Sitting of 10 July 2000

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

    Tate Modern
    Maria Eagle: How many people have visited Tate Modern. [128195]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): At close of business on 7 July, Tate Modern had attracted 1,180,002 visitors.
    Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those numbers are a vindication of the Government's policy to encourage free entry to our great national collections? Does he also agree that that contrasts markedly with the policy of the Conservative party when in government? The previous Government encouraged museums and galleries to charge for entry amid plummeting visitor numbers.
    Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am delighted that, as a result of our decision to increase the funds available to the Tate galleries by £5 million this year and £6 million next year, Tate Modern has been able to open with free entry to visitors. That has been a crucial part of the new gallery's success.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Without pre-empting Question 2, does the Secretary of State believe that the success of Tate Modern is due to the fact that the British people prefer modern art to the contents of the dome, or that it is due to free entry? Getting into the dome is very expensive.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should realise that well over 3 million people have already visited the dome and the majority of them have greatly enjoyed the experience. As to comparing the dome with Tate Modern, they are very different institutions.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of all of us who have pressed for free admission to museums and art galleries? Does he accept that his splendid work on ensuring that people realise the value of art, especially
    606
    modern art, has been vindicated and that people have reacted favourably to the free admission policy that he has conscientiously pursued?
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend has also pursued the matter with great diligence and skill, and I am grateful for his support. We have guaranteed to all the museums that are currently free—that includes the Tate—that they can continue to be free to everyone. We have also ensured that, from April last year, all children have been able to visit for free the national museums that charge for entry, something which we inherited from the Conservative party. That has led to a 21 per cent. increase in the number of children visiting those museums. From April this year, those museums have been free to all pensioners.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on visitor numbers to the millennium dome. [128196]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The dome is already the United Kingdom's most successful paying visitor attraction, achieving more than 3 million visitors in its first six months. On that basis, the New Millennium Experience Company is well on its way to achieving its revised target of 6 million paying visitors by the end of the year.
    Mr. Syms: Given that, in the face of all the evidence, Ministers are the only people who believe that the dome is a success, when will the £139 million that the Millennium Commission loaned to the project be repaid? Will it be repaid?
    Janet Anderson: Let me put on record the conditions that cover the grant. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows them only too well. The Millennium Commission met on 22 May and approved an additional grant of £29 million, subject to stringent conditions, to cover cash flow, and £3 million specifically for marketing purposes. The conditions are that NMEC's management governance should be strengthened and restructured; that there should be a revised business plan that shows substantial additional cost savings and enhanced marketing plans; and that an enhanced financial team at NMEC should be joined by a dedicated member of the Millennium Commission's financial staff.
    Mr. Clive Efford: Will my hon. Friend comment on the cost of clearing the site for the millennium dome? It is a site of substantial inner-city development, which had lain derelict because of contamination—a significant factor in the cost of the millennium experience from which Conservative Members try to make capital. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that unemployment in my constituency for the long-term unemployed is down by almost 50 per cent., and by more than 70 per cent. for the young unemployed. Much of that is attributable to the success of the millennium exhibition at Greenwich as a regeneration project.
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. The significant investment has done a great deal to regenerate areas in and around his constituency. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties welcome that.

    607
    I was concerned to read reports in the press at the weekend of comments by Mr. Pierre-Yves Gerbeau, who claims:
    On a private basis, politicians will come here with their families and say that we have really turned the Dome around since January…and that we have really made a difference. And, funnily enough, the next morning they will appear on television and say: "The dome is ridiculous. It is a disgrace."
    I am sure that none of those people are Labour Members; I hope that they are not Conservative Members.
    Mr. Norman Baker: The target for the number of visitors to the dome has not been achieved. What steps is the Minister taking in terms of the two short-listed companies to ensure that the dome's new incarnation is a success? Will she ensure that there is public consultation other than the token consultation that has taken place so far? It is important that the dome is more of a success than it has been so far. To achieve that, the public's views must be clearly established. We must also ensure that the dome's future use is not determined by some grubby attempt to get a cash flow for the last few months of the year to keep the dome limping on to 31 December.
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that the revised business plan of the New Millennium Experience Company is based on the revised projection of 6 million visitors. The dome is well on the way to achieving that number and, in fact, is already the most successful tourist attraction in the country.
    On the second point, the hon. Gentleman knows that there are two preferred bidders. There has been consultation on the matter. It is important that a decision is made as quickly as possible so that the dome's future can be assured. However, there is, of course, a major difference between our proposals for the dome and those of the previous Conservative Government: they were going to pull it down; we shall ensure that there is a legacy for UK plc.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware that I went with my four children—one of them in a school swing band—to the dome the other Saturday? For £57, we had eight hours of information and education, had a lot of fun and saw a great "Blackadder" film. It cost 57 quid to keep kids occupied for eight hours, which is a very good deal for a Saturday in London. Is she also aware that Rotherham and hundreds of other towns and cities have got a day in the dome—kids are really looking forward to it—but they are fed up with the whingeing, whiny, wallies, the anti-dome dumping drongos in the Conservative party who always want to destroy a good day out for the children of this country?
    Janet Anderson: The short answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. May I take this opportunity to underline the dome's popularity as a visitor attraction? It has achieved an extraordinary 85 per cent. satisfaction rating, with an exceptional 90 per cent. satisfaction rating for host staff.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister confirm that, whoever wins the competition to rescue the dome from the Government, insufficient visitor numbers will ensure that a large amount of the money originally
    608
    earmarked for regeneration will be sunk into paying off the dome's debts? Is not that a pathetic waste of resources? Instead of resorting to the usual bombast about the dome being a great success, which no one believes, why does not she apologise for the whole miserable affair?
    Janet Anderson: There is no need to apologise for something that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) said, has done so much to regenerate a previously disused part of Greenwich and south-east London. The hon. Gentleman refers to reports in the press this morning, so I shall refer him to a press notice that the Millennium Commission issued in response, which puts the record straight. The only percentage of the proceeds that has been decided so far is the 7.5 per cent. that has to go to British Gas. The press notice states:
    The actual income from the sale of the Dome and the site is now estimated at around £100m. Three years ago when the original plans were being drawn up the £15m figure was used as a nominal estimate. Nobody had any idea of what would be the value of the Dome and the site. It would be wrong now if the Lottery and the good causes did not get a fair share of the cake—
    not least because in that way
    "the poor" and good causes will not lose out and, in fact, will be supported by funds from the sale of the Dome.
    Mr. Ainsworth: If the Minister will not apologise, I shall make a suggestion that may help to boost the visitor numbers. P—Y says that he has been misled by the Government and that Ministers are not doing enough to help, so why does not she get down there and set up a new competition? They could ask one question: "What do the following have in common: the debt-riddled dome, the closed Millennium bridge, the U-turn on universal free access to museums, the fiasco over Wembley and the failure to win the world cup bid?" The answer is that they all fall under the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Visitors to the dome could then vote on who has had the more miserable year so far—the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State.
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman could do with a new scriptwriter. Given that he is talking about what unites people, the only thing that unites Conservative Members is Mr. Gerbeau's suggestion that, on a private basis, Conservative politicians visit the dome and say they have a wonderful day, but the next morning they appear on television and say that it is ridiculous and a disgrace. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    Internet (Public Libraries)
    Ms Ann Coffey: What plans he has to support increased internet access in public libraries.[128197]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): We have set a target that all UK public libraries, where practicable, will have public internet access and link to the national grid for learning by 2002. Through the national lottery new opportunities fund, £170 million is being provided to support the network infrastructure, train library staff and create content for delivery over this people's network.
    Ms Coffey: I am pleased that Stockport has already received £92,000 from the new opportunities fund to

    609
    increase internet access and that the National Library for the Blind has also received £62,000 in Government money to set up an interactive website. Does my hon. Friend agree that those extra resources open up the internet to people who otherwise might not have access, and continue the library service as a source of enjoyment, education and information to the community?
    Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend and share her pleasure at the increased funding to strengthen library services in Stockport. The award from the DCMS-Wolfson reader development programme to the National Library for the Blind's project, called "A Touch Of', represents support for an excellent initiative that involves specialist staff in Stockport and public library staff across the country. All the funding that she reports for Stockport shows how we are working to ensure that there is no digital divide and that everyone—including, importantly, disabled people—has access to a full range of information, lifelong learning and cultural opportunities.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Although increased internet access through public libraries would be welcomed in rural constituencies such as Vale of York, that will succeed only if a library is open for enough hours to make it possible and if sufficient qualified library staff are available to guide people through the internet. Can the Minister assure the House that that will be possible?
    Mr. Howarth: As the hon. Lady is probably aware, we have put out for consultation draft national library standards, with the thought very much in mind that it is important to ensure that people in rural areas have access to a proper public library service. The proposed standard is that no user should have to travel for more than 20 minutes to use a library. We have also suggested standards for opening hours and for book purchases to enable public libraries to make further progress towards recovering from the blighted years of the mid-1990s.

