figures have been agreed is approximately 2.5 per cent. That is the rate at which the figures have been compiled. I imagine that if there were some great disparity between that projection and reality, the figures could be revisited as the Statement and agreement are not set in concrete. That is not precisely set out in the terms of the agreement.
I apologise greatly to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for the absence of the fuller report in the Printed Paper Office. I shall look into the matter. If there are any further questions or points that the noble Lord wishes to raise when he has had the opportunity to examine the report, I am sure that I shall be able to answer them in correspondence.
I reaffirm to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Government accept the enormous value and importance of the hereditary monarchy. I had the opportunity to make that point at several stages during the passage of the House of Lords Bill last year. In response to some amendments that came from the other side of the House suggesting that perhaps the abolition of the hereditary right to sit and vote in your Lordships' House could be equated in principle with concern about the right of the monarchy, I believe that I made clear on the Government's behalf, as I have always done, that the value of the monarchy expressed in the Statement is very well understood. If one uses the time-honoured Bagehot definition of the difference between the efficient and the dignified parts of the constitution, we understand very well that Her Majesty the Queen fulfils the dignified part in an absolutely first-class way.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, can the noble Baroness indicate whether the freeze will also apply to the Queen's annual gift to the Treasury which amounted to £130 million in the last financial year? In response to the plea for transparency from the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, should not that latter figure be given equal prominence with the £7.9 million granted in the Civil List, given that the Treasury and the taxpayer are doing rather well out of the monarchy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am not entirely sure to what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, refers when he speaks about Her Majesty's gift. Is he referring to her voluntary taxation payments?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, no. It is the income from the Crown estates.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I imagine that, together with all the understandings agreed in
1406
this particular area, it would have been subject to the same kind of review as the Civil List itself. I cannot reply positively to the noble Lord as to whether that particular item has been frozen. If I have any further information I shall let the noble Lord know.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give the House any information as regards the future financing of pension arrangements for those employed by the Royal Household? I gather that there may be some changes pending in that regard.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, yes. I believe that that is one of the matters that will be transferred to the Civil List. Originally pensions were paid in a different way, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. It is one of the extra matters that the Civil List will now include.

Football Hooliganism
4.9 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"In my Statement to the House on 19th June about the disorder perpetrated by England supporters in Charleroi and Brussels, I said that we would consider urgently whether further measures should be introduced so as to improve the effectiveness of court orders against those convicted of football-related offences, and introduce powers in respect of unconvicted football hooligans against whom there was other good evidence.
"I should now like to tell the House about the conclusions of the review which we have undertaken following events in Belgium and the legislative and other proposals which I shall be commending to the House.
"The House and the country know all too well of the events in Charleroi and Brussels which shamed our national game and our national reputation, and which resulted in the arrest of over 900 British nationals, in the deportation of 464 of those, and in a very small number facing trial.
"For some years, the widely accepted view has been that football hooliganism abroad is perpetrated by a relatively small minority of known football troublemakers. Measures discussed and approved by the House over a 15-year period have been predicated largely on that assumption. However, the blunt truth, which has become very clear from events last month, is this. Football hooliganism abroad is no longer confined to that small minority of known troublemakers. There is now strong evidence of a larger number of England supporters getting involved in violence and disorder, and few of them are known in advance to the police nationally as football-related offenders.

1407
"As I told the House on 19th June, the policing operation for Euro 2000 against known football hooligans was largely successful. Of the 1,000 such known offenders on the lists provided by NCIS to both the Belgian and Dutch authorities, our information is that most either did not travel or were denied entry to the host countries. Only 30 were arrested, detained or deported in either country.
"However, of the 965 who were arrested in Belgium and Holland, 409 had previous convictions, including for violence.
"Against that background, the House will, I believe, appreciate the need for measures to be drawn more widely than has been proposed in the past. I have specific legislative proposals, but this is an issue which runs wider than legislation alone and requires the active co-operation of all involved in football at every level in England.
"First, I turn to legislation. The legislation which I propose has four key elements. First, we propose to combine the domestic and international football banning orders which are made by a court following a conviction for a football-related offence. Currently we have about 400 domestic bans in force but only 101 international bans. Those 101 are the only people who currently can be prevented from leaving the country to attend matches abroad. In future, everyone who receives a banning order will be subject to both domestic and international bans.
"Secondly, we propose that, save in exceptional circumstances, everyone who receives such a ban will have to surrender their passport while major overseas games are on. Courts currently have discretion to impose such a condition when they impose an international football banning order. In future, that will be the norm for the new combined orders.
"Thirdly, there is the proposal for civil process, similar to that for the anti-social behaviour order, for a football banning order. That was included in our consultation paper published in the autumn of 1998 and has been actively supported by honourable Members on all sides. Under such a process, the police could propose a football banning order to the courts where they believe that that would help to prevent violence or disorder in connection with football matches. However, I believe that the order should now be more widely available than hitherto proposed. Under the new scheme, it would not therefore be necessary that the person in question should have been convicted of a football-related offence or, indeed, of any offence, although plainly any convictions for violence would be very relevant evidence. The police would need to have evidence sufficient to convince the court on the balance of probabilities that the test was met. That evidence could come from abroad and it might date from before the proposed new law comes into force.
"Fourthly, I propose that there should a new power for the police effectively to prevent a person from leaving the country where they believe there may he grounds for making a banning order. There
1408
would be a power of arrest, and breach of that direction would be a criminal offence. There would be a hearing in the magistrates' court. When the police make such a direction, the person concerned will be summonsed to the court to decide whether a banning order should be made. The value of this power will be that when people arrive at a port or airport and they give grounds for suspicion that they are out to cause trouble, the police will be able to make quick inquiries. They will then be able to prevent embarkation at short notice where it would not be possible to go through the procedure of applying for a banning order from the court before the person left the country.
"Those, then, are the main legislative measures that we seek, although the legislation will include other minor measures. I am satisfied that they are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.
"Let me now deal with the time-scale for this legislation. I have already had constructive discussions with the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, and I am grateful for their co-operation. The Official Opposition are already on record as saying that they will support any moves in Parliament to restrict English football hooliganism. The next international game for England will be against France on 2nd September. Plainly, it will be preferable if the legislation can be put in good order to be on the statute book by the time the House rises at the end of this month.
"However, I well recognise that all Members of this House and of the other place take their responsibilities for scrutinising legislation very seriously. Three of the four key measures proposed have been well aired in principle in the past. The fourth has not. In any event, the effectiveness of legislation comes down to its detail. In order to combine speed with careful scrutiny, I therefore propose to proceed as follows.
"A draft Bill will be published in the Vote Office for all honourable Members, hopefully by the end of this week. I shall discuss its detail with the Opposition parties and hold an all-party meeting for honourable Members and Peers with a view on the Bill early next week. We shall also consult outside interests and take account of the conclusions of this process in the version of the Bill presented to the House. All this will of course be discussed through the usual channels as soon as possible to see whether there is scope for the Bill to have a very speedy passage, even possibly before the Recess.
"Legislation is only part of the answer to the wider problem. I strongly welcome the Football Association's commitment to seek life bans from home grounds for any England fan convicted of hooligan behaviour, or against whom there is hard evidence of such behaviour, at Euro 2000 or in the future. I hope very much that the clubs will support the FA in this initiative.
"But there is much more that can and must he done to confront the culture out of which hooliganism grows. I met representatives of the

1409
Football Association last week. They themselves recognise the need to take a hard look at ticketing, travel and stewarding arrangements, more effective action against displays of racism at matches and closer co-operation with supporters' groups, all with the aim of making support for the England team abroad more attractive to families and to decent supporters who are currently kept away by the threat of hooliganism. I have asked my noble friend Lord Bassam to chair a working group which will involve a wide range of partners from the football world who are committed to making changes for the better in these important areas.
"I hope that what I have said will demonstrate to the House our determination to use all the means at our disposal to get rid once and for all of the obnoxious taint of football hooliganism. The Government will give a lead. But only if we can succeed as a nation in changing the culture that gives rise to football violence shall we be able to claim that the problem has been truly solved".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. However, as the Minister is personally responsible for this area of policy in the Home Office, I assumed that to some extent the Home Secretary was repeating the words and policies suggested by the noble Lord.
With regard to recent history, can the Minister tell us why those who were forcibly repatriated to this country were not charged with offences in Belgium and Holland? Indeed, was any judicial process in Belgium and Holland involved in the deportation of these individuals?
We continue to support measures to remove passports from hooligans with domestic and international banning orders. Such measures were proposed by my right honourable friend Sir Norman Fowler in 1998 when he was shadow Home Secretary, but the Government have left them on the shelf until now.
The proposed Bill will go further, allowing arrest and an initial travel ban on the word of a police inspector, subsequently to be confirmed by a court. We shall look carefully at the draft Bill—and at the real Bill, when it appears—but we shall not stand in the way of its passage through the House, although, as the Minister said, the timings will need to be discussed through the usual channels.
Does the Minister realise that the urgency of the legislation is the consequence of the Government's delay on the issue? Parliament has been awash with Home Office Bills throughout the year, with even more ideas being proposed by the Prime Minister on a Friday and withdrawn on the following Monday, as we have seen this week. Can we expect the Bill to be called the Dangerous Fans Bill?
1410
What previous offences other than violence or football-related offences will be regarded as relevant by police inspectors or magistrates? Will offences related to squatting be included?
4.21 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, after the Statement on 19th June, I recall noble Lords on all sides warning against knee-jerk reactions. The review has taken two weeks, which must be a record for a Home Office review. The Minister must accept that there is a certain cynicism about the motives and the timing of the announcement.
Our main claim in recent years has been that we have eradicated violence from our major domestic internationals, so I do not believe that we should be dragooned into a deadline for the friendly against France or the World Cup game against Germany. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, the history of knee-jerk legislation is not good. I suspect that the Dangerous Yobs Act may join the Dangerous Dogs Act in the lexicon of bad legislation passed in haste unless we are very careful.
The Liberal Democrats would have preferred a more measured look at the legislation, perhaps with some pre-legislative scrutiny. As a second best, we welcome the Minister's commitment to consult both opposition parties and, perhaps as importantly, outside interests. Will the Home Office put in the Libraries of both Houses all the submissions that are received?
The Liberal Democrats have already given their support to some of the proposals. For example, the extension of domestic football banning orders to international orders and vice versa seems to be common sense. However, we make no apology for telling the Government that we cannot give them blanket approval until we see the details of the legislation.
I remember the scene in "A Man for All Seasons" when Richard Rich is proposing rapid-fire solutions and Thomas More asks him where we will shelter when the wind of tyranny blows and we have chopped down all the safeguards to our liberty. When the Government seek to take away the civil liberties of the least appealing of our citizens, Parliament should be on its guard.
We welcome the recognition that any legislation is only part of the answer. I welcome the establishment of the working group under the Minister. As we know from his other activities in the House, he has plenty of time in his diary. When will the membership be announced and when will the group hope to report? Will it consider holding public hearings?
The legislation will make sense only if it is accompanied by other measures that put it in context. We should look at best practice at home and abroad. We should look at the relationship between alcohol and violence to see if further restrictions are needed. We may have to consider a total ban on away ticket

1411
sales for certain fixtures at home and abroad. We must step up the campaign against yobbery and its ugly twin sister, racism.
I welcome the acknowledgement that the issue runs wider than legislation alone and requires the active co-operation of all those involved in football at every level. However, football is not the only issue. We must address the context in which the culture of yobbery has grown. The Prime Minister should not invite icons of the yob culture across the threshold of No. 10 and the media should not turn every sporting fixture into a rerun of World War II. Players have to take responsibility for their behaviour on and off the field and the clubs must show greater social responsibility. The media in general have to consider the appropriateness of television programmes and other coverage that gives implicit approval to the yob and his attitudes. We need to take measures to ensure that the vast wealth now flowing into the game feeds down to the often very deprived communities that sustain it.
Watching Euro 2000 made us realise why soccer is called the beautiful game. What makes me so angry is that that beautiful game is being stolen from us by yob culture at one end and corporate greed at the other. It is the job of Parliament to set a framework that combats both.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I welcome the welcomes from both previous speakers and look forward to the active support of both opposition parties in our endeavour to bring the legislation before Parliament and ensure an active process of scrutiny with good debates. We want to settle this legislative matter once and for all.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about deportations and the judicial process. In only a handful of cases was there any attempt to process through the judicial system those who were arrested and deported. We were sad about that. I am sure that it is widely accepted that, where there is evidence, people should be brought before the courts, charged properly and, if the evidence stands up, convicted. Before Euro 2000, we gave every encouragement to both jurisdictions to approach matters in that way.
The noble Lord also pointed out, not entirely unfairly, that our urgency is a product of events before Euro 2000. It would have been preferable for some of the legislation to have been in place beforehand, but I am not convinced that the earlier proposals would have been as extensive in their effect as many believe that they could have been. There would still have been problems in Charleroi and Brussels, because the legislation would have needed to be in place three or four years ago for it to have an effect in picking up and identifying those who were likely to cause trouble in the streets.
We are right to take a broader view. In the past we have taken the convenient view that football hooligans are a small, mindless minority. Sadly, there is something sick about our culture that has developed this yobbery, which is more widespread than perhaps
1412
we believed in the past. We have to deal with the consequences of that. We have to look at our culture and at the law. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, we in public service have to take a lead. We should all share the responsibility for doing that.
In his welcome for the formation of the working group, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked one or two specific questions. It is our intention to be speedy. We hope to set it up within the next week or so. We want to report in the autumn or earlier, if and when appropriate. I certainly want to look more widely than the legislation. I want to involve the clubs. I certainly want to involve those in the rest of the industry. By that I include the media, which also have a responsibility. We must work closely with the football authorities which have a profound responsibility. We need to look at a range of issues: ticketing arrangements, travel, sponsorship, the involvement of clubs in the community, tackling racism and looking at good practice and best practice in clubs. I am particularly impressed by the activities of Charlton Athletic with their anti-racist strategy. I should like to look at that. I should also like to ensure that we take from the best practice that is available in Europe in terms of powers, and so forth. If there is something to be learnt from the Germans, we should learn it.
I promise your Lordships' House that I shall cast my eye widely. We have the beginnings of active and positive support from the Football Association and those involved in the football business. They realise that we must take more steps finally to put our house in order.
There are positive aspects. Here, the domestic game is more broad based in terms of support. It is more multicultural and multiracial. It has become an entertainment and a sport which has a broad-based family backing. I believe that has something to do with the way in which it has been successfully rebranded. Sadly, that is not the case for the international game and for those who travel abroad. It is that to which we must turn our attention in a dramatic way. It must be tackled or the problems will continue.
The legislation can do much. However, we must do more to attack the culture which has given rise to the sad, demeaning and degrading events which took place in other countries and capitals.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I share the expressions of public revulsion to which the Minister referred regarding the behaviour of some football supporters and agree that it is entirely proper for the Government to respond to threats to public order. However, does the Minister accept that it is sometimes only too easy to go one step too far?
The fourth category of these proposals is entirely novel and raises fundamental issues of civil rights. It affects those who have no previous conviction and are not subject to any existing banning order, and it depends on the word of a police officer. One question is bound to come up, which I shall put to the Minister now. Will the suspects—for that is what they will be—