    Museums and Galleries (Pensioners)
    Mrs. Joan Humble: What steps he is taking to increase the number of visits by pensioners to museums and galleries. [128200]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): From 1 April, free entry for the over-60s was introduced to those museums funded by my Department that currently charge for admission, including the national museums and galleries on Merseyside; the national museum of science and industry, including the national railway museum at York; the natural history museum; the imperial war museum; the national maritime museum; the Victoria and Albert museum; the royal armouries at Fort Nelson, Portsmouth; and the Tate gallery at St. Ives.
    Mrs. Humble: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he welcome the free access to the Grundy art gallery in Blackpool and the special concerts and exhibitions that it puts on to attract pensioners and does he recognise that physical barriers may deter older people from enjoying, for example, the excellent exhibitions at
    610
    the Fleetwood museum? Will he therefore consider the physical nature of buildings in order to attract more older and disabled people to exhibitions?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend raises a valid point about the importance of physical as well as financial access to museums and galleries, particularly local ones. I envisage that museum as a prime candidate for an application to the heritage lottery fund special access fund, which was created two years ago with our encouragement, and I certainly suggest that it discusses those possibilities with the HLF.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the right hon. Gentleman's Department issued a press release on 24 July 1998 signalling that there would be free access—first for children, subsequently for pensioners and ultimately for everyone—to all our DCMS-sponsored national museums, does he have the good grace to admit that he has broken that pledge and to apologise to all the people whom he has disgracefully let down?
    Mr. Smith: No. Criticism on that subject comes rich from the Conservatives, who introduced charges for museum access. In the comprehensive spending review document "A New Cultural Framework", which we published at that time, we said that we would introduce free access for children. That we have done. We said that we would introduce free access for pensioners. That we have done. We said that we would seek to widen access further. That we have also done, with the commitment, which is on the table, for charging museums to make a £1 charge for adults from September next year.
    Ms Claire Ward: My right hon. Friend may remember that, at the last culture questions, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts mentioned the importance of free access for pensioners and said that it had been linked not to pension age, but to the age of 60. There is concern that some Departments are introducing schemes based on the ages of 60 and 65, contrary to the policy of other Departments. Has any progress been made in providing the House with the legal advice that the Department has received, and which I requested at the last Question Time?
    Mr. Smith: I apologise to my hon. Friend if she has not yet received that information. I shall ensure that she receives it as soon as is humanly possible.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Many pensioners go to museums and galleries because they are interested in a particular exhibition. Is the Minister aware that galleries and museums now find that they have to charge extra for those special exhibitions, but do not take pensioners into consideration?
    Mr. Smith: Ultimately, that is for individual museums or galleries, of which there are more than 2,000 around the country, to decide. I hope that they will bear pensioners' needs in mind when considering charging regimes for such exhibitions.

    611
    I was pleased that, in May, some 1,340 museums took part in museums and galleries month, with special events, special exhibitions and special access schemes. I was particularly pleased that a large number of hon. Members took that opportunity to visit local museums and to highlight the work that they do.

    Analogue Television
    Jane Griffiths: What is his latest assessment of the date for the switchover of the analogue TV signal. [128201]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We have estimated that switchover could take place between 2006 and 2010. The date, however, will depend on the two key tests of availability and affordability that we have put in place.
    Jane Griffiths: On the question of affordability, does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the high cost of digital radio sets, which cost several hundred pounds and are thus beyond the reach of most people? Does he anticipate that radio sets, in particular, will have become affordable by that date?
    Mr. Smith: The switchover date applies to television, not to radio. No date has yet been set for switchover from analogue to digital radio. I would certainly hope that, as both the technology and manufacturers' capacity develop, the cost of digital radio sets will fall.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Secretary of State agree that, until the board of governors and the board of management of the BBC learn what public sector broadcasting really means, he should consider switching off BBC 1?
    Mr. Smith: No. It is my strong view that the BBC, as our premier public sector broadcaster and our most important cultural institution, must retain its public service remit into the digital age. It must be the benchmark of quality.
    There has been speculation recently about our approach to the governance of the BBC. Let me put the position clearly. As part of our overall review of regulation in broadcasting and communications, we are indeed looking at the role of the board of governors, which currently acts as both judge and jury—managers and regulators. No decisions have been taken on this subject. We are listening to the wide range of views that we have received. Whatever happens, two principles must be paramount: first, the special protection of the BBC's remit; and secondly, the robust independence from Government of any regulatory mechanism that might emerge.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: If he will make a statement on the total amount of national lottery and public money invested in the millennium dome. [128203]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): A total of £538 million of national lottery money has been granted to the project. No taxpayers' money has been invested in the construction or running of the dome or in its contents.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he assure the House and many people outside that no further national lottery money will go into the dome, and that it will have to survive on what it has had thus far? What is likely to happen to the building in the long run? Will the massive amount of lottery money that has gone into it be recouped and spent on other public projects or will the dome remain open and for public use for some other purpose in the future?
    Mr. Smith: As I told the House in Question Time a month ago, we have made it clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must operate within the budget now set for it. I was delighted that Mr. Gerbeau has confirmed on a number of occasions that he will not be returning to the Millennium Commission for extra funds.
    A decision on the future legacy of the dome as a structure will be taken shortly by ministerial colleagues—I am not involved in that decision. There are two competing bids for the future maintenance of the dome, both of which involve substantial public access to the dome and its surroundings. I remind my hon. Friend that before we came into office the Conservative party's intention was to tear down the whole building and leave no legacy whatever.
    Mr. James Gray: The Secretary of State remains brazenly proud of what most of the nation realises is a disgraceful waste of public money. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of 3 million. Does he agree with me that the difference between the dome and Tate Modern is that 5,000 fewer people a day go to the dome than visit the Tate Modern? The reason for that is because the dome contains classic new Labour tat, whereas the contents of the Tate Modern are first class. Is not the Secretary of State concerned that, when Mr. Gerbeau names and shames at the end of this year, his name will be in the headlights?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the wonderful success of Tate Modern. I am proud of the role that the Government have played in helping to ensure that success. However, he perhaps has not noticed the actual figures. For example, on 25 June the dome had its highest Sunday attendance ever at 27,234 people.

    Cultural Strategies
    Mr. Chris Pond: What progress is being made by local authorities in developing local cultural strategies. [128204]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published draft guidance on local cultural strategies for all local authorities in England in June last year. The guidance emphasises the importance of cultural services in improving the quality of life for all.

    613
    In February, we sent all local authorities a mid-term progress report on the experiences of 14 authorities that have been piloting the guidance, and good progress is being made.
    Mr. Pond: I thank the Minister for visiting my constituency last week to see how we are using our culture and heritage as a driving force for economic regeneration, and to see for herself why Gravesend is now such a tourist hot spot. Does she agree with me that good local cultural strategies are a powerful way of helping to regenerate local economies, and that cultural and multicultural strategies draw local communities together?
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. The local cultural strategies initiative stems from the Government's belief, as stated in our election manifesto, in the value of all local authorities producing cultural strategies to draw together all aspects of local cultural activity. I much enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. I place on record my congratulations to Gravesham council for the active pursuit of a local cultural strategy. I did not know until I went to Gravesend that Pocahontas is buried there under St. George's church, and I had a pleasant visit to the home of Charles Dickens, in which he wrote "Great Expectations". I urge those who have not been to Gravesend to do so very soon.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: We on the Conservative Benches have nothing particularly against local cultural strategies, although a growing number of local authorities are coming round to our view that regional cultural consortiums are a waste of space and money.
    While on the subject of cultural strategies, I wonder whether the hon. Lady ever gets a chance to read the Tatler magazine? [Interruption.] There we go—a typical knee-jerk reaction from old Labour. Labour Members might find that new Tatler is more closely in tune with contemporary arts than new Labour. The latest edition features a rare interview with V.S. Naipaul, who is in many people's view one of the—if not the—most distinguished living British writers. He accuses the Government of cultural vandalism. I quote from the interview:
    For the first time in 50 years of living here, I feel depressed by a government. I am depressed by their dreadful use of rhetoric, the misuse of language…I think they don't believe half the things they say and they are trying to find words to cover up their lack of belief.
    They think they are fighting for the common man, whereas they are demeaning the entire country.
    Next time the Government sit down to work out their cultural strategy, why do they not think of the only strategy that matters—the exit strategy? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Did the Minister hear a question? I did not. I probably missed it because of all the noise.
    Janet Anderson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will try to identify the question. I suggested earlier that the hon. Gentleman try to find a new script writer. I suggest now that he tries to find a new researcher who reads something other than the Tatler.
    614
    Regional cultural consortiums are working very well and have been widely welcomed throughout the country. The move is an attempt by the Government to put cultural strategies and cultural services at the heart of regeneration, something that the hon. Gentleman's Government singularly failed to do. For the first time ever, where local authorities are bidding for beacon council status, the cultural services and strategies that they have put in place will be taken into account.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: It has not quite reached the pages of the Tatler yet, but is my hon. Friend aware that many local authorities are desperately strapped for cash, particularly because some programmes have not benefited from the increase in Government funding for local authorities? In particular, my local authority, Dacorum, is faced with a 41 per cent. reduction in its funds next year because of the change to resource accounting. Will she ensure that local authorities are genuinely enabled to have the resources to spend on what is a worthwhile project?
    Janet Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. May I remind him that the last local government settlement was the best that local authorities had received for 15 years? That is not to say that we do not understand the problems faced by many local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with local government associations to ensure that we are in tune with their needs. Leisure services and cultural services are, of course, discretionary. Nevertheless, local authorities have strongly welcomed our initiative on local cultural strategies and played a full part in developing our guidance.