1413
have a right to legal advice and representation, as currently exists under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, when they are questioned by the police?
These issues—there are many more—will require careful consideration in this House. We are three weeks away from the Summer Recess. The Bill must be allowed sufficient time for thorough examination. There should be no question of trying to put it through all its stages in one day.
Noble Lords: Hear hear!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord. He is right to talk about people's civil liberties. He well understands, perhaps better than me, that we have the Human Rights Act on the statute book. That is an important check in these matters.
The noble Lord asked specifically whether legal advice and representation facilities will be made available. It would be a strange England if that were not the case. I do not believe there is anything in our proposals which will prevent suspects having access to legal advice and, no doubt, legal representation in court.
However, I make the point which I have made before: that we are the decent, law-abiding majority. I believe that we must support the civil rights and freedoms of those who want to go to football matches and enjoy them in peace. Those are the concerns which are paramount in my mind. Yes, of course it is right that we make adequate provision for people's rights and for people to be fully represented in court. However, if we do not have provisions such as those set out in the third and fourth limb of our legislative proposals, we shall never begin to get to grips with the widespread yobbery that we saw on the streets of Charleroi and Brussels and which brought shame upon our nation.
We need broad-based support for the measures. Yes, we will consult. As was made plain in the Statement, the Home Secretary and myself are more than happy to meet and talk with Members of your Lordships' House and Members of another place, and more widely than that, to try to build a consensus so that the legislation becomes effective and popular. I believe that the legislation will go a long way towards changing the attitude and atmosphere at football matches abroad. We owe that to our country.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may ask two questions. First, does the Home Office have information as to the identity of the 900 British nationals arrested in Belgium? Presumably, they are the sort of people who will be banned in future. Am I right in thinking that? Secondly, are the bans intended to apply only to England's international team matches or would they also apply to major club fixtures abroad?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the short answer to both those questions is "yes". We do have
1414
information about the identity of the 900 people arrested. It is for that reason that I can say to the noble Lord that some 400 had previous convictions, of which not all, but a large number, were for crimes of violence.
Yes, it is our intention that the legislation will help our clubs taking part in European competitions. From my point of view, that is one of the reasons for the urgency. Coming pretty swiftly is another European football season. English and Welsh clubs could be taking part in between 30 and 40 matches in European competitions. The legislation is needed not just for English international matches but to improve the quality of support that the clubs receive when they travel abroad.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, is it not the case that had the Belgian and Dutch authorities used their own laws, most of the 900 people could have been dealt with in the proper way? They presumably have laws equivalent to our law of affray.
Is it also not the case that the Government are attempting to pervert the categorisation of civil offences and criminal offences by pretending that the offences to which the Minister referred—he mentioned suspects, police evidence, banning orders and confiscation of passports—can be dealt with under civil process? Is not the truth that by such perversion, the Government are trying to allow the lower civil test to convict for what is, in all other senses, a criminal conviction? Is that not legislative hooliganism?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that the country will see it as legislative hooliganism, but as legislation designed to tackle and get to the root of football hooliganism. That is its purpose. As regards the first point raised by the noble Lord, it may well be the case that many of the 900 arrested could have been charged with offences similar to our offence of affray. However, that is a matter for the Belgian jurisdiction. They chose not to take that route. By and large it seems that they were content to describe them as "administrative arrests" believing, rightly, that they were in the best position to judge whether those people should be taken off the streets for being involved, in some way or other, in disorderly events. That was their choice. That was the way in which they chose to operate. It would be wrong of us to criticise their arrangements for dealing with disorder. They were faced with a difficult situation.
Perhaps we would have dealt with it differently in public order terms. That is because we have a different culture and approach in policing techniques. But the Belgians were faced with an extremely difficult situation. I believe that these measures are proportionate. The anti-social behaviour order introducing a civil process, which in a sense we are seeking to replicate in the third of our legislative proposals, includes a lower burden of proof as the noble Lord rightly says. Nevertheless, it is appropriate for the nature of the offence and should give the public

1415
not only in this country but also in other countries the measure of confidence and protection they rightly deserve.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, can the Minister assist the House a little further in relation to the urgency he described for this legislation? Noble Lords on both Front Benches said in effect that we can legislate in haste and repent at leisure because it is difficult to get the detail right. We are dealing with a difficult borderline between, on the one hand, the freedom of the individual (including the freedom to travel abroad) and on the other the public interest in restraining hooliganism and illegal acts. Does my noble friend believe that within a matter of weeks we can deal with the problems referred to earlier today in a Bill which may be short but which raises extremely complex questions? It is said that three or four important football matches are coming up in the autumn. But does that justify our seeking to bring about legislation which will be with us for a long time and which cannot readily be altered in practice without adequate consideration?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the points made by my noble friend. However, we have been down this route before. Legislation over the past 15 years has looked at hooligan-related and football-related problems. Indeed, the outcome of the Home Office consultation in 1998 was to support the idea of taking away the passports of known and suspected hooligans. So there has been a great deal of discussion and debate on this matter in the past.
Of course, we need as much time as possible to look at the detail and the implications underlying various parts of the legislation. And my noble friend is right to remind us of the possibility of making legislation in haste and regretting it at leisure. But I am sure that with your Lordships' expertise in this field we shall be able to consider all the civil rights and civil liberty issues in sufficient detail because it is a well-trodden route. We owe it to the public to demonstrate that we have a grip on this area of public policy. We all have that responsibility.
A complex European football season lies ahead. It does not only involve the game against France on 2nd September; the World Cup begins with games against Germany. So it is important that we address these issues seriously and put in place measures which will be effective in the longer term.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, will this proposed legislation apply to soccer fans in Scotland?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I accept entirely everything said by my noble friend Lord Windlesham in relation to the seriousness of football hooliganism. However, do I understand the Minister to suggest that this new power will enable a police officer at an airport to remove the passport of an individual who has no previous convictions of any kind, and prevent him travelling merely on a "suspicion" (to use the Minister's word) that that
1416
person may be intending to make trouble? If so, that is surely a fundamental shift in power in this country and one which will need the greatest scrutiny by this House.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord explains the fourth proposal in a customarily robust way. Of course we must subject all these proposals to the closest scrutiny. But I put my faith and confidence in the police to do an effective job. They will be in a position to undertake quick and timely inquiries. We have good access to data. That data was used extensively during the course of Euro 2000 to good effect. And a judicial process lies behind all that, as is right and proper. But we owe it to the public to take these strong and effective measures. I make no apology for that.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, can I ask the Minister about something that happened in Brussels? Apparently 450 British citizens were "deported" from Brussels by the Belgian Army, the Belgian air force and the police. Not all of them were involved in violence. They are now back in this country. They cannot travel back to Belgium. Do they have a right of appeal?
We hear constantly that we work together with our Belgian friends in Europe. Can they simply decide something in that way? I know of one case only. A man was minding his own business. He was carted off by the Belgian air force and his passport was stamped. He cannot now go back and work there. That must be wrong. If there is friendship in Europe, then in friendship we should ensure that that person at least has the right of appeal.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I appreciate the comments of my noble friend. It is a matter of public record that the Belgian police commander acknowledged that a number of those arrested and deported were, in his terms, "innocent persons". They were picked up as part of a wider-ranging police operation. With the best will in the world, that is likely to be the case in some circumstances, however regrettable and unfortunate it is. Clearly, in those cases we should make effective representation so that people's right to travel is unfettered and they are right to bring those cases to our attention. If my noble friend has a specific case in mind I shall be happy actively to pursue it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, should not the Minister look a little closer to home for remedies? The Scots are a warlike race. They are fond of drink. Around 20 years ago they behaved so badly in Spain that the Spanish police collected whole loads of them and pushed them onto aircraft, whether they had travelled by car or any other means, and sent them home. Today, for some reason, the Scottish football supporters are among the best behaved in Europe. I am not being funny in saying that. The Government

1417
should look at that situation instead of some of the extraordinary measures they seem to be contemplating.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I attended the England-Scotland fixture at Wembley. I was looking at the police operation and was usefully deployed between the English fans on one side of a channel and the Scottish fans on the other. The Scottish fans seemed to be very merry, but were certainly entertaining. I still do not understand why all evening they sang the song, "Doh a deer, a female deer". They kept going for half an hour after the game and I was very amused as a consequence.
The noble Lord is right. There are many Scottish supporters and in some sports alcohol is actively consumed with little public disorder as a consequence. It is a reflection perhaps of different cultures and that is something we should bear in mind. But we also need to address this issue. We need to campaign on the issue and to inform the public. We need to tell the public that the sort of unruly behaviour that we have witnessed in the past few weeks by some English fans and supporters—an extensive and large number—is something that we cannot and should not tolerate in a civilised society, and something that we should take all reasonable measures to counter.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, did I construe correctly from what the Minister said that, upon the word of a Belgian police officer, a British subject may, without trial or further process of law, be deprived of his right to travel to international football matches? Is that really what the Government propose?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I did not say "on the word of a Belgian police officer", but I was making reference to a British police officer at a port of embarkation. I think the noble Lord missed the point I made earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has missed the point. A Belgian police officer, on his word alone, has sent British citizens back to this country, and the noble Lord is saying that that is sufficient evidence for them to be deprived of their passports at the time of football matches in future. That is quite extraordinary, if that is indeed the case.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, no, I hope that is not the impression I have left with the House: it is not the impression I was intending to leave. I think I referred, in response to an earlier question, to people being identified as needing deportation during the recent disturbances. Clearly, that deportation evidence will have a bearing on their future ability to travel to football matches, but it will not be the sole determinant.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be greatly relieved to hear that there are going to be
1418
further consultations before the legislation referred to by the noble Lord comes before the House, particularly in the light of the very important civil liberties issues that have been raised in the course of these exchanges this afternoon.
However, is the noble Lord aware that the events which he has described and which we all know from the press do not happen in a vacuum? They occur within the general climate of opinion that exists at the time. I think the noble Lord will be aware, as will be many of your Lordships, of the great deterioration that has taken place in public morale over the past 20 years or more. He will be aware that there has been a toleration by perhaps the majority of us—of course I am not accusing any of your Lordships—of the deterioration of standards of conduct in other spheres of public life which at one time would have aroused instantaneous social objection voiced in a number of ways by the press, the media and so on.
Are we quite sure, therefore, that it is safe at this stage to assume that we ourselves are free from blame for tolerating for so long a climate of opinion within which these kinds of events—and there are many others—have occurred? Has there not been a deterioration in good manners? Has there not been a growth of intolerance over the past 20 years among the population as a whole? We bear a responsibility for this and it would be a sorry day if, in bringing forward legislation aimed at curbing miscreants and if necessary providing punishment, that should be made an excuse for doing nothing further to bring forward changes to a form of society which in many profound respects is contemptible within a civilised country.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that perhaps there has been a deterioration in standards of behaviour but perhaps that simply reinforces the point that we, as legislators, have a duty to try to reverse that tide. I make no apology for the Government's intolerance of poor behaviour, yobbishness and loutishness. I think this legislation might well do some good in beginning to redress the balance. In that regard, I trust that the Government will enjoy the full support of your Lordships' House.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill
4.53 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed after Clause 7.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES' ACCOUNTS: AUDIT
(" —(1) Subject to subsection (7), this section applies to any non-departmental public body, unless otherwise provided by any order made under subsection (8).
(2) On the prescribed date for each non-departmental public body to which this section applies, subsections (3) to (6) shall have effect in relation to that body.
(3) Every non-departmental public body shall prepare accounts in respect of each financial year and shall send them to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine accounts sent to him under this section with a view to satisfying himself—

(a) that the accounts present a true and fair view, and

(b) that any public money provided to the body has been expended for the purposes for which the money was paid.

(5) Where the Comptroller and Auditor General has conducted an examination of accounts under subsection (4) he shall—

(a) certify them and issue a report,

(b) send the certified accounts and the report to the Treasury, and

(c) if he is not satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (4)(a) and (b), report to the House of Commons.

(6) The Treasury shall lay accounts and reports received under subsection (5)(b) before the House of Commons.
(7) Subsections (3) to (6) do not apply to any body to the extent (but only to the extent) that any of its accounts are or become subject to audit—

(a) by the Auditor General for Scotland, or

(b) by the Auditor General for Wales.

(8) The appropriate Minister may by order designate a non-departmental public body as one in relation to which this section does not apply for so long as the designation remains in force.
(9) An order under subsection (8) shall be made by statutory instrument, and shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(10) In this section—
"the appropriate Minister" means, as regards any non-departmental public body, a minister in the department which is responsible for that body;
"non-departmental public body" means a body—

(a) which is not a government department or comprised within a government department,

(b) which exercises public functions of a governmental nature which might otherwise fall to be exercised by central government, and

(c) an officer of which has been designated by a government department as its accounting officer in respect of the preparation of its accounts,.

but does not include any such body which is a company registered under the Companies Act 1985; and
"prescribed date" means, as regards each non-departmental public body, the first day of the first full financial year of that body commencing after the expiry of the term of appointment of the person who is the auditor of the body when this section comes into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, is concerned with the audit of non-departmental public bodies, which of course play a very important role in the Government's structure and which in addition have a large sum of public money allocated to them. We have debated this matter previously in the Grand Committee and I have considered very carefully the points made by the Government. This amendment seeks to take them into account.
I hope very much indeed that it is possible to persuade the Government to accept this amendment. The reality of the situation is that the present structure with regard to the audit of non-departmental public bodies is a mess. To a large extent, I think this has been recognised by the Government because, since they came into office in 1997, they have arranged for all the new non-departmental public bodies to be audited by the National Audit Office.
At Committee stage the Minister argued that we should not rule out the use of private sector auditors for these non-departmental public bodies. We have sought to accommodate that point in our amendment by enabling the Government, if they do not think it appropriate in some circumstances for the National Audit Office to audit a particular non-departmental public body, to arrange for that to be done but subject to approval by way of statutory instrument. I hope that goes some way towards meeting the point.
We have also suggested that the existing arrangements which are in operation for non-National Audit Office audits to be done by private outside auditors should be phased out gradually as the contracts come up for renewal. Overall, it seems to me that the Government themselves have accepted the situation and that by and large they have argued that there ought to be transparency and that the most appropriate way to ensure transparency for such bodies is for the National Audit Office to audit them. This is true not only as far as concerns propriety but also value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said in Committee that we would in some sense be nationalising the accountancy profession—he smiles: he clearly accepts that he was overstating his case, but I am only teasing him! In that case there is no division of opinion between us and the Government should clearly accept the amendment as drafted, which seeks to take into account the serious points that the Minister was making.
The fact is that the Government should not be able to pick and choose as to who audits particular non-departmental public bodies, using public money, and the assumption should be that they will all be audited by the National Audit Office. I hope the Government will feel able to accept the amendment, having discussed the matter in Grand Committee and as we have sought to accommodate the serious points made by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, on these Benches we find this a very difficult issue. We discussed it at very considerable length in Grand Committee. At the centre of the debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has made clear, is the issue of parliamentary scrutiny of the spending functions of the executive and the emergence in the course of the past 30 years or so of a large number of non-departmental public bodies. These bodies have escaped public audit although—and here we accept the point that has been made several times by the