    Sport
    Mr. Simon Hughes: If he will make a statement on his targets to increase the number of hours each week spent by (a) adults and (b) young people on participating in sport. [128206]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Increasing participation in sport across all age groups and abilities is a key feature of the recently published Government sports strategy, "A Sporting Future For All".
    Mr. Hughes: That was a bit of an unspecific answer. Will the Minister use her enthusiasm to try to change the current statistics? Although more young people are participating in sport, the average length of time that they spend doing so is about seven and a half hours a week, whereas they watch television for about 11 and a half hours a week. The amount of time spent on physical education in schools across all age groups has dropped considerably over the past five years.
    Will the Minister have a word with her colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that school timetables do not drive out swimming, PE and participation in sport, so that there is a chance that the appetite for sport and the opportunity for excellence will

    615
    be encouraged? We might then win a few more things later, as well as give much greater satisfaction to many of our fellow citizens.
    Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right. The more participation, the more chance there is of spotting the talent, getting to the top and winning, which is what the country wants.
    On working more closely with the Department for Education and Employment, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been spending a lot of time on precisely that. Part of the reason for having a very good strategy was to show how what was happening in education and outside schools mattered. That kind of working together is so crucial.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sports governing bodies and everyone involved in sport must recognise that these days there are many more attractions for young people. They must be more imaginative about how they sell their sport. That is why part of the implementation group for the sports strategy is looking at precisely those issues.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does not Labour's sports strategy owe a huge debt to the last Government? One billion pounds of lottery funding has gone into 3,000 grass-roots sports projects. Given that so many initiatives mentioned in the Minister's own White Paper depend on the continuation of lottery funding—for instance, the space for sports and the arts initiative in schools—and on destroying the arm's-length principle in regard to the lottery that Labour thought so important when in opposition, can the Minister tell us who has overall responsibility for investment in schools projects? Is it her Department, the Department for Education and Employment, or the lottery funding bodies?
    If the sports strategy does not go according to plan, can the Minister promise that neither she nor her successor will say, as she has said in respect of our failed world cup bid, that the policy was doomed to failure from the start?
    Kate Hoey: That is nonsense. As the hon. Gentleman will hear if he listens to the tape, what I said was that many people felt from the beginning that those who could not secure the support of their own region obviously started at a disadvantage. I said nothing that others have not said—nothing that the chairman of the Football Association, for instance, has not said in the past few days. I hope that we shall all learn the lessons of what has happened with the world cup bid.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's specific question, he should be aware that more lottery money than ever is being invested. It was originally forecast that only £1.8 billion would be invested over the lifetime of the current licence; the amount will now be more than £2 billion.
    This Government believe in partnership, which means taking all opportunities to make money available. Those involved in sport do not care where the money comes from, as long as it is there.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I hope my hon. Friend can tell me that the Labour Government are not carrying out Tory party policy, because Tory party policy was to close all those playing fields and sell them off. On top of
    616
    that, the Tories closed 600 pits—which meant that nearly half the miners' welfares, all with massive playing fields, were closed and sold off as well.
    The last thing that this new Labour Government ought to do is take any notice of that lot. Ought we not to stop selling off playing fields, and make sure that the miners' welfares that remain have plenty of lottery money so that we can provide sport for the many, not the few?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have been so determined to stop the compulsory sale of playing fields. The last Government sold many of our young people's opportunities down the river by selling so many. We are ensuring that that does not happen now.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister not recognise that many sales of school playing fields were carried out by Labour local authorities, and that, despite her much vaunted policy, few projected sales have been stopped by it? It is all very well to have the rhetoric; the practice is entirely contrary to it.
    Kate Hoey: If the hon. Gentleman looked at the figures, he would see that the rhetoric is the fact—and the fact is that now, rather than 40 playing fields being sold on a regular basis, three have been sold.
    What we did was stop compulsory sales. Some local authorities, and even the National Playing Fields Association, now happily accept that it is sometimes better to sell a playing field, and to use the money to provide another sporting facility that can be used by all. We could never have a policy stating that no playing field would ever be sold. The important question is how playing fields are being replaced. We must ensure that those with an interest—Sport England, the local community and local schools, for instance—all have a say before a decision is made.

    Concessionary Television Licences
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will review the regulations covering concessionary TV licences in sheltered residential accommodation for elderly people. [128207]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): This concessionary scheme was examined last year by the Davies panel which concluded that, despite its obvious drawbacks, it should be retained since no superior alternative, funded through the licence fee, could be found. We decided to accept the panel's recommendation that the scheme should be retained and have no plans for a further review.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. People in my constituency welcome the free television licence for over-75s. However, I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the situation in Samford Court, Worlingham, in my constituency, where all 40 flats lost their entitlement to the shared television licence scheme because the housing association moved in one resident who was 59. Although I think that the housing association should have known better, and that the case demonstrates

    617
    rather insensitive management, I also think that the case demonstrates the continuing unsatisfactory nature of the licence regime for sheltered accommodation.
    Given that the remit for the Gavyn Davies report was very broad, would my hon. Friend re-examine that one detailed issue in the television licence regime? I should add that the residents in Samford Court know that, if ever the Tories got back into office, even 75-year-olds would lose their free television licences.
    Janet Anderson: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend on that last point. He also raises a very important issue that I know causes concern in many constituencies across the country. We have always said that we recognise that the £5 accommodation for residential care—the ARC—concessionary television licence scheme is unsatisfactory. We also know that that dissatisfaction and unsatisfactory way of operating continue. However, about 80 per cent. of ARC beneficiaries are 75 or over, and the over-75 concession will help the very elderly living alone, who represent some of the most glaring examples of the unfairness of the ARC scheme.
    Recently, we did make one change to the scheme, in recognition of some of those problems. On 1 April, we made the change to replace references in the regulations to "pensionable age" with the gender-neutral phrase "aged 60 years or more". When men over 60 are in those residential schemes, therefore, that will not jeopardise entitlement to the concessionary licence.
    We do recognise that it is an unjust and unfair scheme, but at least we have begun to do something about it—unlike Conservative Members, who in 18 years refused to face up to the problem.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: That was a remarkable answer. If the Minister admits that it is not fair for those who are 60 to 74 and outside a sheltered home not to get a concession whereas those who are inside such a home do get one, why is she not doing something about it?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not listening: the scheme that operated under the previous Government was patently unfair, and we have begun to do something about it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer decided that he could begin to afford to strip that unfairness out of the system. Consequently, 3 million pensioners over 75 will benefit from a free television licence. Many of them did not benefit from such a concession before.

    Museums and Galleries
    Gillian Merron: What steps his Department has taken to support investment in new buildings for museums and galleries since May 1997. [128208]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Since May 1997, my Department has provided an additional £100 million for museums and galleries through grant-in-aid and other programmes. My Department directly supports the Designation Challenge fund and Resource, which provide funding to enable museums and galleries to undertake feasibility studies and
    618
    options appraisals for new buildings. The lottery, which is sponsored by my Department, has provided almost £35 million towards new buildings for museums and galleries. That is in addition to the very substantial sums awarded by the lottery towards the improvement of existing museum and gallery facilities.
    Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend will undoubtedly be aware not only of Lincoln's contemporary and historical significance, but of the fact that we currently do not have a museum in which to celebrate, to put on displays or to offer educational and leisure opportunities both to visitors and to local people—so that we can really show off the city's heritage and culture. How can the Department for Culture, Media and Sport support Lincoln in developing a much needed county and city museum that would certainly be very popular and well used?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has the privilege of representing a great, historic and extremely beautiful city. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the pleasure of visiting Lincoln recently, and I know that he listened carefully to the views expressed by my hon. Friend and others about the importance of the project to which she has referred, and he has passed on those considerations to the heritage lottery fund. She is a doughty advocate on behalf of her city, and I wish her well in her quest.

    Heritage Initiatives
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What steps he is taking to support local heritage initiatives. [128210]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We welcome the heritage lottery fund's decision to make local heritage one of its four main priorities. It has committed £8 million to its local heritage initiative, which is designed to help local communities to investigate, explain and care for their landscape, landmarks, traditions and culture.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend. What role does he envisage for the local pub in any local heritage initiative?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the role of the British pub as an integral part of the local heritage in many parts of the country. Not only buildings but the names of pubs often reflect local history or events. Many pubs have changed their names for various reasons over the years, but there appears to be a growing fashion of rebranding pubs with names such as "The Dog and Doughnut" or "The Goose and Granite"—names which appear to have little relevance to the history of any area.
    We are surely in danger of losing an important part of local history and folk memory. It is up to the owners of a business to choose its name, but I hope that breweries will bear in mind the unique historic role that many of our public houses have and think twice before destroying that

    619
    link with the past. Certainly, consulting a pub's regulars and the wider local community before renaming it would not seem too much to ask.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State is so keen on pub names. Will he undertake some research and tell us how many pubs are called "The Spinner", as that might be of some benefit to the Labour party?
    Mr. Smith: I suspect that the number is similar to that of pubs named "The Silly Question".

    Tourism
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What steps his Department is taking to obtain the views of tourism organisations in British seaside resorts. [128211]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): My officials and I have regular contact with local authorities and business partnerships from seaside resorts, and with organisations such as the British Resorts Association, in which my hon. Friend plays a leading role. Let me say how pleased I was to attend the association's annual meeting both this year and last.
    Mr. Marsden: My hon. Friend is zealous in defending within the Government the interests of seaside towns. I hope that she will have time to visit seaside towns and talk to local hoteliers this summer and that she will listen to the concerns that many of them have about assisted area status grants for tourism under tier 3, and relay those concerns to her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. Will she also raise the issue of lottery grants for seaside towns, given the recent reports that they have not been getting their fair share?
    Janet Anderson: I remind my hon. Friend that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published his report on lottery funding for former coalfield areas, Sheffield Hallam university, which undertook the research, said:
    Similar targets should be applied to other areas where the level of Lottery funding activity has been well below the national average. This might include resort and retirement towns, and mixed urban/rural areas outside the coalfields.
    We shall continue to look at that very closely. I reassure him that I will visit his constituency on the first day of the seaside town tour that my right hon. Friend and I will undertake at the beginning of the summer recess, and that I have fixed a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on the other matter that he raised.

    Television Licence Fee
    Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on the future level of the television licence fee. [128212]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The licence fee rose by inflation plus 1.5 per cent. on 1 April this year and will rise by the same amount each year until 2006–07, when the current royal charter runs out. That additional funding will enable the
    620
    BBC to provide a strong and distinctive schedule of benchmark quality programmes on all its services and should help to drive the take-up of new digital and online services.
    Mr. Benn: In view of my right hon. Friend's reply to an earlier question about the future governance of the BBC, what lessons has he drawn from the "News at Ten" affair about appropriate frameworks for governance, given that in that case we had a regulatory body that was separate from the companies producing the programmes?
    Mr. Smith: The lessons are, of course, the same as relate to any regulation of broadcasting, particularly television—that is, that it must have a robust independence from Government but must be based on firm and clear principles set out in the founding legislation passed by this Parliament.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people view their television licence fee as too high, especially in view of the amount of money given to the Prime Minister's friend in the form of salary and pension pay-off? The BBC might enjoy more public acceptance if it complied better with service requirements for subtitling for deaf people. What plans does he have, in the context of the licence fee, to improve subtitling on the BBC, which presently lags behind that provided by the ITV network?
    Mr. Smith: The BBC retains the strong affection and respect of the vast majority of people. It is watched or listened to by well over 90 per cent. of the country every week. On the specific question about subtitling, I have already, as part of the announcement that I made to the House following the Government's response to the Davies report, set in place new and more stringent targets for the BBC to meet, especially under digital terrestrial broadcasting.

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

    Farming Industry
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What steps the commissioners are taking in relation to rural communities to assist their tenants in the farming industry; and if he will make a statement. [128225]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Cases of extreme hardship are considered individually and we try to be as helpful as possible. For example, although the circumstances of individual tenants vary widely, recent rent review settlements have typically seen rent reductions in the region of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that representatives of the Church's tenant farmers have

    621
    written to me? Why do not the Church Commissioners make it easy on themselves and give an across-the-board rent reduction to all their tenants?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for helpful suggestions and I consider that one of them. As I mentioned, the circumstances of individual tenants vary widely and it would not be an appropriate use of our funds if they benefited tenants whose financial situation did not warrant it.
    Mr. John Bercow: I am a little perturbed by that reply from the hon. Gentleman. Given that the Church Commissioners own 128,000 acres of agricultural land, with several hundred tenants and no fewer than 340 farms; and given that the Church Commissioners' annual report refers to understanding of and support for tenant farmers in difficulty, can the hon. Gentleman at least confirm that no tenant farmer has been forced off his or her land on account of being unable to pay the dues?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for the direct question as well as the helpful one. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Church Commissioners own 128,000 acres, including about 350 farms. His question is pertinent, but we do offer assistance when farmers wish to give up or retire from the land. That may involve buying a home to let to them or sharing with them a proportion of the proceeds arising from the sale. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's direct question, I shall be glad to provide a written answer.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has my hon. Friend any idea of how many of the clergy in rural areas hunt? If he can establish the numbers, could he perhaps, through the Church Commissioners, remind those clergy who do hunt that their job is to save souls, not to slaughter wildlife?
    Mr. Bell: I am glad to see my hon. Friend back from his perambulations in relation to the world cup. He did an extraordinary job of putting the case for the United Kingdom, and he is doing a less good job for the fox. We are conscious of the issue that he has raised—
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Give him an answer then.
    Mr. Bell: I am giving the answer. Perhaps my hon. Friend wishes to answer the question himself. We have studied the Burns report and we have no policy changes in mind. Our long-standing policy on fox hunting is that we allow our tenants to follow their consciences in deciding whether to allow hunts on the land that we let to them.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more money would be available to help tenant farmers and the clergy at large if less were spent on bishops? Over the past 10 years, the proportion of Church Commissioners' money spent on bishops has risen from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. How can that possibly be justified?
    Mr. Bell: The bishops are much demeaned, and press reports in some of the Sunday newspapers were entirely
    622
    inaccurate. We are trying to put the record straight. The question of bishops' costs is subject to a review, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will be the first to know when I have the results.

    Redundant Churches
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What investigations are being made into the ultimate use of redundant churches. [128226]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): We normally impose covenants on a new owner restricting the use of the property to that approved, and prohibiting unauthorised architectural changes, disturbance of any human remains or memorials, and demolition. These covenants have continuing effect even if the building subsequently changes hands, and irrespective of how often that happens. They cannot be set aside by the Lands Tribunal and, indeed, can be varied only with our agreement.
    Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful for that answer. I hope that my hon. Friend will convey it to the commissioners that we welcome the conditions that are placed on new owners with respect to church buildings; but will he ask them to consider introducing restrictive covenants on the future use of those buildings? There is disturbing evidence that some churches sold for community or social use, or to a registered landlord for conversion into low-rent accommodation, have been sold on subsequently and turned into showrooms, luxury flats, sales rooms of all sorts, bingo halls, and so on. Such functions bear no relationship to the often charitable donations that allowed a church to be built in the first place. Will he ask the commissioners to ensure that a church that is sold on retains for all time a socially useful purpose, and that it does not become a commercial benefit for those who were lucky enough to purchase it?
    Mr. Bell: Well over half the 883 redundant churches that have been appropriated to new uses continue to serve their communities by providing facilities for worship and community activities, social and educational opportunities, or low-cost housing.
    My hon. Friend enumerated a number of uses that have not been authorised. If he wishes me to investigate one or more specific cases, I shall be happy to do so.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If the Church authorities want to close a church against the wishes of a congregation, is it the commissioners' policy to try their best to give priority to that congregation, thus allowing people time to put funds together so that they can continue to worship in their church?
    Mr. Bell: Parishioners are always free to put their views direct to the diocese or the commissioners. Alternatively, they may seek to promote a debate in deanery synod or at diocesan level. It is hoped that parishes will be positive about new uses for former church buildings, which in many cases ensure that the buildings continue to play a role in their communities. It should be borne in mind that many church buildings are listed and cannot, realistically, be demolished.