1421
Government—they do not escape audit altogether. They are audited according to appropriate standards by private accountancy firms.
Equally, it is also quite clear that the Government themselves have not conceded anything at all on this issue, whereas in tabling their amendment the Opposition have sought to accommodate the issues raised by the Government in discussion in Grand Committee. What we see in the new amendment tabled here is an attempt to define non-departmental public bodies. These bodies, and those that are exempted under the Companies Act, are excluded from these provisions. Also, perhaps most importantly, Ministers are provided with an opt-out clause, subject to an affirmative resolution.
The issue then is what should and should not fall within the purview of public scrutiny. I think it is that issue which is the substance of the Sharman report. Indeed, when we did discuss it in Grand Committee one of the main objections raised by the Government to the amendment which had been put forward at that stage was that it was going to be covered by the Sharman report.
If we accept this amendment, we effectively preempt that report. Indeed in some respects with the "softening" of the amendment as it now stands, and with the "opt-out clauses" given to the Government, the amendment could be less far-reaching in its effect than the Sharman report itself.
The case for legislating now is that it provides an insurance policy. The Government claim that they do not need to legislate in order to implement the Sharman report. However, many government reports have been left to gather dust on departmental shelves. We do not want that to happen with the Sharman report. As I say, the Minister has said that there will be no need to legislate in order to implement the Sharman report. I should like to hear the Minister make a clear statement that the Government intend to take the Sharman report seriously; that they will not let it gather dust on the shelves in the Treasury; and that it will be fully implemented. If the Minister can assure me that this will be the case, it seems to me that we have no need to accept the amendment. As I say, to some extent it pre-empts the Sharman report and its effects may be rather "softer" than those of the report.
I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response to the amendment to determine how these Benches will react to it.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made clear, I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has moved away from the more rigid position of the amendments on this subject that he tabled in Grand Committee, for which I am grateful. I am also grateful that he has accepted the argument that I put to him on that occasion; namely, that the policy of "one size fits all" does not work in the situation we are discussing.
1422
I turn to the matter which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, identified as being the most important issue; namely, that of public scrutiny. I believe that there is a degree of misunderstanding about the relationship between responsibility for audit and the matter of public scrutiny. It is completely wrong to imply that, if the Comptroller and Auditor General does not audit certain non-departmental public bodies, Parliament does not have any oversight of those bodies. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all such bodies and the accounts of all these bodies are laid before Parliament regardless of who carries out the audit.
It is not even true that the C&AG has no oversight of NDPBs which he does not audit. He has inspection rights at all executive NDPBs. He is therefore able to investigate matters of concern even where he is not the appointed auditor. He has in fact produced a number of reports on NDPBs for which he is not the auditor. The existence of these inspection rights means that he can carry out value for money studies—which, after all, is the real parliamentary scrutiny to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, refers—at all NDPBs under the National Audit Act 1983. He has produced many such reports for Parliament.
As has been acknowledged, more generally, this Government have demonstrated their confidence in the work of the C&AG by appointing him auditor of those NDPBs created since the previous election.
Nevertheless, the Government may have good reasons—without implying any disrespect to Sir John Bourn or to his office—for not appointing him the auditor in certain circumstances. We need to take account of the clear practical advantages that departments have identified in appointing commercial auditors for some of those bodies. Our existing provisions in the Bill allow for this. Clause 23(6) and (7) provide for the Treasury to propose an order for the C&AG to be made the auditor of any NDPB where statute currently rules out his appointment. I am surprised that the proposers of this amendment do not appear to have taken account of that.
However, before proposing to Parliament that the C&AG should be appointed auditor of any particular NDPBs, the Government will need to take account of the outcome of the Sharman review. I very much appreciate the strength of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, will examine a number of key issues, including the concerns of departments, which are responsible to Parliament for overseeing NDPBs.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I hope that he will clarify a point that I raised earlier with regard to the exact relationship between the Sharman group and the so-called "steering group"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the steering group is there to steer. I believe that the relationship will be worked out as the distinguished membership of these two bodies settle into their work. As they are at the stage of determining their terms of reference, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to

1423
anticipate the way in which it will work out on the ground. Certainly it is not a matter which will be mentioned in statute.
I return to the issue of the status of the Sharman report and the concerns which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has expressed. She was right to draw attention to the rule whereby if one does not like the Findings of inquiries of this kind one ensures that nothing is done to implement those findings. The normal rule is that one does not set up an inquiry of this kind unless one knows what its findings will be! I am afraid that we have broken that rule in this case in that we shall have to take the report on audit and accountability extremely seriously. By setting up a review headed by such an independent person as the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, and by ensuring that the steering group for the project is made up of highly distinguished parliamentarians and internationally renowned experts in the field of audit and accounts, we have broken this firm rule. We genuinely do not know what conclusions will be reached.
Therefore I cannot say that we shall accept every recommendation that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, makes. However, it is in the Government's interest as much as Parliament's that we have strong, independent audit of public bodies and public expenditure. It will therefore be in the Government's interest to see implemented the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, for improved audit, whatever they may be. I am sure that the members of the steering group would not let us get away with anything less.
As the Chief Secretary made clear, and as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, reminded us, arrangements for audit and accountability in central government are in disarray. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, used the words "a mess"; the Chief Secretary used the words "a hotchpotch". The Government welcome the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, as an opportunity to bring some coherence into this area. We are pleased to acknowledge that the Bill has acted as a catalyst for the Government in setting up the review. However, as I have already said, it is as much in the Government's interest as anyone else's to ensure that the review succeeds and has a major positive impact. The Government consider that the review will set the basis for future arrangements in audit and accountability—a basis that will satisfy the needs of both government and Parliament.
I turn now to the amendment—
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have not entered into the earlier discussions but my point arises from something he said today. Will he confirm that there is a completely different responsibility as between that of the Government on the one hand and that of the C&AG on the other? The C&AG is directly responsible to Parliament itself and to the Public Accounts Committee, on which I sat for a number of years.
Where a separate auditor has been appointed to a NDPB, did I understand the Minister to say that the C&AG would none the less have an automatic right,
1424
without seeking permission from the Treasury, to investigate any matter that he felt needed to be investigated from his special point of view in those organisations that have a separate audit?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the simple answer is "Yes" but I had better repeat what I said a few minutes ago to ensure that I do not in any way depart from a script. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shaw, will understand that point.
It is wrong to imply that, if the C&AG does not audit certain non-departmental public bodies. Parliament does not have any oversight of those, bodies. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all such bodies and the accounts of all these bodies are laid before Parliament regardless of who carries out the audit. It is not even true that the C&AG has no oversight of NDPBs which he does not audit. He has inspection rights—I think that is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shaw, made—at all executive NDPBs. He is able to investigate matters of concern even where he is not the appointed auditor—and, as I said, he has done so in practice on many occasions.
The differences between us in regard to this amendment are very considerably practical. First, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, wants the Bill to refer to, and to define, "non-departmental public bodies". He has taken the point that his previous term, "public service agencies", was too vague and is bravely trying to define these bodies on the face of the Bill. But his definition would still be as problematic as the term "public service agencies" because there are simply too many potential variations in non-departmental public bodies to capture in a single, legally sound definition. It is for good reason that there has never been an attempt by any government to define "non-departmental public bodies" in statute.
The third characteristic of the definition that the noble Lord proposes—that the body has an accounting officer designated by a government department—would mean that the Government could thwart the intention by not appointing an accounting officer. There is also a recipe for confusion in the combination of, on the one hand, an imperfect definition of these bodies and, on the other, the fact that the amendment automatically makes the C&AG the auditor of the bodies within the definition. Legal challenges could arise from those who think that a body which is not included should be included, or from those who think that a body which is included should not be included.
One has to compare these difficulties with the practical approach that we have taken in Clause 23(7)(a). With our approach, the Treasury is given the power to designate bodies to be audited by the C&AG on a case by case basis. It has to have regard to one of two conditions stipulated in the Bill: that the bodies must be exercising functions of a public nature; or must be,
"entirely or substantially funded from public money".

1425
Most important from Parliament's point of view is the fact that the Treasury must consult the C&AG before making any designation. Surely that is a more practical approach and more equitable between Parliament and the executive.
Of course, if Sharman was to recommend that there should be a widespread take-over of audit by the C&AG—and he may do that—it can be done in an orderly way without having to be done all at once. My charge of nationalisation was teasing, but there is an element of reality behind it.
My final point is that the amendment would make the Treasury and not the sponsoring department responsible for laying the accounts of those bodies before Parliament. That is odd because it would dilute the accountability of the sponsoring department for these bodies—which is the opposite of what I think is right.
Perhaps I may recap on what the Government have provided for in the Bill. Subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 23 give the Treasury an order-making power to enable the C&AG to be appointed the auditor of those NDPBs which he does not audit at present, including those which he is currently barred in statute from auditing—apart, that is, from NDPBs established as companies. Any designation to this effect by the Treasury will need to be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. In addition, the Treasury is required to consult the C&AG before proposing a designation to Parliament. The Government's order-making provision takes full account of the interests of both Parliament and department. It has the advantage of not pre-empting the outcome of the Sharman review, which is expected towards the end of this year.
I am sorry, but despite the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I cannot accept the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we can agree on one point: that is, that the Chief Secretary's description of the present situation as a "hotchpotch" is probably more accurate than my description of it as a "mess". The reality of the situation is that the present bodies which are not audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General are an odd assortment.
Having said that, my personal feeling is that the argument about Sharman is something of a red herring. I do not think that one needs a deep study to take the argument that, by and large, one size should fit all. In that context, I think that the point made by my noble friend Lord Shaw is important. One needs to consider whether there is a distinction between Ministers reporting to Parliament when an audit has been carried out by an outside body, and Ministers reporting to Parliament in the context of the direct approach of the National Audit Office to the Public Accounts Committee.
1426
I wish to consider very carefully what the Minister said. I feel that there is still a strong argument for taking a view on this matter in the Bill rather than waiting for Sharman—even if, as the noble Baroness suggested in her contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Sharman report may eventually gather dust. There is a case for clarifying the situation and we shall come back to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
PERFORMANCE STATEMENTS
(" .—(1) This section applies to any government department which is required to prepare resource accounts under section 5.
(2) A department to which this section applies in any financial year shall prepare a performance statement in respect of that year analysing the performance of the department in using the resources to which the accounts relate in achieving its objectives for that financial year.
(3) A department shall send its performance statement to the Comptroller and Auditor General with the resource accounts sent to him under section 5, or at such other time as the Comptroller and Auditor General may specify in respect of that statement.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General may examine any performance statement which he receives from a department under subsection (2) and may report on it to the House of Commons.
(5) Subsection (4) shall not entitle the Comptroller and Auditor General to question the merits of the policy objectives of a department to which the performance statement relates.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 11 is concerned with the issue of performance statements. This is a point which has been very close to my heart over a number of years, given my previous role as chairman of the Liaison Committee, which has the task of co-ordinating the work of select committees, and also as chairman of the Treasury Committee. It has been a very long battle indeed to try to improve the performance statements which are available to Parliament, and in particular to ensure that those statements are valid. This amendment seeks to ensure that performance statements are made and are valid.
The present Public Accounts Committee and its predecessors going back to the time when the system was revised at the initiative of Mr Norman St JohnStevas (as he then was) have long held the view that performance reporting should be on a statutory basis and independently validated by the National Audit Office, in particular under the auspices of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
In discussing this matter in Grand Committee the Government stated that they were already committed to reporting annually to Parliament and the public on out-turn against targets. The reality is, however, that those statements are not audited, and it raises questions about the reliability of such unaudited accounts. Indeed, I gather that the Chief Secretary has agreed with the PAC that performance measures should be legitimate, credible and objective. For those principles to be achieved, a degree of independent validation is important. In various committee reports we have seen doubt cast on the validity or relevance of

1427
particular figures. That is of course true so far as concerns some of the performance figures of the National Health Service in particular.
The Government argue that this is either unnecessary or premature. That does not appear to be the case. Under the 1983 Act—with which I was much involved—the National Audit Office gave the C&AG statutory powers to undertake value-for-money studies, and these have been developed alongside performance indicators. But it seems to me that the situation needs to be carried forward and that we have an opportunity to do so in this Bill.
It is of course the case that similar statutory performance measures are appropriate elsewhere, particularly in the field of local government. It is not clear why they should be appropriate for local government but not for national government.
At an earlier stage the Minister argued that the new statistics commission would provide independent assurance on performance data and that to involve the C&AG would lead to duplication. I do not believe that that is so. The statistics commission and the C&AG play different roles. As I understand it, the statistics commission is concerned with the integrity of issues relating to national statistics, which is a very different thing from individual departmental statements.
Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the statistics commission will not be concerned with performance measures in individual departmental reports which are then normally examined by the departmentally related Select Committees. The amendment would move the matter forward. It would alleviate pressures which have been building up over many years. The amendment would ensure that the accounts take into consideration not only inputs, which are what most government accounts tend to deal with, but also the extent to which they achieve their outputs. That is very important. I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for explaining the amendment. His understanding of it agrees with mine.
Perhaps I may speak about what we have been doing with regard to public service agreements. PSAs have been a revolutionary step in transparency and accountability. For the first time, in March this year, the British Government published a full statement in each department's annual report of performance against a detailed set of measurable and specific targets—every one of the targets set as a result of the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review. This innovation, which has come to fruition since the amendment was first proposed—it has been in the pipeline since the targets were published—goes further than the amendment in making information on government performance widely and regularly available.
I am glad to say that in most cases the Government are on course. But the reports published in March are full and fair. Where information was not good, this
1428
was reported. Where slippage is concerned, we owned up to it and have explained why it happened. Where a target had fallen due for completion within the reporting period, and had not been met, the reasons were stated and the remedial action in train was set out. This is a step further in openness and accountability to Parliament and the public than any previous government have been brave and confident enough to undertake. But the Government recognise that this performance reporting revolution needs to be supported by good quality information from robust measurement systems. It is in our interest, and the interests of Parliament and the public service staff, to avoid cynicism and doubt about the information we publish.
The amendment proposed seems to aim at two of the objectives that the Government have been keen to promote through the PSA process: annual reporting of information; and the quality of that information. But it misses the mark on both counts. First, putting on a statutory basis the full and open reporting we already have in place would add nothing except rigidity, which would be counter-productive, into the system. PSA targets are only rarely tied to a financial year, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will recall. As everyone who has taken part in government or public life will know, one cannot measure what happens in a department by what happens in a financial year. Sometimes it will be shorter and sometimes it will be longer. Much more useful than a statement linked inflexibly to a financial year is the practice we have now of reporting progress in a reporting period, and the proper reporting period, giving fuller commentary on success and slippage, even when the target deadline falls outside the period.
Secondly, treating the PSA targets like a financial audit, which is what the amendment in effect does, misses the point on information quality too. The NAO does not presently have the expertise to perform an information quality-checking function. The new statistics commission—I acknowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins said, that it does a different job—has been set up with the express purpose of commenting on departmental systems and commissioning audits in areas of concern. It should be given a chance to get established before other forms of validation are introduced.
That is not to say that we are opposed to the idea of external validation of performance information. Far from it. Indeed, I hope I have said that we recognise the benefits for the credibility of information that an external validator could bring. That is why we have created the statistics commission and used the NAO to audit the assumptions behind fiscal forecasts. These are both instances of our commitment to finding the right external process to validate a system where it is well bedded in and there is a convincing argument for bringing in an external body. Ministers have already said that we have an open mind. In principle we are willing to see the performance information systems being subject to external validation.

1429
However, the system has not yet been given a chance to bed down, nor has any worked-through and convincing proposal been made. The blunt instrument contained in the amendment is unsuited to the circumstances. There are several stages we need to go through before we introduce an external validator into this process. The statistics commission needs to be allowed time to find its feet. It will have an important role in quality assuring national statistics, which will be used to support many PSA targets.
The review of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman—and I am sorry to repeat the argument again, but it is still valid here—has a remit to look at these issues, among others. We need to give validation serious consideration and not prejudge that review. Many different things are meant by validation. There are many different kinds of information and systems that could be validated. Exactly the same form of quality assurance may not be appropriate for every part of government, nor all at the same time. I say this with some feeling as someone who spent a good deal of his business life in the monitoring and evaluation of public policy and who published a number of papers on the subject. Many PSA targets depend on information collected by local agents or bodies outside the public sector—bodies like my company in the past. The Treasury has been leading a group of experts, involving the NAO and Audit Commission, in working up a performance information strategy which is looking at many of these issues. That group is considering a number of options. It is not yet clear to the Government that the NAO will always be the best answer.
Finally, many departments are relatively new to the process of systematic gathering and reporting of performance information. It is sensible to give them a little time to refine their systems and improve them before deciding whether and how to check them externally. I argue therefore that it is premature to introduce a statutory requirement in that area. The Government have shown themselves open in principle and in practice. We have made a radical first step in transparency. But this is a dynamic area. The Government are willing to move towards external validation, but only on the basis of a thorough examination of the needs of departments, Parliament and the public.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I recognise the progress which has been made and to which he has referred. Having said that, I still have considerable doubts about the position of the statistics commission. The NAO has a particular relationship with Parliament and to Select Committees in general. However, taking into account everything that the Minister has said, I think that the amendment is not premature. I believe that there is a case for putting it into operation at this stage. I beg leave to ascertain the opinion of the House.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 176.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jopling, L.

Attlee, E.

Kelvedon, L.

Belstead, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Biffen, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blackwell, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blaker, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Boardman, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bowness, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Moynihan, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Byford, B.

Northbrook, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Chadlington, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Coe, L.

Peel, E.

Colwyn, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Courtown, E.

Rees, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Cuckney, L.