    Clergy Pensions
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What account is taken of the projected level of state pensions in calculating the projected level of clergy pensions. [128227]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I nearly said that I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier.
    The projected level of state pensions is one of a number of factors taken into account by the Church in establishing the formula for determining the full basic rate of clergy pension and retirement lump sum. Those factors include receipt in retirement of a state pension and also the need to meet the cost of housing. For those in office, however, housing is provided in addition to a stipend.
    Mr. Hughes: I nearly said that I did not know my question was so difficult. However, although clergy are expected to have some vocation for their jobs, is it the Church's policy that the income and pensions of clergy should bear some relationship to average incomes and pensions in England? If not, why not?
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, puts a friendly, kindly and complex question. We are cognisant of the need to be sure that pensions and lump sums on retirement are related to what is happening in the outside world. The pensioner retirement lump sum is related to the national minimum stipend—the full basic rate of pension is two thirds of the previous year's figure for the national minimum, and the lump sum is three times the pension. The answer might be on the subtle side, but I hope that it is clear.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Might not the Church Commissioners obviate the need for paying pensions so early and thereby be able to pay a better lump sum on termination of service, and a higher pension, if clergy were able to serve beyond the normal retirement age of 70? Is it not the case that many parishes have to go without a parish priest when a perfectly good, able-bodied clergyman has to retire, perhaps against his will, at the arbitrary age of 70? The Church should be beyond ageism.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He makes a valid point, which I shall be glad to take back to the Church Commissioners.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any requests from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence or the Department for International Development about their making a statement on the deteriorating position in Kosovo in relation to the attempt to establish any kind of multi-ethnic community?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on any issue today. No doubt those on the Front Bench will have noted the hon. Gentleman's interest.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be aware from the front page of The Guardian today that recorded crime over the past year has risen by 3 per cent, and that violent crime has risen by more than 10 per cent. Have you received any representations from the Home Office as to when it will make its statement on that report? Can you ensure that the statement is not made on 18 July, which is the likely date for the statement on the comprehensive spending review?
Madam Speaker: I cannot guarantee when statements are made. I have no control over such statements. Ministers let me know when they are ready to make such a statement, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on the four motions.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  MEDICAL PROFESSION
  That the draft Medical Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved

  DATA PROTECTION
  That the draft Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved
  That the draft Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) (Amendment) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Terrorism Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Terrorism Bill
    Clause 1

      TERRORISM: INTERPRETATION
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      ("(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where—

      (a) the action falls within subsection (1A),

      (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

      (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

      (1A) Action falls within this subsection if it—

      (a) involves serious violence against a person,

      (b) involves serious damage to property,

      (c) endangers a person's life other than that of the person committing the action,

      (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

      (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

      (1B) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (1A) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments (b), (c), (e), (f) and the amendment in lieu, and Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 17 and 107.
      3.33 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I give notice to you, Madam Speaker, and the Minister that I shall not be pressing amendment (c) because it is covered by an amendment in lieu which comes later in the group. Other colleagues clearly want to speak about other aspects of the definition clause.
      When we debated the Bill on Second Reading, Third Reading and in Committee, and when the Bill went to the other end of the building for debate, I think that it is fair to say that the most controversial area—that which has exercised more people for a longer time—has been the definition of terrorism. Therefore, it is not surprising that we are starting this afternoon's debates on the amendments made in the Lords by looking at the Bill as it has come back to us, with a changed definition.
      It is to the credit of the Minister of State and of the Government that they accepted that the Bill might not have been in a perfect form when it was presented. The new definition of terrorism shows that it has been amended. In some respects, that amendment is an improvement—as, in general, are the Lords amendments. Amendments Nos. 1 and 19, on reverse burdens of proof, are significant. They are a move in the right direction and we are grateful for that.
      Recent debates on the Bill have shown that we need to learn a lesson—it relates specifically to these amendments. When we deal with a controversial Bill on
      628
      a difficult aspect of law—especially one, such as this, that would make permanent legislation that has never formerly been so—we should follow the procedures already established in the House that allow us to take advice so that we get the measure right.
      There are several elements in that system. The first is the Select Committee procedure. The second is the use of draft Bills—if ever there was a case for a draft Bill, this was it. The third procedure is one that we tried to persuade the Government to use on several Home Office Bills this year: to submit a Bill to various forms of scrutiny upstairs—to a Special Standing Committee, where evidence can be taken, before clause by clause deliberation.
      I hope that the Government, and especially Home Office Ministers, will seriously consider holding discussions between the parties at an early stage so that we can get right such matters as definitions. Paradoxically, the Home Secretary is holding such discussions over the measure on football hooliganism that may be dealt with later this week. Had we done so on other Bills, we might have made a better success of the legislative process.
      It is accepted that the amendment is still not right. My reading of the debates in the other place confirms that although there was a widespread view that many efforts were made to improve the measure—including meetings with the Home Secretary and with people outside the House—no one pretends that the definition of terrorism is correct. The amendments try to improve that definition and to pick up some of the threads that ran through previous debates, without repeating those debates.
      Amendment (b) is relatively small. It deals with the central part of the definition of terrorism. That part of the measure is oddly drafted. Amendment No. 1 states that terrorism is
      the use or threat of action where—
      it then refers to proposed subsection (1A) and sets out two complementary criteria. The first is
      the use or threat…designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
      The second is
      the use or threat…made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
      Amendment (b) would clarify the "designed to" concept by adding a "directed against" provision. I apologise to hon. Members for this relatively technical explanation, but that is inescapable in a discussion of definitions and drafting. The benefit of the amendment lies in the fact that, sometimes, terrorism has results that it was not designed or intended to achieve; it might have been directed to a purpose, but an objective assessment of that might be different from a subjective evaluation of it. That is difficult and important law because it relates to whether we always seek to prove intent.
      However, for reasons that we often reiterated in Committee, it is important to get the Bill right. It will not create new offences, but will take certain offences and, in certain conditions, will define them as "terrorist" offences with the set of consequences that such offences entail. When they are committed, the Bill will give the state greater and the citizen fewer powers, and the punishment involved will be heavier than for non-terrorist offences. The Bill does not say that a certain form of activity is a terrorist offence, but says that that activity—even though

      629
      it is already a crime—becomes terrorism in certain circumstances. Once the threshold is crossed, the police can take possession of documents, set up cordons and have greater powers to detain people. I ask the Government to consider whether the definition should cover both whether an action can objectively be assessed as being directed against the Government or intimidating the public or a section of the public and whether the action was designed with such aims in mind.
      Amendment (c) was tabled as a probing amendment to encourage a debate. The Minister will remember the big debate that we had in Committee on how or whether we should limit the definition of terrorism. We considered whether to limit it to activities directed against Government or extend it to include activities directed against other parties that are not in government, such as an Opposition party or a party that is not represented in government. We also considered whether the definition should go wider than that. Given the procedures of the House, I sought to find a peg on which we could hang such a debate and that is why I tabled the amendment. However, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has offered the House an alternative to the Lords amendment and that allows us to have the debate.
      I would like to consider the alternative proposal, which appears as an amendment in lieu on the second page of the amendment paper. It retains the widely drawn provisions relating to
      advancing a political, religious or ideological cause,
      but limits those provisions to action against the Government themselves. I recognise that there is a weakness in any definition that suggests that only the Government can be the target. Although it is no secret that we have had a difference of view on how to draft an amendment, my hon. Friends and I would prefer that the definition should take account of other political targets and not just the Government.
      Lords amendment No. 1 contains a provision that refers to a threat that is designed to
      intimidate the public or a section of the public.
      Unless the amendment in lieu tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is accepted, that provision is likely to become part of the Bill. If it does, we must be careful to ensure that we understand what we are doing. We are changing the definition of terrorism to one that may cover acts that have no political objective. It may cover activities based on ideological or religious grounds and—I have previously referred to a similar example—it might cover the actions of someone who is deluded or has religious convictions and who takes action against another member of the public. In normal lay parlance, we would not regard such an act as terrorism.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I am trying to get my mind around a particular matter of procedure. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he does not intend to press amendment (c)?
      Mr. Hughes: Yes, I confirm that.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that the new definition defines terrorism in such a way as to include activities that do not in any way threaten the
      630
      policy of the state. Doubtless, he will have noticed proposed subsection (1B), which appears to reinforce what he has just said—namely, that any act involving firearms or explosives, albeit without a more conventional terrorist intent, is none the less deemed to be a terrorist activity.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Hughes: To clarify the matter, I shall distinguish proposed subsection (1B) from proposed subsection (1)(b) of the Lords amendment, which both appear on the same page of the amendment paper. Ideally, my hon. Friends and I would rather not include proposed subsection (1B) at all, which takes away many preconditions if firearms or explosives are used. That applies to activities using firearms—perhaps only one firearm, such as a shotgun—so somebody using a shotgun does not have to have designed their threat to influence the Government or intimidate the public or sections of the public in order to be classified as a terrorist.
      I believe that, like me, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) thinks that that goes far too wide. My hon. Friends and I have therefore tabled amendment (e), which would improve proposed subsection (1B) by deleting the words
      involves the use of firearms and explosives.
      To be honest, that may be the most logical thing people associate with terrorism, but it is certainly not all of it. For example, Lords amendment No. 1 states that an action is terrorism if it
      is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
      Terrorism involving modern technology does not have to be carried out with firearms or explosives, but uses other technological means. Parliament—and certainly technology—has accepted that we need to provide for that. It is therefore undesirable to have a special, reduced threshold if firearms or explosives are used, when there are many other ways of proceeding.
      We tabled the amendment to focus hon. Members' minds on what would be better. It would add to the proposed subsection the alternative wording
      is intended to cause death.
      If the intention of the person carrying out the action is to cause death or destruction, our constituents, as well as people in the street and those who read papers, would normally think of that as suggestive of something that could be terrorism. So there must be an intention to cause death, although the provision could be drawn more widely and one could argue for an intention to cause injury or death. However, wording is needed that goes more widely than
      the use of firearms or explosives.
      Proposed subsection (1A) improves slightly the definitions of clause 1 by separating
      serious violence against a person
      from "serious damage to property." Those were rolled into one when the Bill left this place. It is clearly better to separate injury and violence against people from damage to property, and define them slightly differently. However, we are in danger of making a compromise on the legislation that tries to accommodate various ideas without any coherent and uniform view about what is right.