Renton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Flather, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Fookes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Geddes, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glentoran, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Goschen, V.

Tebbit, L.

Hanham, B.

Thatcher, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Trefgarne, L.

Higgins, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Vivian, L.

Hogg, B.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Wilcox, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bach, L.

Addington, L.

Barker, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Barnett, L.

Alli, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Amos, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L

Andrews, B.

Billingham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Blease, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Borrie, L.

Avebury, L.

Bragg, L.

1431

Brennan, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brett, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Burlison, L,

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Chandos, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Christopher, L.

McNally, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Marsh, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Dholakia, L.

Palmer, L.

Diamond, L.

Parekh, L.

Dixon, L.

Patel, L.

Donoughue, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Paul, L.

Dubs, L.

Peston, L.

Elder, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Falkland, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Razzall, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rea, L.

Filkin, L.

Redesdale, L.

Fitt, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Geraint, L.

Rennard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Richard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Roper, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grabiner, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grenfell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Harrison, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hayman, B.

Simon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hoyle, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Taverne, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Islwyn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Thornton, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Tomlinson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Turnberg, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Uddin, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Varley, L.

Judd, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Laird, L.

Walpole, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lipsey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lockwood, B.

Whitty, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Wilkins, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

1432

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.38 p.m.
Clause 8 [Comptroller and Auditor General: access to information]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("relating to") and insert ("relevant to his examination of").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we have brought forward a fresh amendment because we believe that the right of access remains a fundamental issue for the Comptroller and Auditor General. That arises because of the major changes which have taken place in the way the Government now operate. The Bill as drafted confines the powers of the C&AG to access within the walls the government departments as if the machinery of government was the same as in 1866 when departments provided most of the services. But nowadays a wide variety of different bodies deliver public services, some of which the C&AG does not audit. Audit arrangements have not kept pace with the changes in the structure of government. As a result, Parliament's ability to scrutinise the use of public funds has been reduced.
The C&AG's independence is diminished by his reliance on negotiating his way into a number of bodies to provide the assurance to which Parliament is entitled. That is costly in time. One might also say that it is not consistent with the standing of the office. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, cited instances where negotiations with the Housing Corporation and with Camelot dragged on for years. I could add to those similar protracted discussions with the Royal Palaces and with training and enterprise companies. I believe that there could be cases where the institutions concerned refuse to cooperate. In those circumstances, Parliament would be the loser.
By accepting that the C&AG, where he does not have statutory rights, then has to negotiate, the Minister has also accepted that, on occasions, he needs rights of access to private contractors. That has not deterred firms from coming forward to provide services for government or to negotiate PFI deals. However, negotiated rights on an individual basis require time-consuming discussions between the NAO and the relevant departments. As I have already said, they undermine the independence of the C&AG.
In Grand Committee we tabled an amendment which was supported by the Liberal Democrats. It sought to bring up to date the access rights of the C&AG. I hope that the Minister will agree that a fair summary of the Government's objections to the amendment appeared to be that it would significantly increase the access rights of the C&AG, thus allowing him to follow public money wherever it goes and that, as a result, he would duplicate the work of other bodies and would be a burden on private sector firms. The

1433
Minister went on to say that extended access for the C&AG might deter contractors from competing for PFI work—a point that I have already discounted.
I shall consider those arguments, but I should like, first, to make the point that, in our view, our previous amendment would not have extended the powers of the C&AG as much as the Minister said. He stated that the original amendment would have had the effect of giving the C&AG access to the books and records of private sector firms on the same basis as that of the Inland Revenue. However, the C&AG already has access to the records collected by the Inland Revenue because he is the auditor for the Revenue. His staff already see individual records on a confidential basis. Although those powers are rarely used—something in the order of half of 1 per cent of visits undertaken by the Inland Revenue are accompanied by the C&AG—they are available to him.
The Government have also said that giving the C&AG wider statutory powers would allow him to follow public money wherever it went. Even our original amendment would not have conferred the same powers in the United Kingdom as those possessed by the staff of the Luxembourg-based Court of Auditors or as the Audit Commission and Accounts Commission in Scotland enjoy when auditing local government accounts. Such rights of access have not brought local government to a standstill or impeded imaginative partnerships within the private sector. The Government appear to accept that the Audit Commission and the European Court of Auditors require strong statutory powers, but apparently are not happy for those powers to be matched by Parliament's own auditor.
Perhaps I may explain what the new Amendment No. 13 seeks to achieve. In so doing, perhaps I may also take account of the Minister's concerns. The amendment as tabled would confine the C&AG to statutory access to documents held or controlled by government bodies as well as documents to which those bodies have or can obtain access. It would thus give access to the same documents and information as central government bodies secure for themselves—and no more. That would enable the C&AG to undertake an independent check that government bodies are fulfilling their responsibilities to account for the proper use of taxpayers' funds entrusted to them. It gives statutory access where, in many cases, negotiated access already exists. This will help to cut back on the need for time-consuming negotiations.
It also gives statutory form to guidance already issued by the Treasury which states that the C&AG must have access to the records of PFI contractors. Placing it on the statute will ensure that clauses are not missed out of contracts by accident.
Perhaps I may briefly summarise what the amendment will not do. It will not give greater access to information and documents than accounting officers have in accounting to Parliament for the use they have made of public money. It will not allow the C&AG or his staff to go on fishing trips. The statutory right will cover only the examination of the
1434
department's accounts and will cover only documents relevant to this examination. I refer to the word "relevant" in Amendment No. 12.
The amendment will ensure that the C&AG is not provided with statutory access to the records of local government. It will not provide access to subcontractors or other bodies at a distance from local government. This addresses the Minister's comment concerning the additional burden on small businesses. Lastly, it will not allow the C&AG to follow public money wherever it goes, however desirable noble Lords and Members of another place think that power would be.
In short, powers of access will not be increased; they are simply placed on a firmer footing. Public money is not followed to small employers unless they contract with government bodies. It will not impose a regulatory burden. The C&AG will draw on the work of other bodies wherever needed, as he does already.
I should like to make one further important point. In its ninth report, the Public Accounts Committee expressed concern that it is unsatisfactory that departments regularly secure greater powers of access to service deliverers than are secured for Parliament's watchdog, the C&AG. I suggest that this amendment will address that concern.
It has been suggested that it is not appropriate for the C&AG to have the same right of access as departments because the Government have a larger range of responsibilities than has the C&AG. We believe that that argument is difficult to sustain. In some quarters it could be held strongly that the C&AG's responsibility to Parliament in itself demands all the rights of access it needs to perform its work effectively. This proposition suggests a kind of pecking order for degrees of rights of access.
If concern is felt at the additional cost to public funds of granting the C&AG these limited wider powers, I am sure that he, like everyone else, is constrained by his resources, for which he is held accountable to a parliamentary commission. It is not in the C&AG's interest to do unnecessary work, but he must have the powers necessary to carry out his work professionally and in the modern context of government. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has already said, in Grand Committee we on these Benches supported similar amendments tabled by the official Opposition. We continue to support them. We feel that an issue of principle is at stake here. The Comptroller and Auditor General has audit responsibility, but at present he does not have all the powers necessary to fulfil that responsibility. We think that it is important that he should be given those powers.

1435
Furthermore, we think that the Opposition has made a considerable attempt to redraft the earlier amendment so as to take account of the objections raised by the Government on this issue. For that reason, we are inclined to offer our support.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to remove the noble Baroness's inclination, because the amendments before the House do not achieve what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, seems to think that they will achieve. He believes that they will address the concerns we expressed on the previous proposed new clause, but I have to say that they do no such thing. The amendments will still increase the statutory rights of access of the Comptroller and Auditor General far beyond what is reasonable.
Perhaps I may deal principally with Amendment No. 13, which is the most substantive in this group of amendments. The amendment would give the C&AG rights of access to documents,
"which are held or controlled by a government department".
That is perfectly reasonable. The Bill already contains those words in Clause 8(2)(a). However, the amendment goes on to say that it would give the C&AG rights of access to documents,
"which are held or controlled by a non-departmental body".
That is where we start to have problems, because the provision again raises the problems which flow from trying to define non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) on the face of the Bill, and to which I have already referred in connection with the amendment on the audit of NDPBs. Perhaps I may emphasis that NDPBs are an enormously varied group of bodies. There are too many potential variations of NDPBs to capture within a single legally sound definition. For that reason, they have never been defined in statute.
Of most concern, however, is the final part of the amendment. It would give the C&AG a right of access to documents,
"to which a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body has, or can obtain, access".
This provision would allow the C&AG a much greater degree of access than at present, and far more than is necessary. First, he would have unrestricted access to all bodies, public or private, which are funded by, or are contractors to, departments and NDPBs. The amendment would give him access to bodies such as housing associations, which are private sector bodies supervised and part funded by the Housing Corporation, or to train operating companies, which are private sector companies supervised and part funded by the rail regulators, which are government departments, leading to a burdensome overlap of scrutiny and duplication of regulatory functions. Audit and regulation must be kept separate.
To the extent that a department itself has or can obtain access to its suppliers' documents, the amendment would provide access to every such supplier even if they only provided paper clips or cleaned the windows.
1436
The amendment would also give the C&AG access to virtually every body receiving public money—including in theory those many individuals in receipt of social payments to the extent that the funding department has access.
Most alarmingly, the amendment would allow the C&AG access to the books and records of private sector firms on the same basis as the Inland Revenue in examining whether tax credits have been properly calculated or as Customs and Excise in relation to VAT. Such access would be both a duplication of oversight and unnecessarily intrusive.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, thought that an argument in favour of the amendment was that the C&AG has access under certain circumstances, rarely used, to Inland Revenue records. Indeed, that is the case. But the amendment provides for him to have separate access to all those people who are at present vulnerable to access by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.
I remind the House that at the beginning of this year, when these concerns were first raised, Accountancy Age published an article on 27th January recording the deep reservation on the part of business as regards allowing the National Audit Office to audit firms and companies handling the working families' tax credit. The British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses have said that the measure would only increase the burden of red tape on small and medium-sized firms. These amendments still do that. I shudder to think what my noble friend Lord Haskins and the Better Regulation Task Force would think about the amendment if it were put forward by the Government, let alone, most extraordinarily, by the Conservative Opposition.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the C&AG needs these powers. Let us consider the facts. The C&AG has now audited the first set of "dry run" resource accounts and, although he qualified a number of accounts, he did not qualify one on the grounds of insufficient access. He has also recommended to the PAC that the move to resource accounts and budgeting should go ahead. Would he have done so if he had had serious doubts about his ability under present powers to carry out the audit?
During the PAC's hearing on 7th June on the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting, the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, said in response to Question 47, that,
"the operation of the new system does not depend on the extension of the Comptroller and Auditor General's powers".
Those words indicate that a significant extension of the Comptroller and Auditor General's access (which I assume is what the amendment means) is not actually needed for the practical purpose of auditing department accounts, which is what Clause 8 of the Bill is concerned with.
I have technical criticisms of the amendments with which I shall not weary the House. The amendments are defective. The wording in the Bill that would be changed by the amendments has been in legislation since 1866, and it seems rather strange to change it

1437
now, nearly a century and a half later. But the fundamental point is that the Bill as it stands allows the C&AG to continue to deliver his very high standard of audit. He does not need these sweeping and intrusive new powers of access in order to audit department accounts. I cannot accept the amendments, and I cannot believe that the Conservative Party, above all, will wish to press them.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I find that reply disappointing. The suggestion that the structure of government has not changed since 1866 leaves me slightly perplexed. We shall study the Minister's remarks carefully, but we shall look at them most critically. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Preparation]:
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 20 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) For the purpose of subsection (4)(a) and (b) the Treasury shall in particular—

(a) have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Accounting Standards Board Limited or any other body prescribed for the purposes of section 256 of the Companies Act 1985 (accounting standards), and

(b) ensure that the accounts include, subject to paragraph (a), a statement of financial performance, a statement of financial position and a cash flow statement.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 22:
Line 4, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("accept").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, and seek the opinion of the House.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 22, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 165.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Attlee, E.

Byford, B.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Biffen, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Blaker, L.

Chadlington, L.

Boardman, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Bowness, L.

Colwyn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

1438

Courtown, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cuckney, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Feldman, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Ferrers, E.

Palmer, L.

Fookes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Peel, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Geddes, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renton, L.

Glentoran, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Goschen, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hanham, B.

Sharples, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Skelmersdale, L.

Higgins, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hogg, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Thatcher, B.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Trumpington, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Vivian, L.

Lucas, L.

Waddington, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Weatherill, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wilcox, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Windlesham, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Desai, L.

Addington, L.

Dholakia, L.

Alli, L.

Diamond, L.

Amos, B.

Dixon, L.

Andrews, B.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dubs, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Elder, L.

Avebury, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bach, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Barker, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Barnett, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Falkland, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Billingham, B.

Filkin, L.

Blackstone, B.

Fitt, L.

Blease, L.

Gale, B.

Borrie, L.

Geraint, L.

Bragg, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Brennan, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Brett, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brookman, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Burlison, L.

Grabiner, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Chandos, V.

Grenfell, L.

Christopher, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Harrison, L.

Crawley, B.

Hayman, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

David, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hoyle, L.

1439

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Puttnam, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Razzall, L.

Islwyn, L.

Rea, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Rennard, L.

Richard, L.

Jeger, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Roper, L.

Judd, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sawyer, L.

Laird, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Serota, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lipsey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Longford, E.

Simon, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

McCarthy, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean,B

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Taverne, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thornton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turnberg, L.

Mitchell, L.

Uddin, B.

Molloy, L.

Varley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Nicol, B.

Walpole, L.

Northover, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Parekh, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Patel, L.

Whitaker, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Whitty, L.

Paul, L.

Wilkins, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Winston, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.6 p.m.
[Amendment No. 23, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 21 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Finance]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 24:
Leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new clause—
FINANCE
(".—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient in consequence of any of the matters specified in subsection (2), he may by order amend, repeal or make provision similar to any of the following provisions of the Government of Wales Act 1998—

(a) section 81 (statements by Secretary of State),

(b) section 85 (expenditure by National Assembly), and

(c) section 86 (statements by National Assembly).

(2) The matters mentioned in subsection (1) are—

(a) any provision of this Act,

(b) a change in the accounting methods used by the National Assembly,

(c) a change in the procedures of the House of Commons relating to public money, and

(d) a change in the form of Appropriation Acts.

(3) An order under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument,

(b) may include incidental or transitional provision, and

(c) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(4) The Secretary of State—

(a) shall consult the National Assembly before making an order under this section which relates to section 81 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, and

(b) shall not make an order under this section which relates to section 85 or 86 of that Act unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the National Assembly.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment substitutes a new clause for the existing Clause 15. It empowers the Secretary of State, which in practice means the Secretary of State for Wales, to make changes to Sections 81, 85 and 86 of the Government of Wales Act in consequence of the accounts and budget of the UK Government changing from a cash to a resources basis. The intention is that the accounts and budget of the National Assembly will, at the same time, also move to a resources basis. The power will enable the Secretary of State to make appropriate changes to those provisions in the Government of Wales Act to ensure that the National Assembly's budgetary processes can be changed to a resources basis.
The power is exercisable by order and will be made by statutory instrument. Before the Secretary of State can exercise the power he needs to consult the National Assembly in so far as he is changing Section 81, which provides for the Secretary of State to make a statement of his estimated payment for each financial year. He will be required to obtain the Assembly's agreement before he can change Sections 85 and 86, which deal respectively with expenditure by the National Assembly and its statement of proposed expenditure for each financial year. In addition, to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny of this power is maintained the Secretary of State will be required to lay a draft of any order before both Houses of Parliament for their approval.
We believe that this is a necessary power whose limits have been clearly defined and is subject to a high level of parliamentary scrutiny and National Assembly involvement. I am pleased to say that in its 23rd report the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation was satisfied that the order-making power was appropriate. I beg to move
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins: My Lords, we had noted the views of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in relation to this amendment. I ask the

1441
following simple question. Can the National Assembly for Wales do anything about this if it does not like something?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it can do two different things. Any amendments to Section 81 require that the National Assembly be consulted. It could happen after consultation. Amendments to Sections 85 and 86 of the Government of Wales Act require the consent of the Assembly. Section 81 is concerned with the way in which the Secretary of State for Wales reports on financial matters, whereas the other provisions require the consent of the Assembly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
INVESTMENT BY DEVOLVED ADMINISTRATIONS
(".—(1) Any of the following may incur expenditure for the purpose of investing in the body mentioned in section 16—

(a) the Scottish Ministers,

(b) the Northern Ireland departments, and

(c) the National Assembly for Wales.

(2) Subsection (1)—

(a) shall have effect notwithstanding an enactment which restricts the activities of a person or body mentioned in that subsection to matters relating to a particular Part or area of the United Kingdom, and

(b) shall not be construed as preventing or restricting any action which a person or body has power to take without reliance on that subsection.

(3) The power under subsection (1) may be used only for the purpose of—

(a) the acquisition from the Treasury of shares of a kind which are required by the body's articles of association to be issued to the Treasury (and which may be transferred by the Treasury), and

(b) such other forms of investment (whether by the acquisition of assets, securities, rights or otherwise) as the Treasury may specify by order.

(4) An order under subsection (3)(b)—

(a) may relate generally to persons and bodies mentioned in subsection (1) or to one or more specified persons or bodies,

(b) may make different provision for different purposes,

(c) shall he made by statutory instrument, and

(d) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government are introducing this new clause to provide the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with the opportunity to invest in Partnerships UK. Clause 16 currently authorises the Treasury to incur expenditure for the purposes of the establishment of this body, investment in it and the making of other financial provision for it. The additional legislative provision is needed to permit the devolved authorities to invest in Partnerships UK plc because it will carry on business throughout the United Kingdom and, therefore, to an extent, beyond the legislative and executive competence of each devolved authority. Such
1442
investment by the devolved administrations will therefore be completely in keeping with the UK-wide coverage of the new company.
The Government have consulted the relevant authorities in the devolved administrations. They have all welcomed the opportunity that the new clause will provide. I hope that will be welcomed in this House also. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
ADVISORY BOARD
(".—(1) Before—

(a) issuing directions under section 5(2), or

(b) determining the form and content of accounts under section 9,

the Treasury shall consult a group of persons who appear to the Treasury to be appropriate to advise on financial reporting principles and standards.
(2) Before selecting a group for the purpose of subsection (1) the Treasury shall consult the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(3) Where a group is consulted under subsection (1) in a particular year, the Treasury shall arrange for the group to prepare a report for that year—

(a) summarising the activities of the group for the purpose of the consultation, and

(b) dealing with such other matters as the group consider appropriate.

(4) Where a report is prepared under subsection (3), the Treasury shall arrange for it to be laid before the House of Commons.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 27, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 26 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 19, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) For the purpose of subsection (5)(a) and (b) the Treasury shall in particular—

(a) have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Accounting Standards Board Limited or any other body prescribed for the purposes of section 256 of the Companies Act 1985 (accounting standards), and

(b) require the accounts to include, subject to paragraph (a), a statement of financial performance, a statement of financial position and a cash flow statement.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Terrorism Bill
6.13 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Terrorism: interpretation]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("of") insert ("criminal").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 8.
The present definition of terrorism contained in Clause 1 of the Bill was introduced on Report. On that occasion, the view was taken that the Government's then amendment was an improvement on the original version of the Bill which had arrived from the other place, but that time was required to think about it to see whether it could be improved still further. Challenge was therefore not made to the amendment at Report stage. However, notice was given that several amendments would be tabled to improve the definition further if it were thought possible and appropriate. The conclusion has been reached that the amendment could be significantly improved, and therefore amendments have been put down in order to do that.
The main defect in the present definition of "terrorism" as now in the Bill is that it brings action,
"to influence the government",
into the definition even if the action involves no threat to the public. It is believed that that is too wide a definition, even in the case of a democratic government, and much more so in the case of oppressive and undemocratic governments.
The aim of a definition must be to include within it everything we want and to exclude everything we do not want. That has proved particularly troublesome in the case of the definition of terrorism, and it is clear that an ideal definition on which there could be complete consensus will not be reached. But it is believed that the amendments put down on the Marshalled List tighten up the definition and bring it closer to the ideal.
The key amendment in the group is Amendment No. 4. It removes any reference to influencing the government from the definition of terrorism. It makes the intimidation of the public or a section of the public an essential element in terrorism.
There is, however, one major exception, and that is covered by subsection (3) of Clause 1, as amended, as we propose, by Amendment No. 6. It is believed that any organisation which adopts murder as a method of operation, and does so for political, religious or ideological purposes, should be regarded as a terrorist organisation even if the public are not the targets of the killing. Therefore, it is believed that a campaign of assassination against members of a government is a terrorist campaign, even if that government are oppressive, and even if the campaign involves no threat to members of the public.
Subsection (3) as now drafted excludes any necessity to show an intention to influence a government or intimidate the public where the action in question involves firearms or explosives, but it is not believed that assassination by gun or bomb is worse than assassination by, for example, poison or strangling. On the other hand, it is not believed that the use of explosives, where there is no threat to life—for example, by blowing up television or radio
1444
transmission towers when care has been taken to ensure there is no danger to individuals—is worse than other forms of terrorism.
Amendment No. 6 therefore widens subsection (3) by extending it to all methods of killing, but narrows subsection (3) by limiting it only to killing. It is believed that that makes subsection (3) better targeted than it is at present.
Amendment No. 3 deals with one problem which was raised during the course of my discussion with the Home Secretary last week when seeking to reach agreement on the issue. The Home Secretary stated that removing reference to "influencing" the Government was not enough because a terrorist group could blackmail the government, for example, for the purpose of obtaining the release of a member of its organisation held in a prison by threatening to poison the water supply. It may be that the Government, in order to avoid public panic, keeps that threat secret. It is suggested therefore that the terrorist threat cannot be said to intimidate the public because the public do not know.
That appeared to be a fair point. Amendment No. 3 therefore now deals with the problem by stating that a threat which is directed against the public can be terrorism even though the public do not know about it and are therefore not intimidated by the threat.
Amendment Nos. 2 and 8 are consequential.
Amendment Nos. 1 and 7 raise a different plight. It is possible to envisage some types of strike action, for example, which could cause a serious risk to health or to the safety of the public, or a section of the public. It is not thought that anything of that kind has actually happened in this country, but on occasions in the past the country has been quite close to it. One does not need to go as far back as the General Strike in 1926, but one could go back, for instance, to the miners' strike in 1973 and 1974. However, it is not thought that most people would have regarded the National Union of Mineworkers at that time as potentially a terrorist organisation, or Arthur Scargill as a terrorist, still less Joe Gormley.
It is proposed by Amendments Nos. 1 and 7 to limit the action covered by Clause 1 to criminal action only. It is believed that these amendments tighten up the definition of terrorism. It is believed that they simplify the definition by excluding the need to include any reference to governments. They restrict the definition of terrorism to the basic meaning; either a threat to the public or a section of the public, or an assassination campaign. It is also believed that these amendments do that without presenting any damage to the effectiveness of the Bill in fighting terrorism, internal or external, which is, of course, an objective with which my colleagues and I are in full support. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this interesting group of amendments is directed towards the definition of terrorism. Having discussed the definition throughout the various stages of the Bill, it

1445
has been greatly improved. However, that does not mean that it is perfect and some interesting suggestions are incorporated in these amendments.
Amendment No. 6 limits subsection (3) to:
"The use or threat of action … intended to cause death",
as opposed to,
"The use or threat of action … which involves the use of firearms or explosives".
I can think of many instances involving the destruction of property without any intention to cause death—and sometimes on a large scale with warnings given and so forth. They have occurred in Northern Ireland and here in Great Britain.
Sometimes such incidents resulted in deaths or serious injury against the apparent wishes of the terrorists because the warning was not sufficiently precise, or it was not acted on sufficiently quickly, or there was some other mischance. After such an incident, terrorists have sometimes claimed that they did not intend the deaths; they merely intended to damage the building. They have said, for example, that it was the fault of the police that someone was killed in the process. Therefore, I am not sure that the use of the words "intended to cause death" are sufficient, but it is in the drafting of the Liberal Democrat amendment.
There is a wider point as to whether the bombing of a building, electrical or telephone cables, a railway and so forth should be regarded automatically as a terrorist event for the purposes of subsection (3). As regards terrorists, there are a number of motives for attacking a building without intending to cause injury or death. One of them is the preservation of rackets. There are some elaborate rackets in parts of Northern Ireland. For example, in some areas there are no conventional public houses, only clubs run by those linked to terrorist organisations. If a proprietor of an ordinary pub built a new one and threatened the monopoly of the rackets he would, to say the least, risk the premises being bombed. That has happened in the past.
Other incidents have involved a deliberate attack on employment—for example, the destruction of factories and so forth—so as to put off investment and damage the economy of Northern Ireland in particular. Those are just as much terrorist actions and have been part of co-ordinated campaigns from both sides of the political and religious divide in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the incidents were not intended to cause death or serious injury. Therefore, from that point of view I am nervous about Amendment No. 6.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he accept that even the existing drafting of subsection (3) would not apply to, for instance, soaking the premises with petrol and then setting light to it, which would be just as effective a way of destroying the would-be pub as explosives?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, yes. The noble Lord earlier put his finger on one of the difficulties of subsection (3); that it is limited to firearms and explosives when there are other ways of killing people
1446
and of damaging property. All that draws attention to the fact that the definition is not yet perfect and not that the wording in Amendment No. 6 is to be preferred to the wording in the Bill.
I believe that it is important to leave in the words which Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 propose to leave out. There have been many attacks on government, mostly assassinations and so forth. One can think of several Members of Parliament, former colleagues, who have been assassinated. In addition, the Downing Street bomb and such like were not directed against the public but against government. However, presumably they would be covered by subsection (3) whether or not Amendment No. 6 were agreed to. Some of the threats designed by terrorists in other countries have been designed to influence the government rather than to intimidate the public or a section of them. Logically, either of those events appears to be terrorism.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has tabled an interesting amendment to which reference has not yet been made. It provides that suicide or attempted suicide is not to be treated as terrorism if other people are not endangered. I am looking forward to hearing the noble Lord speak to that interesting amendment and to hearing the Minister's response.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, there is a long and valuable tradition of non-violent civil disobedience in this country. The Green Party and many others regard it as most important that the legislation does not chip away at that tradition. It is part of the complex of thought which has since 1660 preserved the country from revolution.
Non-violent civil disobedience often entails the protestor risking his or her life and, particularly since suicide ceased to be a crime in this country, the action is not and should not be a crime, let alone terrorism. Therefore, I suggest that we should amend the Bill accordingly.
There are two complicating issues. One is where the person's action in committing suicide endangers other people's lives. One might call it the "Emily Davison case", although no one, not even the horse, was seriously damaged except Emily herself. Only one jockey was hurt but no one was seriously damaged. Unfortunately, Emily Davison was not too efficient, having already tried to commit suicide at least twice and having been arrested once for stoning an innocent Baptist minister whom she mistook for Lloyd George.
The second issue relates to what one might call the "Swampy case", where the protester may be thought to cause danger to other people because he tempts them to rescue him. An amendment tabled on Third Reading is no occasion for discussing the ethical nuances raised by that point. However, if I did so, I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, would possibly join in the discussion because it seems to me to be of strong theological interest.
This amendment is very simple. It removes the possibility of an action which causes one's own death being classed as terrorism. On the face of it that seems

1447
to be one of the silliest things that one can come across. The amendment will be an improvement to the Bill and I hope that the Government will accept it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I have reservations about some of the amendments in the group, but I strongly support Amendment No. 5, to which I have added my name. I am very glad to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in this matter, as I did at an earlier stage. I am certain that it was never the Government's intention to deem someone to be a terrorist merely because they threatened to commit suicide, whether by hunger strike or otherwise, in order to try to influence a government. Yet that would be the unintended consequence of leaving the Bill unamended.
Amendment No. 5, as drafted, provides that anyone who threatened to commit suicide in such a manner that others might be killed or injured in the process would not benefit from this exemption, and rightly so. No encouragement should be given to someone who threatened to throw himself from a skyscraper and land on innocent pedestrians passing below. This amendment is tightly drawn and modest, yet I believe it is important from the point of view of principle. If the Government were to accept Amendment No. 4 by removing any reference to influencing a government, Amendment No. 5 would probably be unnecessary. If they do not agree to the removal of Amendment No. 4, I suggest that it most certainly will be necessary.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 5 there is a tradition on the Indian sub-continent of people fasting unto death. Sooner or later it will happen here. I believe that the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Monson, covers the case that someone may threaten to fast unto death. That may be a foolish act, but it is not a terrorist one.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at this early stage I would like to pay tribute to all who have contributed in no small way to helping the Government in their task of improving the quality of the definitional clause in this legislation. In particular, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for his help and guidance. I also thank those on all sides of the House who have led in these debates on terrorism. It has been very constructive. The purpose of the contributions has been almost at all times to try to improve the quality of the definition, which is very important and key to the legislation.
I believe it was recognised by all sides at Report stage that the amendments tabled by the Government on the definition of terrorism were important improvements and reflected the earlier debates. They ensured that interference with computer systems was covered by the definition. They introduced a requirement that either an intention to intimidate the public or influence the Government must be present except in cases involving firearms or explosives.
1448
Although I am sure that it is abundantly clear to Members of this House, perhaps I may place on record that for a threat or action to be caught by the definition of terrorism, each of the elements in Clause 1(1) must be satisfied except, as we shall discuss further, where firearms or explosives are involved. In that case it is not necessary for the threat or action to be designed to influence a government or intimidate the public.
By contrast, in Clause 1(2), only one of the five types of action set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) needs to occur. The difference between the cumulative effect of the requirement in subsection (1) and the disjunctive effect of the requirement in subsection (2) is indicated by the presence of the word "and" at the end of subsection (1)(b) and the word "or" at the end of subsection (2)(d).
As I say, we believe that the amendments we made at Report significantly improved the definition of terrorism, which is so crucial to the Bill as a whole, and plugged some important gaps. The question before us is whether further amendment is needed as proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, and Lord Beaumont.
I would like first to turn my attention to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Before dealing with the substantive concerns we have about them it is worth mentioning a more technical point which relates to Amendment No. 7. We do not believe that the phrase,
"action of a kind which, if carried out in…the United Kingdom, would be an offence"
is sufficiently tight for easy application by the police and others. Should the approach in the amendment be adopted—we do not think it should—we would prefer something along the lines of Section 9(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which refers to action which,
"constitutes or would constitute an offence".
Turning to our more substantive concerns about these amendments, they introduce two additional concepts into the definition. The underlying issues have been debated before your Lordships' House and in another place. We have looked at them again in the run-up to this debate. However, we cannot agree to the amendments. We believe that they could unnecessarily hamper the police and others involved in combating terrorism.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 1 and 7. The first provides that only "criminal" action or its threat, may be caught by the definition. We continue to believe that such an approach might create unacceptable difficulties for the security forces and that in some, albeit rare, situations it might mean that the powers under the Bill were not available in circumstances where they should be.
Moreover, that leads to our second concern. We can conceive of rare cases where terrorist action might not be criminal or it might not be immediately clear that it was criminal. I cited examples at earlier stages of the passage of the Bill. For instance, an employee may advance a political cause and may deliberately omit to update a vital computer programme or omit to put a