      631
      There is no prospect, I believe, of trying to secure today what I was determined to try to secure when the Bill was in Committee and on Report—namely, that the Bill should have a limited life. It should automatically expire and come back to the House for us to examine. As we all know, once a Bill is enacted, it is difficult to make amendments to it. Normally, they can be successfully piloted only by Governments themselves, so the ball remains in the Government's court. There will be an annual review of the legislation and experts may examine such matters, as may new bodies such as the human rights committee which Parliament is about to set up this year—indeed, I hope that that committee will do so. None the less, if Parliament does not make further alterations to the Bill, we are lumbered with what is possibly a better definition than when we started, but which certainly does not appear to be a definition which, on the one hand, catches what we intend to catch and, on the other, does not bring in all sorts of extraneous things.
      The purpose of amendments (b) and (e)—and, I believe, of the amendment in lieu—is to try to focus on activities that people clearly view as being intended to undermine government, democracy or the political process or which, in the pursuit of ideological and political aims, disrupt society as a whole. That paraphrases the definition for the lay person.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Amendment (e) would insert the words
      is intended to cause death
      Why did the hon. Gentleman not add "or serious injury to a person or persons"?
      Mr. Hughes: There was no particular reason for not adding those words, and they would have been a reasonable addition. Proposed subsection (1A) sets out the consequences, which include those that the hon. Gentleman seeks to include. Apart from the exception in proposed subsection (1B), action is covered if it involves serious violence against a person or serious damage to property, endangers life or—this is where the hon. Gentleman's inquiry is directed—
      creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.
      In almost all cases, the consequences suggested by the hon. Gentleman will be covered.
      I do not want to be overly critical, but we have a definitional clause at the beginning of the Bill, which is a good idea, but unfortunately it is drafted in a way that is terribly confusing. Anyone seeking a straightforward understanding of the Bill has to do a double loop, which cannot be the best way of drafting legislation.
      We are trying to avoid the definitional clause including as terrorists members of, for example, a health service union who took action in pursuit of an industrial action objective. If a nurse or porter withdrew their services from a hospital, that might, as an unintended by-product, create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public. There is still a danger that the definition may be sweeping enough to cover action that nobody would ever logically define as terrorism.
      Today, we may be able only slightly to improve the Bill, and, whether or not we seek to do so, I would be grateful for a reassurance from the Minister, on the record,
      632
      that when the first report on the working of the Bill comes to be written, he will ask whoever undertakes the inquiry and writes the report to consider the definition. We should not lose control of the definition in a Bill that will become an Act and may never return to the House. The amendments seek to open up that subject.
      Mr. John McDonnell: Throughout this debate, the Government, to give them their due, have demonstrated a willingness to listen and have introduced various amendments, which we all welcome. The debate in the other House reflected some of the concerns that were first echoed in the Chamber and then addressed by the Government, and I welcome that.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke of the need for early discussions between parties. I am not completely sure where that leaves my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I, but I welcome early debate on these matters.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: We remain available for a meeting.
      Mr. McDonnell: Running through the debate has been the definition of terrorism. In all our discussions here and in the other place we have rehearsed the examination of the original definition within the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which at that stage was contentious in itself. We suggested a definition that involved the use of violence for political ends including any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear. Some of us are concerned about the breadth of that definition, and the then Labour Opposition expressed their concern.
      In 1993, there was a closer definition in the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993. My amendment in lieu is to try to draw upon the discussion that took place under that Act and our debate on Second Reading, and goes some way towards the Government's concerns about the need for breadth of definition.
      The 1993 Act defined terrorism as acts by
      persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or other governments de jure or de facto.
      As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has said, my amendment in lieu tries to bring us back to that core definition, which is the act of overthrowing a particular Government or an attack upon the state. In the general view, that has been accepted as terrorist activity.
      I am concerned about some of the amendments in the Lords. My concern is highlighted by proposed subsection (1B), which broadens the definition of terrorism to include virtually any act of violence in the country. It breaks the link with threats to overthrow the state, and it is dangerous in its own right.
      Some amendments relate to the use of explosives. Virtually anyone cracking a safe, no matter what his motivation, could be defined as a terrorist and have the full weight of the proposed legislation thrown at him. My amendment in lieu is designed to try to bring us back to the core definition of terrorism as we have always known it. That is the threat against the state. Definition goes

      633
      primarily to determine exactly what we mean by terrorism. We may not be able to change the proposed legislation today, but it is important that in the first review of it we return to definition. Indeed, it is critical that we do so.
      Traditionally, we have always intended terrorism to mean the overthrow of the state or of a legitimately elected Government. My amendment says that clearly. However, the definition goes much further than that. It widens it so that terrorism is associated with the reason behind the action. It deals with motivation rather than a threat to the state, as set out in all our legislation to date and in the general debate about terrorism.
      In promoting the proposed legislation, I do not think that the Government will be able to maintain the definition within it for a long period. I think that reviews will narrow it. When the Bill is enacted, terrorism will no longer have a serious and deep underlying meaning. It will be defined as a new type of crime which involves violence to a person or one that involves "serious damage to property" or "endangers a person's life". All these acts, as has been demonstrated in debate after debate, are covered by existing criminal law. In the amendment that has come from the Lords, there is a new definition of terrorism that will enable a terrorist to be defined as someone who undertakes violence to electronic systems. That is a worrying widening of the definition, which goes beyond anything we thought possible previously, or anything that has been used in common parlance so far.
      The definition that I have tabled focuses on the view that terrorism is the use or threat of action that is designed to overthrow or influence elected Governments by force or violence. It includes Government recommendations in earlier debates, which include the purpose of the action—that is, "political, religious, or ideological". It makes it clear that these are not causes advanced by demonstration, direct action or other similar methods. Rather, they have to be serious enough to attempt to influence the Government by force or violence.
      4 pm
      My proposed definition addresses issues raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Under the Government's proposals, would, for example, the 1926 general strike be defined as terrorist action? I believe that it would, because it involved an element of serious violence and was directed towards a political or ideological motive. Under my definition, it would not be so categorised, because it was not directed toward the overthrow of the state. The general strike was about workers' rights and a decent living wage; the action, in part, aimed to influence the Government but not to overthrow the democratic system, which is what we all understand terrorist activity to be.
      In its simplicity, my definition provides genuine help to the Government. Much was said in Committee in the Commons and the other place of the need to include in the definition of terrorists those who would seek to undermine the state and cause terror by sabotaging various state resources. However, the use or attempted use of such methods would constitute terrorism only if it were designed to overthrow the state or undermine the democratic process—if such acts were an obvious means, by violence, to intimidate the Government or overthrow the Government by causing anarchy. My definition
      634
      attempts to differentiate between criminal activity that may well cause tenor, but is not terrorist because it is motivated by the desire for profit, and terrorist activity that is designed to undermine the democratic process.
      Our definition attempts to describe terrorism thoroughly. We have tried to formulate a definition that is broad enough to satisfy the Government's concerns about political or ideological motives, but stays close to the core of our traditional understanding of the definition of terrorism. If the Government are concerned about certain activities—for example, attacks on electronic systems—Parliament should deny criminals the ability to avoid justice by legislating specifically to ensure that there is a clear definition of criminal activity of that nature. However, let us not broaden the definition of terrorism in this Bill, and so weaken it, to achieve that end. In addition, if the Government are concerned about direct action by certain groups—previously, green campaigns and animal rights campaigns have been mentioned—let them be honest enough to introduce legislation in that respect, so that the House can debate the subject. That is better than broadening the definition of terrorism into a catch-all provision that could be used in the courts to undermine civil liberties.
      This difficult debate has continued for the past two decades, but I repeat what has been said by several Members of both Houses of Parliament during proceedings on the Bill: terrorism as a concept has been used for propaganda purposes—one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. If we broaden the definition as widely as the Government proposed in the draft legislation, and even more widely as the Lords amendments provide, a direct threat will be posed to many of the political campaigns that we in this country wage in support of others who are striking out for freedom. In addition, we will bring the legislative process into disrepute.
      Although our amendment in lieu will not be accepted today, I hope that it will form part of the agenda of the first review of the legislation, and that we shall return to the definition of terrorism in a way that is helpful to the courts in their interpretation of the term. Today, we are defining not a new crime but a set of actions that will give the authorities and the police greater powers. That was originally done when the Prevention of Terrorism Act was first introduced: under that Act, 3,000 people were arrested, 99.9 per cent. of whom were innocent. Some of those convicted under the PTA, such as the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, were later found to be innocent after serving long sentences. I am concerned that defining terrorism loosely, as the Government propose, will result not only in political activity in this country being impeded, but in miscarriages of justice, which we should all fear.
      Mr. Hogg: It would be churlish of me not to welcome the fact that there are amendments from the other place which, I accept, improve the definition of terrorism, but I hope that I will be forgiven if I none the less make some criticisms of the amendments before the House. I shall also speak to amendment (f), which is the change that I propose.
      I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said about the desirability of publishing a draft Bill. I have even greater sympathy with his point