1449
cleansing agent in a sewerage system, with the result that the health of a section of the public was severely put at risk. In our view that could be terrorism in certain circumstances. In that situation, we believe that it would be quite appropriate for the police to use their powers under the Bill to disrupt or investigate the incident.
I acknowledge that such situations would be rare, but not so rare that it would be acceptable to discount them in framing legislation. That is particularly the case now that we have explicitly included computer-related terrorism within our definition. Given the speed at which the abuse, as well as the use of information technology is developing, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the first one was aware of a new way of disrupting or interfering with a computer system would be via a terrorist attack. In such circumstances the criminal law, quite understandably, might not cover the area. The result would, or could be, that the police might not have the powers available to investigate an incident in precisely the kind of circumstances in which your Lordships have made it very clear that such provision should be available.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister explain to me whether a person who commits the action he described, such as deliberately omitting to update a program on a computer or something else of a similar nature, would be committing an offence under the computer misuse Act?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it may or may not be. The important point to remember here is that it may be a form of action which has been deliberately embarked on and designed to disrupt public life or cause harm or injury. The motives that lie behind the action could well constitute a terrorist offence. In the circumstances we believe it is right and proportionate to include it in the Bill. It is for that reason that we have included a computer offence within the definition.
We have also made it clear on many occasions that our definition of terrorism is not intended to catch lawfully organised industrial action in connection with a legitimate trade dispute. It is worth putting that on record. I do not believe it likely that the courts would stretch the definition of a political cause as some have suggested.
Moreover, unions which operate in essential services usually go to considerable lengths to seek to avoid serious risk to life, health and safety as a result of the way in which they pursue industrial disputes. Therefore, in our view their actions would be doubly unlikely to fall within our definition.
Finally, in the very remote event that industrial action might be held to fall within our definition, I believe that in principle it would be wrong for us to elevate industrial action over other forms of politically, religiously or ideologically motivated concerted protest which endangers life or creates a serious risk to public health and safety by providing, for example, an explicit exemption.
1450
I have already explained the difficulties that we have identified in introducing the concept of "criminal" into the definition and I believe that the noble Lord's prime concern has been met adequately by other means. I hope that in the circumstances he will not press his amendment.
I now turn my attention to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 8. We are concerned that these amendments narrow significantly and unacceptably the scope of the definition of terrorism by providing that, except in cases where the action is intended to cause death, it must be designed either to intimidate the public or be directed against the public. That is in contrast to our provision added at Report stage which provides that an action must be designed to influence the government or intimidate the public, except where firearms or explosives are involved.
As I understand it, the heart of the noble Lord's concern with this part of our definition is its potential application to conflicts and struggles abroad, particularly where there is concern that democratic principles are not fully at work and where there might be a deal of sympathy with those who want to take action, even violent action, to influence the government. The example most often quoted is, of course, South Africa in bygone years. A more current example might be the ongoing struggles in and between parts of the former Yugoslavia. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to provide that such action would not be caught by the definition, provided that it was not directed at the public or designed to intimidate the public, or provided that it was intended to cause death. That would exclude the application of the definition to some, although perhaps in reality not much, of the serious violence in those contexts.
I believe that we have discussed these concerns at almost every stage of the passage of this Bill. We have always recognised the sensitivities that surround what is often characterised as the "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" issue. As I have already mentioned, in response to those concerns we introduced amendments on Report which provided for Attorney-General level consent to prosecution for international terrorist cases. We believe that that is the right way to deal with the issue and I believe that that was the view of the noble Lord, too. At col. 1439 of the Second Reading debate he said:
"I do not think that the problem can be solved by a clever definition of terrorism".
He went on to say:
"The only realistic safeguard is the need to obtain leave to start the prosecution".—[Official Report, 6/4/00; col. 1439.]
We agree.
Moreover, we have grave concerns about the implications for responding to terrorist incidents more generally if the noble Lord's amendments are agreed to. The effect of the amendments would be that the powers and offences under the Bill would not be available to the police unless it was clear that attacks, including even bomb attacks, were designed to intimidate the public or were directed against the public or intended to cause death.

1451
In our view, that simply will not do. Although it is common ground between us that most terrorist attacks are designed to intimidate the public, and we accept that other actions might be caught by the noble Lord's additional limb of "actions directed against the public", we believe that that still leaves a worrying gap. As the noble Lord well knows and intends, the gap particularly concerns serious damage to property.
Situations that might not be covered by his definition include attacks on government buildings and other symbolic targets where a warning has been given. Therefore, it cannot be argued that there is an intention to cause death. However, the same might be true in non-property-related situations; for example, in the kidnapping of a diplomat or politician, to take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The fact that the disapplication applies only where there is an intention to cause death means that the definition might not apply even in circumstances where the terrorists were clearly reckless as to whether death or serious injury might be caused. I do not believe that it is remotely acceptable that under the Bill the police might not have the powers available to them in circumstances such as those. And I cannot believe that noble Lords will consider it acceptable either.
Finally, I should mention that the "influencing a government" limb of the definition is not a new idea of the Government's recent invention. The Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1939 contained it. Now that terrorism is international and combating terrorism requires international co-operation, it is right that we should recognise as terrorism acts aimed at the governments of other countries as well as our own. Moreover, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, recommended in his report that such a limb should be included.
We believe that such an element is a vital partner to the "intimidating the public" limb, on which I believe we are all generally agreed. From the outset, we have underlined that we believe the undermining of democratic processes to be at the heart of the definition of terrorism. If experience suggests, as we have demonstrated that it does, that terrorists undertake actions which are designed to influence the government but which do not intimidate the public or are not directed against the public, it must be right that such actions are also caught by the definition. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendments.
I now turn to Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I can address this amendment more briefly and perhaps more positively. On Report we agreed that we should consider whether there should be an explicit exemption from the definition of terrorism where the only life endangered was one's own. On balance, we decided that it would be beneficial to adopt such an approach. On that basis, I am happy to signal that the Government support the noble Lord's amendment.
I hope that I have made the Government's position plain and clear. I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to withdraw his amendments. I am most
1452
grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate for helping us to reshape the definitional clause.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am of course disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to accept the amendments proposed by us or to move in any sense towards them. It seems to me that the amendments which we have proposed, and in particular Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6, represent a substantial improvement on the definition in the Bill as it stands. I believe that it would be pointless for me to re-argue the points as to why we believe that. They were explained by me earlier. In view of the absence of support from other parts of the House, I feel that no useful purpose would be served by pressing the amendments to a vote. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("other than that of the person committing the action").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Government for their usual common sense in accepting this amendment. I also thank other noble Lords around the Chamber who supported me in this matter. I believe that it is a very sensible and worthwhile, but only small, amendment, and I am grateful to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Support]:
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 24, at end insert—
("(3A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2)(c) in respect of a private meeting it is a defence for him to prove that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the address mentioned in subsection (2)(c) would support a proscribed organisation or further its activities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 take a slightly different approach from Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but not moved. I do not propose to say a great deal about the amendments, but I shall explain why we preferred ours to the noble Lord's.
Whereas the noble Lord's amendments rely on a public interest test, we propose a statutory defence for someone charged with an offence under Clause 12(2)(c) in respect of a private meeting, that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the address would support a proscribed organisation or further activities.
That provides sufficient protection for arranging genuinely benign meetings while still ensuring that subsection (2)(c) will serve its basic purpose. Our main intention is unchanged. It will remain an offence, as it is under existing legislation, to arrange or manage—or to assist in the arrangement or management of—a meeting that it is known will be addressed by a person who belongs, or professes to belong, to a proscribed organisation. However, we agree that in certain cases there should be a statutory defence. Amendment No. 14 will ensure that anyone seeking to rely on that defence will have to satisfy an evidential burden only, as is the case with various other provisions in the Bill.
I trust that with that explanation, your Lordships' House will agree to our amendments. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for not having moved his amendments. I suspect that he recognised that ours were preferable. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I was happy not to move my amendments because I recognise that the government amendments achieve the same substantial point. We are grateful to the Government for having taken on board the point about Clause 12(2)(c) as originally drafted and taken reasonable steps to narrow it. I am disappointed about the definition that we discussed a few minutes ago, but I am grateful to the Government for the number of amendments that they have made, which have significantly improved the Bill.
The amendments on the burden of proof have been a particularly substantial improvement to the Bill. They should avoid any problems under the Human Rights Act 1998. I am therefore happy to support the amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I was thrown by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did not move his amendments. At first glance, it might seem that government Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 achieve much the same as Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, but in a slightly different way. However, unfortunately—I hesitate to quarrel with the legal expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—they do not quite achieve the same effect.
I have no problem with the Government outlawing the furthering of activities of a proscribed organisation, but the government amendments go further than that because they prevent anybody who addresses a meeting from supporting such an organisation during their speech. Even in a wholly private meeting, it will not be possible for robust arguments to take place between apologists for terrorism and those who strongly oppose it.
On Report, it was significant that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, supported a similar Liberal Democrat amendment. He knows more about terrorism first hand than most of the rest of us in the House put together. If I understood him correctly, the essence of his argument was that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. To convince terrorists of the wickedness and
1454
folly of their ways through argument is difficult, but it is not necessarily impossible. Conversion and repentance can occur. One thinks of Sean O'Callaghan on the republican side and one or two names on the loyalist side. The conversion in the latter cases might not have been quite so total, but it was still significant.
It is obviously too late to pursue the issue now that the amendment has not been moved, but the government amendments do not go far enough in permitting an interchange of views, none of which would further terrorism but which might allow terrorists to be argued out of their stance. However, as it is too late to go any further, that is all that I need to say.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should explain that I was not envisaging debates to try to change the minds of terrorists, which would be unlikely to be fruitful. The problem was that Clause 12(2)(c) as drafted would cover meetings for the purpose of negotiation with a view to settling terrorist activities. That problem is dealt with by the government amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I agree that that is a valuable advance. One thinks of negotiations that have taken place between terrorists and governments, which might have been caught by the Bill as it stood.
It is unlikely that terrorists can be converted through debate, but it does happen now and again. If the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, had not spoken so strongly in favour of the Liberal Democrat amendment last time, I might not have spoken up. He knows what he is talking about and it is a pity that we cannot go any further on the issue, but so be it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with respect, the definition in the amendment that my noble friend Lord Goodhart did not move is preferable in some ways to that of the Government.
When a government and an armed opposition movement that has been in combat with them are brought together for conflict resolution, there is no means of knowing in advance whether the people representing the armed opposition will attempt during the conciliation meeting to argue the merits of their case or support the proscribed organisation in any other way.
I shall give the Minister a recent practical example. The Henry Dunant centre in Geneva brought together representatives of the government of Indonesia and the armed opposition in Aceh, the GAM. As a result, both parties were persuaded to sign what was called a humanitarian force. The fact that it did not work very well is neither here nor there for the merits of the argument.
The parties sat down to make an agreement that would allow the deployment of humanitarian relief efforts for the people of Aceh and a break in the armed opposition by the GAM and the armed action by the forces of the government of Indonesia against the so-called terrorists.

1455
The Henry Dunant centre had no means of knowing what either side would say and—this is particularly relevant in the context of the amendments—whether those representing the GAM would make remarks that could be taken as supporting that proscribed organisation or furthering its activities. My noble friend's amendment provided for an exception that such a meeting was in the public interest. The Aceh agreement was clearly in the public interest because it provided, at least for a short period, for the fighting to stop and humanitarian assistance to be delivered to the people.
The Government's wording puts an enormous burden on the organisers of such meetings to satisfy themselves in advance of what is going to be said by those who represent an armed opposition.
7 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I have to say that to some extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I believe that there is a serious place and use for benign meetings of the type he described. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to encourage us by telling us that, inclusive of the government amendment, there will still be space in the Bill for such meetings, which undoubtedly are extremely useful in trying to solve any form of terrorist problem.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, withdrew his amendment. It required a lot of thought in balancing one thing with another. I was really only worried about one aspect; that is, the use of the phrase, "the public interest". I was concerned about the definition. Going back to Northern Ireland, I can think of times when PIRA protagonists might well have held public meetings within republican areas of Belfast. They could have argued that, because they were promoting Sinn Fein objectives as a terrorist organisation, their meetings were in the public interest of those people within whose area they were living and working and whose cause they believed they were promoting. The same could be said for loyalists in east Belfast. I am sure the same could apply elsewhere in the world on different occasions.
In short, that was the only reason that I was against the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and prefer the government amendment. As I have said, I support most of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which contained a great deal of wisdom. I hope that within the Bill it will still be possible—my reading of it is that it will be—without breaking the law, to organise benign meetings, as we have referred to them today, between terrorists, security people and probably not mainline politicians but with the support of the government of the day. I support the government amendment.
Lord Desai: My Lords, Perhaps I may mention, briefly, that I had many reservations about Clause 12(2)(c), and other matters, which I raised in
1456
Committee and on Report. I am grateful to the Government for amending Clause 12 so that my academic friends will now be protected.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is always difficult speaking to amendments that have not been moved, but I suspect that I should.
Perhaps I may start where the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, left off. His encouragement to the Government was to ensure that genuinely benign meetings were able to take place. We believe that our amendment is preferable. It protects that position and enables such meetings to take place. We provide a statutory defence in the clauses we have drafted, which is important. I am sure there is confidence on all sides of your Lordships' House that that will be the case. It certainly would not be our intention to endanger such meetings. In many circumstances, that would be counter-productive.
Our great difficulty with the drafting of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, concerned the key issue of the public interest. It is an interesting test. However, I seriously question whether it is the right way to go about it. A number of questions have to be asked; for instance: who is to say whether a meeting is in the public interest; in what circumstances? Moreover, who is to say whether it is reasonable to believe that the meeting is in the public interest? Such a defence would probably lead to lengthy legal argument. Our concern was that such a defence would drive a big hole through Clause 12(2)(c). It may be the case that some would like to see a big hole driven through it, but I do not think that would be right. To use a good old-fashioned term, we have tried to strike a balance. I believe we have it about right.
I hear what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and understand the point at which he is driving. However, I believe on balance we have got it right. For those reasons, I believe that our amendments should receive the support of your Lordships' House this evening. I am encouraged that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has withdrawn his amendment in favour of ours.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam Lord Bassam moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("and (3)") and insert ("to(3A)").
Page 7, line 26, at end insert—
(", and
(b) a meeting is private if the public are not admitted").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 118 [Defences]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 55, line 38, after ("sections") insert ("12(3A),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Port and Border Controls]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 110, line 28. leave out ("knowingly") and insert ("wilfully").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16. The amendments address the issue of the provision of passenger information to which we have returned at virtually every stage of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
On Report we took up one of the suggestions made in Committee to the effect that information should be provided "as soon as is reasonably practicable". Since then we have considered the further representations made on Report which focused on the offence provision for non-compliance with a duty under the ports provisions of the Bill. As we explained then, we did not think that the statutory defence approach did the trick, as it appeared to provide a carte blanche for less than co-operative carriers to ignore altogether requests to collect information.
We propose instead that the threshold for the noncompliance to bite be raised from "knowingly" to "wilfully". So, if a carrier makes every effort to collect the requested information but it is simply not possible for some reason, even within a reasonable timescale, the courts could take the view that no offence had been committed.
We believe that the amendments are a helpful addition to the Bill in that they underline our commitment to the provision of reasonable as well as effective passenger information provisions under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is a small but useful improvement to the Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Cope. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that this issue had been raised at every stage. I speak as a paid-up member of what the noble Lord described at one stage as the "transport lobby", and I am proud to do so.
It was worthwhile raising this at every stage because we have gained not only some useful amendments to the Bill, but words in the speeches of the Minister which are encouraging. I thank the Minister for having produced the amendment. I hope I can assure him that the transport industries will do their very best to comply with the legislation. I am glad to see that one of the Ministers for transport has just entered the Chamber because, no doubt, he will also take this view. We will do our best to co-operate. I hope that the legislation succeeds.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of both noble Lords who have spoken. This small step forward will be welcomed by those in the ferry industry who may be affected by the Bill.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the expression, "small but useful" is exactly right. I congratulate the body, which
1458
I have never before called the "transport lobby"—but if the noble Lord insists—on the hard work it has done along with everyone else in seeing the Bill through its stages.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 110, line 30, leave out ("knowingly") and insert ("wilfully").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
I shall say just a few formal words because they need to be put on record. At Second Reading I predicted that our discussions on the Bill would benefit greatly from the wealth of experience in your Lordships' House. I am happy to report that that prediction was entirely correct. We have been able to draw on the specific understanding of a number of Members of your Lordships' House covering the workings of government from a ministerial perspective, hands-on knowledge of the difficulties faced in Northern Ireland and the civil liberties lawyers who are rightly concerned to ensure that the ECHR legislation is properly understood in the context of this Bill.
While it is always dangerous to single out individuals, it would be wrong of me to let the moment pass without recording particularly my debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. His inquiry into legislation against terrorism provided us with an important series of insights and also a framework around which to ensure that we get the Bill right.
The general principles underlying the Terrorism Bill received support from all sides of the Chamber. It is important that the House has been united in its determination that everything must be done to tackle the evil of terrorism. I am extremely grateful to all of those who contributed, from all sides. It improved the quality of legislation. It has also been the House at its best in terms of scrutinising the quality of legislation. In that regard the Government and the public should feel well served.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I rise briefly to echo what the Minister said, both in the thanks to the Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part, and in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I thank also Mr John Rowe QC and his predecessors who produced annual reports on terrorism which have also been drawn on in the preparation of this legislation.
This is a better Bill than when it started its passage through your Lordships' House. But I echo strongly what the Minister said about the joint determination of all those in this House and in another place, and throughout the country, to fight terrorism in whatever form it occurs. Terrorism attacks democracy. It

1459
attempts to subvert everything for which this Parliament stands. I am pleased to support the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I add my thanks to those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. It seemed to me that the work done by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was extremely important and has had fruitful results. On behalf of my party I too express condemnation of terrorism in its manifold forms and a recognition that it is now something that cannot be regarded as confined to one country. At the same time, it is clear that no civilised government can afford to override the civil rights of those suspected of terrorism in a desire, however justifiable, to prevent or restrict it. I am therefore grateful to the Government for taking on board a number of the points we made on those issues.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Diabetes: Fitness to Drive
7.13 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the review of driving licence regulations, which currently prevent insulin-treated diabetics from driving vehicles over 3.5 tonnes and many passenger carrying vehicles, will examine the merits of individual assessment of fitness to drive, taking into account the practices of other European Union States.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, diabetes is a nasty, vicious and brutal disease which strikes indiscriminately and inopportunely. The recent loss of our good colleague in another place, Bernie Grant, testifies to that fact. It is also a disease which the majority of diabetics contend with well and go on to live long, useful and fulfilling lives.
In opening this debate I must declare myself a lifelong member of Diabetes UK (formerly the British Diabetic Association) whose recent successful publicity campaign highlighted the fact that as many as 1 million people in the United Kingdom are suffering from diabetes, although as yet they remain undiagnosed. However, the Question this evening concerns a great injustice against diagnosed diabetics, some of whom, through no fault of their own, find their livelihood threatened by a driving ban based on a misunderstanding about what it means to be a person with diabetes.
Since 1991, new applicants on insulin or existing drivers moving to insulin have been barred from driving large goods vehicles and large passenger-carrying vehicles, although so-called "grandfather rights" exist for those drivers licensed to drive such vehicles before that date. In 1998 the Government's stringent implementation of the second EC Driving Licence Directive, took away insulin users' entitlement to commercial licences to drive other vehicles such as mini-buses and smaller lorries weighing between 3.5
1460
and 7.5 tonnes. Your Lordships may wish to be reminded that licences to drive those vehicles are known collectively as Group 2 licences.
The Science and Technology Select Committee of the other place examined this matter and published its report in March of this year. The committee cast doubt over the evidence used to justify the blanket ban and variously described current regulations as "illogical", "arbitrary" and "inconsistent". My noble friend Lord Whitty himself conceded in evidence to the committee that the UK's restrictive position on renewing driving licences for employment purposes for people with diabetes is based on "inaccurate" information.
It is unsurprising then that the said committee called for a review of the current regulations and a feasibility study on implementing individual assessment of fitness to drive. My hope is that the Government will act on those recommendations sooner rather than later because a large number of people face a threat to their livelihoods while the current system remains in place. For example, last month I met a council worker from Kilmarnock who lost his entitlement to drive his road sweeping vehicle, which is over 7.5 tonnes, despite the fact that it is driven at an average of five miles an hour and that his diabetes is acknowledged as being "well controlled". Many other examples of those whose jobs have been threatened or lost were given as evidence to the Select Committee. I understand that the Diabetes UK CareLine continues to take calls from worried drivers on a daily basis.
I said in my opening remarks that those policies are based on a poor understanding of diabetes. The misunderstanding at the root of the blanket ban appears to be that diabetes affects all people in the same way and therefore equally impairs their ability to drive. That is very wrong. Some people are not in good control of their diabetes. They may be unable to spot the warning signs of hypoglycaemia, which include hunger, sweating, tremor or faintness. Others may have poor eyesight or nerve damage as a result of their diabetes. Of course, many of those people should not be on the road at all. However, many insulin users are in good control of their diabetes; have never suffered a hypoglycaemic episode at the wheel and have an exemplary road safety record. Those people, too, are subject to the blanket restriction of Group 2 licences. Why are those low-risk cases treated the same as the high-risk cases?
The broad brush approach is unjust. It fails to take into account the individual. If it were a fair approach, it would be much better to remove licences from males under the age of 25 because statistically they are far more likely to have road accidents. Clearly that is absurd. But it reminds us of the general principle of human rights: that people should be treated as individuals and not discriminated against for being part of a group. People with insulin-treated diabetes should be tested individually and the decision to issue a licence should be based on an individual's ability to pass stringent annual health checks by a diabetes specialist. My own diabetes specialists feel that this is quite capable of being done.
Some of your Lordships may be aware that I served as a Member of the European Parliament for a number of years until 1999. During that time I engaged in a great deal of correspondence on this matter in which the United Kingdom Government claimed that their position was arrived at as a result of European legislation and that they were unable to make substantial changes to the current position because the UK is bound by European directives. My understanding was then, and is now, somewhat different. EC Directive 91/439 does indeed state that people with diabetes requiring insulin treatment can be issued Group 2 licences "only in very exceptional cases".
Beyond this, however, it is up to member states to decide how best to implement the directive. Several countries, including Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, have a case-by-case medical procedure in place. The UK imposes a blanket restriction, having decided that there were no individual cases that can be regarded as sufficiently exceptional for concessions to be allowed. I must say it seems rather absurd to decide that exceptional cases do not exist without even examining the individual cases.
I find it difficult to understand why the DETR continues to argue that individual assessment is unacceptable under the directive when the Commission appears to be unconcerned about the other countries taking this route. Of 20 infringement proceedings currently pending for various presumed infringements of that EC directive, I understand that none—I repeat none—relates to the diabetes clauses of the directive.
It appears that the Select Committee is unconvinced both by the Government's interpretation of European law and by the medical evidence which forms a basis for that law as it applies to people with diabetes. The most comprehensive independent review of the available evidence to date—an independent study made by Dr Ken McLeod of the University of Exeter—concluded that road safety,
"cannot be justifiably achieved by restricting the driving privileges of those who have consistently been exonerated from claims that they pose a significantly greater risk than the general driving population".
The Government must have a very good reason if they want to continue to endanger people's livelihoods and to compromise their driving rights. The reasons that I have heard Ministers give to date can be summarised in two parts: first, that a blanket approach is important for road safety; and, secondly, that the European Commission would prevent the United Kingdom from applying individual assessment, since this would in any event contradict European law. It now appears that both assertions are highly questionable. In the light of this, perhaps I may urge the Minister to look afresh at individual assessment as the basis of a safety-conscious licensing policy that replaces a discriminatory blanket ban.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for being here today to answer the debate. I understand that a meeting has already been arranged with colleagues from Diabetes UK later this month. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his very helpful reply to my recent Starred Question in this House.
In all this, road safety for all our citizens is paramount, but in observing this desideratum let us not penalise the human rights of a small but important group of our people, through a lack of sense and sensibility.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I am sure we should all thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for drawing our attention to this important subject. Let me go immediately to what I think is the main thrust of his argument; namely, individual assessment. Every time we start to deal with something with a blanket ban, we must ask why we have a blanket ban and what it is trying to achieve. If it is trying to achieve greater road safety, why are we trying to single out one group which does not appear to represent a greater risk than other groups?
I was also rather confused by the idea that unless you know exactly who will be at risk within a certain group, you should not do anything except in a very individually focused way. The individuals in this group are so diverse as to make it virtually impossible for them to be called one section. That was the main thrust of what was said. As to the category involved, in my non-transport oriented, naive way, I thought that a vehicle of 3 tonnes might be every bit as dangerous as one of 3.6 tonnes. So there is an area on the borderline, and one is left wondering again what we are trying to achieve by this ban.
If people who have diabetes are thought to be dangerous drivers, why are we not paying attention to their driving licence as a whole? If an out-of-control car strikes a large lorry or a small truck it can cause the same amount of destruction on the road as a small truck striking a car. There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason in this situation.
Also, we have the restriction of "grandfather rights". I have never been terribly keen on those, as a matter of principle, but if they exist why take them away from somebody who has no record? However you look at this matter, it seems to come back to one question: do we consider the individual as the point of contact? If we are going to do this we need to have an assessment, and preferably an independent assessment.
A Member of your Lordships' House, who cannot be here tonight, pointed out that an elderly relative of his had damaged a number of cars recently and seemed to have various ailments. His doctor told a relative: "Oh, I have known him for years and I have many worse on my books". Surely we should have an independent assessment if an assessment is to take place, rather than one done by the family doctor. I hope that at the end of our debate the Minister will say

1463
that we will start to look at these cases on their individual merits with an assessment of individual risk. That is all we are asking for.
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out that there are legal approaches to the problem. Certainly there is an argument to be made. Surely we can make sure that we have a coherent approach which pays attention to the rights, and liabilities, of the individual. We are not saying that a person who is at risk behind the wheel, or at least a potentially higher risk than other people, should be given any special treatment because they happen to come within a certain group. We are simply saying that they should have an assessment, which should be regularly updated. I think that is most advisable.
I can think of many drivers who do not have diabetes but who would not in any way suffer from updating their driving skills. If we could do this, surely we would not hurt anyone and we might expand the opportunity for employment to a slightly different group. We could also get rid of an anomaly.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for introducing this subject and allowing this discussion in your Lordships' House tonight. To begin with, I must declare an interest. I am a diabetic—sorry, I am not really supposed to say that! I am a person with diabetes. I am also a trustee of Diabetes UK, which is still probably better known as the British Diabetic Association, or BDA. I still have trouble with the new name so I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I lapse into calling it BDA.
Diabetes UK has about 200,000 members. It is the charity for people with diabetes and their carers. A major problem which concerns the association and its members is that under discussion tonight; namely, the arbitrary and discriminatory prohibition which prevents people whose diabetes is being treated with insulin from earning a living driving goods vehicles and some passenger carrying vehicles. This blanket ban—as has been said, that is what it is, particularly as regards people newly diagnosed with diabetes who require insulin treatment—is not based upon scientific evidence or upon any risk assessment. We have the ban because, according to the House of Commons Select Committee report, the Ministry incorrectly told the honorary advisory panel that other European Union member states were applying a ban. Fortunately the blanket ban, in effect, is being re-examined by the advisory panel.
That brings me to the main point that I wish to make tonight. Diabetes UK welcomed the announcement in May that there would be a review of licence regulations and has offered to help. It has access to much scientific and medical experience from highly qualified people.
1464
I remind the House of some of the recommendations of the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. First, it recommended that the Government examine the merits of Diabetes UK's proposals for individual assessment. Secondly, it recommended that the Government and Diabetes UK jointly identify an insulin-treated diabetic—even the committee got the terminology wrong—to attend meetings of the advisory panel. Thirdly, it recommended that the advisory panel should meet annually with Diabetes UK.
The report states that,
"to enhance public confidence, the panel's proceedings need to 'De more open; and consultation with interested organisations like Diabetes UK needs to improve".
Diabetes UK has much to offer the department in carrying forward the review. My noble friend the Minister undertook to meet officers of the charity following the Government's response to the Select Committee report, which was published two months ago. My notes inform me that I should seek an assurance from the Minister that he will meet them before the Summer Recess. However, I am delighted to say that yesterday he agreed to meet them on 27th July.
As my noble friend has said, people's livelihoods, now and in the future, are being affected by this arbitrary and discriminatory blanket ban. I welcome the review but let us get it right. In his evidence to the Commons Select Committee my noble friend conceded that mistakes have been made in the past. I fear that if DETR officials take forward this review in isolation from the views and expertise of those affected by this matter, any revised regulations may turn out to be as arbitrary and unfair as the current regime.
I cannot overstate the urgency of this issue. Today in hospital outpatient clinics up and down the country diabetologists are telling professional drivers either that they have diabetes which needs to be treated with insulin injections, or that the current method of treating their diabetes through diet and tablets is not working and therefore they must resort to insulin injections. If drivers follow that advice—they would be wise to do so—they automatically lose their licence to drive heavy goods vehicles and usually their employment. This is why individual assessment is so vital.
In conclusion, I ask my noble friend when he anticipates that the review will be completed and when—we hope—revised regulations will be introduced.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, at noon today I missed by a few moments the deadline for adding my name to the list of speakers for the debate. I was involved in other business in the House at the time.
I compliment and support the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on the informed and constructive way in which he has presented the urgent need for a review of the regulations in regard to insulin dependent diabetic drivers driving vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that, while the

1465
vehicle licensing agency in Northern Ireland constitutes a separate organisation, the regulations are the same as for the rest of the United Kingdom. I thank noble Lords for giving me the opportunity to make that point.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for being absent during the first couple of minutes of his speech. I was in the Princes Chamber and had not realised that the business of the House had changed. I am sorry not to have been present and to have been rude to Members of this House.
This is a difficult subject but an important one for those affected by it. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out the different relevant characteristics of different diabetes sufferers. As a mother of two young women with a mild seizure condition I understand the range of disability which can be covered by any one condition. I support the noble Lord's views on that matter. He is right to emphasise that some people are being prohibited from earning a living through the approach that is currently taken in this country to the issuing of drivers' licences.
My noble friend Lord Addington rightly emphasised the human rights aspect of this matter. That is important. I sympathise with the points the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, made with regard to the correct terminology. As one gets older, one has to revise one's terminology in almost every context. I hope that I shall not fall into any trap today in that regard.
I believe that there is a general feeling that something should be done to change the present situation. On the other hand, one must still bear in mind safety considerations, both as regards people with diabetes and other road users. The case for modifying the UK interpretation of the European regulations seems clear. Prior to 1991, insulin-treated diabetics were not prevented from driving heavier vehicles. However, after 1991, those people were barred from driving HGVs but, as my noble friend Lord Addington said, existing licence holders were allowed to retain that right under so-called "grandfather rights".
Since 1997, on the other hand, the directive on the scope of Group II licences has been interpreted in a way that has resulted in a large number of potential drivers losing the right to drive any vehicle over 3.5 tonnes. Yet it seems that there is no statistical basis for saying that drivers with insulin-treated diabetes are more accident-prone than others. The Science and Technology Committee agreed that the driving licence regulations are illogical and inconsistent and that there is little evidence to support the current policy. On the other hand, some persons with diabetes who held a commercial Group II licence prior to 1997 may still be able to get such licences renewed for vehicles between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes. Diabetes UK provides the information diabetics need to get through that process.
1466
People with diabetes, unlike those with other conditions, are not individually assessed, although it is said that EU regulations provide for that. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, gave us chapter and verse on that subject. On the other hand, diabetics, like other people with a licence to drive vehicles of up to 3.5 tonnes, can drive a minibus of under that weight with 16 people aboard so long as it is not a paid activity. This seems inconsistent with other regulations on heavy vehicles and safety on the road and all the other matters that are brought into this argument.
This curious jumble of prohibitions and permissions seems to justify the Science and Technology Committee's strictures about illogicality and the lack of statistical justification for the present situation. The case for a change of approach seems clear and the Government's willingness to reconsider the current position is most welcome.
A problem for all of us is the lack of evidence of risk. My first question to the Minister is whether he has any statistical evidence which shows either that people with diabetes are more likely to be involved in an accident or which shows that they are not any more likely to be involved in an accident.
The case in justification of the present situation has not been heard today. However, I know that some people with experience of diabetes in their family would oppose any extension of access to a driving licence. They justify that approach on the basis of the ever present danger of a hypoglycaemic attack and the degenerative effect of the condition upon eyesight and muscular and nervous control.
One can understand the force of that approach—which is based on knowledge of the condition and of those who suffer from it, and upon the concern for safety—but the existing criteria by which some insulin-treated diabetics can get licences for driving vehicles from 3.5 tonnes to 7.5 tonnes already include an absence of serious attacks while driving over a 12 months' period; regular self-monitoring of sugar levels; and an examination by a specialist hospital consultant, who will want blood glucose records for the past 12 months. My second question therefore is: why cannot all sufferers from diabetes who apply for a driver's licence be subject to that process? The licence could then be given or withheld according to how the process comes out.
The Government are reviewing this whole matter following the report of the Science and Technology Committee in another place, but the points made by other noble Lords are well worth re-emphasising. First, will the review involve people who are themselves suffering from diabetes or their representatives? The possibility of it coming to a conclusion after a period of months and then coming slap up against the views and experience of people who are suffering from the condition or of their representative is serious; it would damage the good impression that has been made by the Government's willingness to review the whole situation.