      635
      about Special Standing Committees. I very much regret that the House has not done more to make use of the Special Standing Committee procedure. Bills such as the present one fall particularly into the category that would benefit from that procedure.
      The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) was right to try further to refine to what may be described as a core activity the definition of "terrorist"; but, if he will forgive me, I have two reservations about his amendment in lieu. First, it applies to elected Governments outside the United Kingdom. I have always had serious reservations about whether we should classify as "terrorist", or, more strictly speaking, an activity that is capable of falling within the definition of "terrorist", actions designed against external Governments. I am unhappy about that.
      There are a number of middle eastern regimes, for example, which, when I was a Minister of State at the Foreign Office, were anxious that we should take action here in the United Kingdom to stop individuals protesting against what was going on in some of those middle eastern states. It is well within our recollection that the African National Congress, for example, was certainly contemplating armed action against the Government of South Africa. It is highly questionable whether we should bring external activities within the scope of activity capable of being so defined. However, that is in the Bill and we must live with it.
      My second point to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is that his definition probably would catch direct action. The phrase
      influence by force or violence
      seems to me to be apt to include demonstrations that take place on the picket line, and I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman means that. I may be stretching the interpretation, although I think not. My point is that it is rather difficult so to define terrorist activity as not to catch activities that may be criminal but which should not be deemed to be terrorist.
      I shall say a word about my own amendment and proposed subsection (1B). As I understand it, the effect of the Lords amendment is that the use of firearms or explosives for any of the purposes set out in subsection (1A) is deemed to be terrorist. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, that means that any straightforward criminal activity in which a firearm, such as a shotgun, is used, or in which explosives are used—for example safe-cracking, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington suggested—is capable of being construed as terrorist.
      I am doubtful about that. It seems to be stretching the point a little, and it rather reinforces the argument for a Special Standing Committee, where such questions could be more fully teased out, or the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the Bill should be time limited, so that at the expiration of the term of the Bill, if it were enacted, we could review the consequences.
      That brings me to amendment (f). If it be right to bring within the deemed terrorist activity the use of firearms or explosives, what about biological, bacteriological, chemical and nerve agents? Those are not just an idle threat. During the Iraqi war—that is, the Gulf war against Iraq—
      636
      it is well known to the House that we were very troubled indeed about the possibility of biological or bacteriological agents being used in the United Kingdom by agents of the Iraqi Government.
      Let us consider the example of Japan. We all know about the attack on the underground system there. I believe that gas was used, but it may have been nerve agents. It does not matter for the purposes of our discussion. Such events are feared and have happened. If it is right to include in the scope of deemed terrorist activity—or activity capable of being included in that scope—the use of firearms and explosives, we should include, a fortiori, the other agents, which I have specified in amendment (f).
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Do I deduce from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that he, like me, would, on balance, prefer deleting proposed new subsection (1B) to limiting, extending or playing around with it?
      Mr. Hogg: On balance, I believe that I would. However, if I am to be left with proposed new subsection (1B)—I suspect that that will happen—I shall try to improve it by incorporating amendment (f) into it.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Madam Speaker: Is Mr. Corbyn seeking to catch my eye?
      Mr. Corbyn: Indeed, Madam Speaker. It is kind of you to remind me to rise. As one of only two non-lawyers to speak in the debate, I am grateful for being called. Perhaps other non-lawyers will join us soon.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman does the Minister a disservice.
      Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend the Minister not a lawyer?
      Mr. Charles Clarke: No.
      Mr. Corbyn: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. That makes three of us. We have a lot in common.
      We tabled the amendment in lieu after much consideration. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would consider the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and me when he replies. We were not members of the Committee that considered the Bill, and were thus unable to pursue the anxieties that we expressed on Second Reading. We were worried that the definition of terrorism in the Bill was so broadly drawn that there was a danger of its including people who were by no stretch of the imagination terrorists, but who could be defined as such in a British court. The right hon. and learned Member for North Hykeham and lots of other places—
      Mr. Hogg: Sleaford.
      Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who represents all places in Lincolnshire, also drew attention to the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and

      637
      Harlington pointed out, one person's terrorist can be another person' s freedom fighter. Former President Nelson Mandela of South Africa was denounced in this country as a terrorist, as were many others who were later elevated to the status of freedom fighter. It is the lot of many so-called terrorists around the world to become freedom fighters and then saints, often in the space of a short time.
      We are worried that the definition in the Bill could enable foreign Governments to put pressure on the British Government to arrest people in this country for peaceful activities that are pursued here in support of a change in their society. Those activities may be pursued peacefully here but not so peacefully in the relevant country. Such circumstances are potentially a minefield.
      I recall the time when various Conservative Members asked about Mohammed al Nasari's activities in opposing the Saudi Government. They claimed—I do not know whether the claim was justifiable—that British economic interests and arms exports were substantially affected by his campaign to oppose the Saudi Government and royal family, and that there was therefore an economic bearing on reasons to remove him from this country. I do not recall his being labelled a terrorist, but the comments were not far removed from calling him a terrorist.
      The native Amazonian people in Brazil campaigned honourably for a long time to protect the rain forest in a sustainable way and to preserve their way of life. At various times, their methods have been described as terrorism against the state of Brazil, because they prevent what some perceive as legitimate economic activity and others perceive as disastrous for the rain forest. Many people in this country have supported them. Would they be included in the catch-all definition if they undertook peaceful direct action against Brazilian economic interests here? That is the danger of the definition.
      4.15 pm
      On Saturday, I went to the north Yorkshire moors with many other people from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It was a beautiful day and the scenery was wonderful. We were protesting against the American national missile defence system and star wars experiment. Our demonstration was entirely peaceful; we marched up to the base and hung banners around its edge. The police were entirely co-operative and said that it was a very nice day out as well. It did not rain all the time we were there, and everyone went away.
      If there had been some form of direct action, such as people trying to climb over the fence or whatever as has happened with Operation Snowball, I would have described it as peaceful direction action in pursuit of a peaceful objective. Indeed, such a view has been upheld in the courts. However, it could be argued that such action was against the interests of the United States Government in trying to pursue their national missile defence policy. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider that matter in his reply. I also have in mind those who have been charged with damaging genetically modified crops—although I cannot pursue that case now because it is before the courts.
      The crux of the amendment in lieu tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is that it directly deals with
      force or violence against Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
      638
      rather than that against property, and it specifically refers to
      any other elected Government
      I realise that the word "elected" can cover a multitude of sins; it is difficult to define. I am slightly suspicious of Governments who are elected by 99.8 per cent. of the vote, and the Albanian electoral system in the past. We must define the word "elected" carefully, and perhaps we should further consider the definition, but my hon. Friend the Minister should consider the fact that our genuine desire is not to support violent terrorism in any form—that is not our purpose—but to protect the important right of people in this country to engage in legitimate, peaceful political activities that are intended to promote social and political change in their own society.
      We should not allow foreign, dictatorial Governments or oppressive regimes to use economic and political arguments in this country to ensure that their internal opponents are arrested under British law. That would be dangerous and a negation of many of the principles under which people have claimed asylum under the 1951 convention.
      Dr. Godman: I have considerable sympathy for the amendment in lieu tabled by hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). In criticising that amendment, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to middle eastern regimes and to his experience as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I remember debating with him whether the Lockerbie trial should be held in Scotland. I remind him that the amendment in lieu refers not to regimes, but to elected Governments, although it might have been better if it had referred to democratically elected Governments.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred to serious damage to property. An incident took place not so long ago at the nuclear submarine base on the Clyde involving three women demonstrators, or campaigners against the nuclear deterrent. Their campaign focuses on the removal of those submarines from the Firth of Clyde, and I have some sympathy for that view. They were charged at Greenock sheriff court under extant Scots law on criminal offences and criminal damage to property. Incidentally, the sheriff threw out the case, but that is another story. I am also concerned about damage to property or inadvertent injury to persons that can happen in industrial disputes.
      On the pursuit of ideological objectives, the International Whaling Commission, for example, might allow the Norwegians and the Japanese—the two foremost industrial whaling nations—greater access to the rapidly depleting whale stocks. That might prompt Greenpeace to send out a vessel, perhaps to our territorial waters, and, in its efforts to interfere with the whaler's activities, that vessel might damage the whaler in a collision. Would that constitute an act of terrorism under the Lords amendment? Too many people who act rashly, inadvertently causing damage, might be charged with terrorist activities. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington fits the reality of political protest and campaigning much better than do the Bill and the Lords amendment.
      Mr. David Lidington: The House of Lords has done a good job as a revising Chamber in