1467
There is also the issue of the advisory panel and the fact that no persons with diabetes attend the panel, even as observers. My last question to the Minister concerns those two points. In particular, will he take up the recommendation of the committee that observer status on the advisory panel should be awarded to persons with diabetes?
7.43 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for introducing this timely debate. The noble Lord has described the problem lucidly and accurately; I shall not repeat his arguments. I do not disagree with anything that noble Lords have said tonight; I hope that the Minister will not change that situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, raised this subject on 3rd May by way of a Starred Question. The Minister said encouraging things on that occasion, but I accused him of allowing for the gold plating of EU regulations. I say that because I recall a very similar problem with EU eyesight regulations. EU regulations on eyesight were naturally tightened up, but, as a result of the changes, UK drivers would lose their existing entitlements to vocational driving licences but other EU drivers would not. During that campaign I raised an argument by means of PQs which suggested that a Dutchman with a standard of eyesight that would disqualify him from a UK licence could still drive in the UK.
We face exactly the same problem here. A Dutchman could pass a Dutch medical assessment and then drive in the UK; but a UK driver with exactly the same medical condition would not be able to have a UK. driving licence at all. During the debate on the Starred Question, the Minister pointed out that the Dutch driver would have had to pass the medical assessment programme. That is exactly what we are asking for.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his excellent speech, asked why it was okay to drive a 3 tonne vehicle but not a 3.6 tonne vehicle. I am sure that the Minister will point out from his brief that driving commercial vehicles involves hard work, an unpredictable work pattern and, in particular, an unpredictable eating pattern. However, if the Minister follows that line he will have forgotten that people with diabetes well understand their condition and will obviously avoid a driving job that is unsuitable. Surely a sales person with diabetes, working under considerable pressure, poses just as great a risk even if he is driving only a car.
Can the Minister confirm the assertion of his noble friend Lord Harrison that he will shortly have a meeting with the Diabetes Association?
Perhaps I, too, may take the opportunity to congratulate the select committee in another place on its useful, measured report, a matter referred to by other noble Lords. It has proved very useful in informing our debate. I am sure that the Minister will take careful note of its conclusions. The Minister has responded positively already to many of the select committee's observations.
1468
We on these Benches believe that the safety of all road users must be paramount. I am certain that no noble Lord will disagree with that. However, it is important to remember that EU directives are not written in tablets of stone. If necessary—I emphasise "necessary"—Ministers should be prepared to ask the EU to look into a matter again. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, raised some interesting issues that may give the Minister food for thought in regard to the point about going back to the EU. We must remember that the key point is the interpretation of the EU regulations. At the moment the Minister is applying a blanket ban, whereas other countries use a discretion.
We need to recognise the difference between being taken ill at the wheel—which would mean pulling over onto the hard shoulder or a safe place and recognising that one is in trouble with a diabetes condition—and actually having an accident. The House will be very interested to hear from the Minister how many accidents have been caused by a motorist coming to grief through diabetes; not a diabetic having an accident—I hate to use the word "diabetic".
We on these Benches believe that a blanket ban is unfair. We must have an independent medical assessment panel. Of course there are obvious dangers in using a GP's report in isolation, although information from a GP will be valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, drew attention to the difficulties that the GP himself would have in making the final recommendation.
The Minister may point out that there is a slight but measurable risk in going down the route of the medical assessment programme—he may be right—but there are greater risks in driving; there are risks through drink, drugs and poor anger control, or road rage. Thinking out loud, perhaps we could offset any slight increase in risk of accident by requiring insulin-dependent diabetics to have an advanced driving certificate. We know that advanced drivers have fewer accidents after their training. Therefore they can enjoy preferential insurance rates. Perhaps I may suggest we could end up with a situation where an insulin-dependent diabetic could have the same overall risk by being an advanced driver. I appreciate that it might require EU agreement before implementation. What is the view of the Minister on reducing risk by increasing the standards of driving?
I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to give a full answer today, but of course I will have the opportunity to raise this matter in greater detail during the passage of the Transport Bill.
Finally, I turn to minibuses. Minibuses can he driven by volunteer non-professional drivers who are insulin-dependent. That matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. It was raised in the select committee report. It is a serious problem because passengers in a minibus are frequently vulnerable passengers and may not be in a position to make an informed decision about the risk they are taking. They may be unaware that the driver of the minibus is an insulin-dependent diabetic. If we are to allow insulin-dependent diabetic drivers to volunteer to

1469
drive minibuses, perhaps we ought to take the precaution of insisting that the minibus is double-manned. Therefore if the driver feels the onset of a diabetic episode, someone could take over; otherwise he may be in the very difficult position of being 50 miles from home, late at night and unable to stop although he is feeling the onset of a diabetic episode.
Many excellent points have been made tonight. I hope the Minister will be positive in his response.
7.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for raising this issue again. It is an ongoing concern, as was pointed out by the Select Committee of another place, and one which concerns many people up and down the country who suffer from diabetes. It is one which has therefore caused my department and the DVLA—and no doubt the DVLA in Northern Ireland—some concern as to whether the present regime is fair.
In practice we are moving along the lines, or very similar lines, that my noble friend suggests. We have started to work on the possibility of individual assessment of fitness to drive. However, we need more information on that. We are seeking information from other member states, from the European Union and the European Commission. Not all of that is as clear or in the single direction that my noble friend and others have implied. But it is clear that we need to examine the position in other member states and then look at our own regime in the light of that.
However, I think that one can be too simplistic about this because we are under a number of constraints. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Harrison have suggested that we are over-interpreting—that may also be behind the reference to gold-plating of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—the European directive. The European directive, which in one sense, has stood for some time, refers explicitly to:
"Only in very exceptional cases may driving licences be issued to or renewed for drivers suffering from diabetes mellitus and requiring insulin treatment, and then only where justified by authorised medical opinion and subject to regular check ups".
Regrettably there is no definition of "very exceptional cases" in this or other countries. We are in touch with the Commission to see whether a more common approach to this could be adopted. The Medical Advisory Panel in this country is also reconsidering its previous interpretation for this. Nevertheless, it is clear that "very exceptional cases" requires some definition and some understanding. It does not therefore allow a blanket restriction.
That does not apply to all people suffering from diabetes. Drivers whose diabetes is treated with tablets or diet only are allowed to hold a licence to drive large goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles in any case. The difference between them and insulin-dependent diabetics is the risk of a sudden disabling
1470
attack of hypoglycaemia, which can result in impaired awareness or unconsciousness. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the statistical basis for the assessment of higher risk. The statistical basis is not available. There is not an effective and robust analysis of the level of risk involved. However, there are a significant number of incidents reported over the years by the police and others attending accidents which indicate that there are accidents due to drivers losing control while suffering from hypoglycaemic attacks.
We recognise the inadequacy of the statistical base for that and the base that has been adopted across Europe and indeed many other countries. We have therefore initiated a programme of research recently which will help to establish the risks and to assess more accurately which drivers pose an unacceptable risk to road safety and which do not. At the moment there is not a robust base on which to make that judgment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am grateful, too, for his frankness. It would be helpful to noble Lords if he could give us some idea of the number of incidents, otherwise we cannot work out whether we are right or wrong.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot say. That information does not exist in the statistical form in which the noble Earl requests it. It is based on a number of accident reports. Accident reports, of course, are only extant if there has been an injury or there has been a serious incident. It is difficult to devise a methodology to achieve those statistics. However, the research programme that we have now initiated should help us down that road.
The main concern relates to light goods vehicles. There are around 100,000 insulin-treated drivers in Great Britain, and indeed a few more in Northern Ireland no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Blease, indicated. Most of those drivers are licensed to drive cars and motorcycles. Their licences are normally issued for three years, although in a few cases depending on the driver's health they may be issued for shorter periods. They need to satisfy the eyesight standard and to have good diabetes control. For the vast majority of drivers it is a relatively clear regime.
For drivers of larger vehicles, the situation is somewhat more complex. Because of the higher degree of risk to others involved in driving larger lorries and buses, the potentially serious threat to road safety has been recognised in effectively excluding new drivers in that category. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to the statutory bar for a licence for large lorries and buses being in place since 1991 but not before that. Prior to that it had been recommended by the advisory panel that drivers with insulin-treated diabetes should not hold such licences. That did not have the force of law until that point. The change of law in 1991 institutionalised that recommendation. There were some who retained their rights through grandfather rights, but it was not the case that everyone was granted that licence prior to that point.

1471
The key point where unfairness arises concerns those vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, indicated. It is important to understand the complexity of this issue, because many of the reasons for the present regulatory position have little direct relationship to the situation with regard to diabetes. Before the introduction of a second EC directive in 1997, all car drivers were automatically granted entitlement to drive minibuses with up to 16 passenger seats and small lorries. From January 1998, drivers who already held entitlement to drive small lorries and minibuses would be required to reapply when their licence expired, demonstrating that they met the higher health standards required of drivers of larger vehicles.
For the majority of drivers, that meant that they could retain their entitlement without taking any further action until their licences expired at the age of 70, but for those drivers who, because of a medical condition, had been issued only with short period licences, that change in the law resulted in their loss of entitlement to drive minibuses or small lorries. Drivers with insulin-treated diabetes were among that group.
Those who drove for a living were understandably anxious that their livelihood would be threatened. In 1998, my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Hayman, in the light of representations, agreed, on advice from the Medical Advisory Panel, that exceptional arrangements should be made in respect of those employed to drive small lorries. That did not extend to the drivers of minibuses because the panel advised that no such easement should be made. But drivers of small lorries who wished to retain that entitlement have to fulfil certain criteria, including the requirement for the driver to have notified the DVLA by the end of 1997.
Inevitably, there were some insulin-treated drivers who could not meet the criteria and therefore lost their entitlement to drive small vehicles. In some cases that affected their employment. That is the area of unfairness, or apparent unfairness, but it affects a relatively small section of insulin-treated diabetes drivers on the road.
There have been applications for exemption on the basis of the employment rules. Around 12 per cent of drivers who apply are refused. Of those, about 75 per cent are refused because of other medical conditions. Therefore, there are relatively small numbers of refusals. That does not include those who look at the employment criteria and do not apply. There were around 1,100 requests for application forms and 500 were returned. At most, around 500 drivers looked at the employment criteria and decided not to apply.
We are talking about relatively small numbers of people. Nevertheless, it was quite right that the Science and Technology Committee should have identified the apparent inconsistency and illogicality in this matter and the poor statistical base for this action. We have accepted the vast majority of the committee's report. We have taken positive action on virtually all of the recommendations. We had discussions with Diabetes UK when the report was published. I can confirm that we will be meeting again. We have indicated that we
1472
are prepared to look at the possibility of introducing a system of individual assessment for fitness to drive. The Medical Advisory Panel has also indicated its willingness to look again at present arrangements. As a starting point, the panel will look at the practices in other member states. Action is already under way on the vast majority of the recommendations.
My noble friend Lord Harrison and others said that other countries use individual assessment. The information we have so far indicates that that is not entirely the case. In some senses the concession made in 1998 is a blanket concession whereas others have to go through an individual assessment in all cases to drive this class of vehicle. We have detailed information on Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Drivers there are permitted to drive large lorries provided the condition is stable. In Sweden, buses are excluded but drivers are permitted to drive heavy goods vehicles. It is not clear precisely how the medical assessment operates. Although it may well be true that a Dutch driver could get through an individual medical assessment and drive in this country whereas a British driver might not, it is also true that, because of the general exemption, a British driver, going through the British system of being exempt or being allowed to have the licence because of the regular and recent employment criteria, might be able to drive whereas a similar driver in Holland might not.
That is the essence of national interpretation of European directives. It is that rather than an issue of gold plating. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has entered the Chamber at this point! It is by no means clear—I believe that Diabetes UK would accept this—that if we had a system of individual assessment, more people would be entitled to drive than under the present system. However, I accept the point made by the Select Committee and Diabetes UK that it would be a fairer system. We are looking at the possibility of adopting such a system. We are looking, too, at other EU countries' practice in that area.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to volunteer minibus drivers. There is no very direct relationship with diabetes but it raises an anomaly to which the Select Committee referred. During the negotiations on the directive in 1998–99 we successfully achieved a concession to protect the interests of the voluntary sector. The UK is the only member state to have introduced this exemption. The concession provides that all drivers who have held a category B licence far two years can still drive a minibus with up to 16 passengers provided that it is used solely for social purposes, there is no hire or reward and the vehicle weighs no more than 3.5 tonnes or 4.25 tonnes if inclusive of special equipment for disabled passengers. That leads to the anomaly that insulin-treated diabetics who no longer have a Dl minimum entitlement may nevertheless continue to drive minibuses under those conditions. If we were to correct that anomaly, it would not necessarily be to the benefit of insulin-treated diabetic drivers.

1473
The noble Earl referred to the possibility of approaching the matter in an entirely different way. He proposed that those subject to an insulin-treated diabetes regime should take an advanced driving test. That is not quite the point. We need research to establish the risk. There is no indication that those people are worse drivers and therefore need to acquire higher driving skills. The point is: what is the risk element of an attack of hypoglycaemia?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I was not suggesting that someone who is an insulin-dependent diabetic suffers from poor driving. My point is that we need to set against the increased risk of having a diabetic attack the lower risk of having an accident caused by the normal perils of the road.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is nevertheless an assessment of skill rather than an assessment of likelihood of a problem.I said that I will be meeting Diabetes UK shortly. I said that we are looking at the
1474
possibility of individual medical assessment. My officials will work closely with Diabetes UK. We will continue that process. We are also in contact with the advisory panel. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to the membership of the panel. The suggestions of the Select Committee in that regard are being considered because, with regard to other advisory panels, it is more difficult to decide how lay members should be appointed. Indeed, we are looking at the totality of the membership of our medical panels.
Noble Lords may be assured that the Government are doing their utmost to try to ensure that a higher level of fairness is put into the system, compatible with observing the requirements of road safety. We wish also to ensure that better research is undertaken to underpin the regulations and that those regulations are seen by all concerned to be fairer than has been the case in the past.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.

  School Standards and Framework Act 1998: Adherence
  School Standards and Framework Act 1998: Adherence
  English Literature: Teaching in Schools
  English Literature: Teaching in Schools
  Sierra Leone Diamonds
  Sierra Leone Diamonds
  Exports to India and Pakistan: Controls
  Exports to India and Pakistan: Controls
  Sudan: Ceasefire Violations
  Sudan: Ceasefire Violations
  BBC Agreement
  BBC Agreement
  Public Service Pension Schemes
  Public Service Pension Schemes
  Labour Market Flexibility and the Global Economy
  Labour Market Flexibility and the Global Economy
  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
  Oil Production Equipment Exports to Sudan
  Oil Production Equipment Exports to Sudan
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Factortame Judgment: Payment of Claims
  Factortame Judgment: Payment of Claims
  Tuberculosis Cases in London
  Tuberculosis Cases in London