      639
      considering the definition of terrorism and my reading of the debates in the other place shows that the issue was discussed constructively and at length. On Report in the House of Lords, the Government introduced a redefinition that meets a number of concerns expressed by Members of both Houses about the original definition.
      In particular, I record my welcome for two features of the new definition. First, it describes terrorism as an activity that puts people in fear—that terrorises the public or others. As my noble Friend Lord Cope of Berkeley pointed out in the other place, that is surely an essential feature of any definition of terrorism. Secondly, the Government have agreed to extend the definition to include what might be termed cyber-crime—the deliberate act of wrecking computer and information systems to intimidate the public or to influence a Government. We drew attention to that matter early in the Bill's proceedings in this House—indeed, it was highlighted by Lord Lloyd of Berwick in his original report on the subject.
      The Bill must make it possible for the police and others to treat as terrorism the prospect of an attack by a group such as the IRA or continuing republican paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland on an air traffic control system or an information technology system governing the activities of a public utility, major finance houses in the City of London or the civil service in Whitehall. Indeed, I am told that there is evidence from overseas that some Tamil terrorist organisations have sought to damage the Indian Government's communications systems as part of their on-going political campaign. All Members who experienced the damage done recently by a computer bug to our ability to communicate will know that such methods of intimidation are almost certain to be attractive to terrorist groups.
      I reiterate the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench for the concept of the definition encompassing both domestic and international terrorism. We acknowledge that that raises difficult questions about balancing the need for effective counter-terrorist legislation with defence of human rights, but I believe that the threat posed by both domestic and international terrorism is such that the Government are right to propose a definition that is broader in scope than those included in current legislation.
      May I deal briefly with the amendments that we are debating alongside the Lords amendment? I was glad to hear from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he did not intend to press amendment (c), because that would have narrowed the definition in an unacceptable fashion. In his discussion of amendment (b), he raised the interesting question whether we need an objective, as well as a subjective, test. However, when he dealt with proposed subsection (1B), he spoiled his argument by saying that there should be a test of intention—namely, an intention to cause death—rather than the objective test included in the Lords amendment as drafted.
      Amendment (e) is too narrow in scope. To say that an act involving
      the use of firearms and explosives
      would constitute terrorism only if "intended to cause death" would open the gates to those terrorists who attack targets such as Canary Wharf or the Arndale center in
      640
      Manchester, and then blame the casualties on the fact that the police did not act on the warning that the terrorists claim to have given the authorities. That amendment would create an imbalance in the Bill in favour of the terrorists, so the House should not accept it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to ensure that the hon. Gentleman understands that proposed subsection (1B) qualifies the preconditions that must be met in the earlier parts of the definition. Whether or not my amendment or any form of words is accepted, we must retain proposed subsection (1B). All that it does is convict someone on the basis of
      the use of firearms or explosives,
      even if no one can prove that the action was
      designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
      On reflection, therefore, the hon. Gentleman might agree that that does not have the objective that he attributes to it.
      Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the intention behind his amendment. I was going to deal with the point that he raised because, to an extent, it answers some of the concerns that were expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Some of the debate about proposed subsection (1B) seemed to assume that it was an unqualified exception to the principles established in proposed subsection (1A). Yet surely the use of firearms or explosives must be shown, under proposed subsection (1)(b) and (c), to be
      designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public
      and to have been motivated by a desire to advance
      a political, religious or ideological cause
      A certain amount of protection against abuse by the authorities is therefore built into the Lords amendment
      Mr. Hogg: Is my hon. Friend right about that? I agree that this matter is difficult to follow and we may both be mistaken, but my understanding is that nobody has to be satisfied that
      the use of firearms or explosives
      falls within proposed subsections (1)(b) or (c). It is sufficient if firearms or explosives are used.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Lidington: The Minister will no doubt clear things up for both of us. According to my reading of the Lords amendment, the motivation of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause would clearly have to be established, even if one accepted the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made.
      The other point that my right hon. and learned Friend made is worth consideration: whether we should extend the exemption in proposed new subsection (1B) to include not just firearms and explosives but other lethal forms of weaponry, such as chemical and biological weapons. I would be interested to know the Government's thinking on that point.
      Mr. Hughes: I am conscious of the danger of the debate turning into a seminar, but that is because of the drafting of the definition. I want to follow the same line of questioning

      641
      as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, if we agreed to proposed new subsection (1B) as it stands, someone could be described as a terrorist if he used a firearm to raid a post office believing that the lottery was against God's will because it is gambling? He would be using a firearm for an ideological or religious cause, so it seems to me that it would fall within the definition. The phrase in new subsection (1B) is a dangerous phrase to include in the Bill.
      Mr. Lidington: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument but, to use that hypothetical case, if a gang of people were organised and believed that some God was impelling them to raid a sub-post office to stamp out gambling, it should be possible to treat them as a terrorist organisation. Similarly, it should be possible to treat an organisation that uses violent methods in pursuit of animal rights as terrorist, given the attempts to kill and maim people made by such extreme organisations.
      That brings me on to the points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). He acknowledged that to use a phrase such as "any other elected government" raises many questions about the validity of elections in different parts of the world. In any case, we need a definition of terrorism that goes wider than action against Governments.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has been intellectually honest as we have gone through this process, and I just want to press him one more time. I may be prepared to accept his proposition that the actions of a group seeking to undermine people may justify a terrorist description. However, does he honestly believe that the act of one person with one firearm endangering one person's life from some ideological motive—albeit that that is a criminal, undesirable act that would deserve to be severely punished—should be classed not as an ordinary crime but as an act of terrorism, with all the implications that that has?
      Mr. Lidington: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that, in the example of the hypothetical nutter who believes that he is hearing divine voices, the offences involved in addressing a public meeting or fundraising would not be relevant—they would be relevant only to an organised group. Similarly, I would have expected that in such a case the police would rely on the powers given to them to enforce the criminal law, and it is likely that they would establish the man's claimed motivation only after the event when they had detected and arrested him.
      I understand the case that the hon. Gentleman makes, but he is pushing a hypothesis to extreme lengths. I acknowledge—if I can repay the compliment—that he has been intellectually consistent throughout our deliberations on the Bill. In my view, however, it is important to have, if not the form of words that we now have in front of us, something very like it when the Bill finally gets to the statute book, in order to ensure that we are armed with sufficient safeguards against the real danger posed to our society by organised terrorism.
      Let me respond briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. The law's definition of terrorism needs to be broader in scope than "actions designed to influence or to have an impact on Government." We know extreme animal rights groups
      642
      have sought to threaten, intimidate and harm individual scientists or employees of companies lawfully engaged in carrying out experiments on live animals. We know, too, of cases where acknowledged terrorist groups such as the Provisional IRA have sought to attack commercial interests to deter investment in Northern Ireland, or economic targets on the mainland of Great Britain in the hope that that would indirectly influence the Government of the day by arousing a war-weariness among the British public about continued involvement in Northern Ireland. For those reasons, I advise my hon. Friends to resist the hon. Gentleman's amendment if he presses it to a Division.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: May I begin with a couple of generalities—with the specific exception of the vicious smear on me by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who claimed that I was a lawyer? I have spent a lot of time resisting those attacks and I have attacked other lawyers. I am surrounded in the Home Office by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is a lawyer, and by my fellow Ministers of State, who are lawyers. The Prime Minister is also a lawyer. I have taken great pride in not being a lawyer in our discussions, so I was deeply distressed—that is the only phrase I can use—by my hon. Friend's attack.
      More generally and more seriously, I welcome the various welcomes—and appreciate the spirit in which they were given—from hon. Members on both sides of the House for the changes that we have introduced in the Lords. It is true that we have sought to take account of what has been said by a number of people in the course of our debates.
      I want to emphasise, as I have throughout, that many of these judgments are difficult judgments of balance between the various rights involved. Of course, there is room for different emphases as one deals with the balance.
      Amendments were debated at earlier stages concerning the life of the Bill. I hope that, when the review is conducted of the operation of the Bill, reports on the central definition and its effectiveness or ineffectiveness will be considered. Obviously, it will be for the person conducting the review to decide exactly how to deal with the matter. I acknowledge that it has been a dominant theme of our debates in both Houses of Parliament. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate for the review to consider addressing those matters.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Corbyn rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I shall first give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and then to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      Mr. Corbyn: Can the Minister assure the House that the person undertaking the review will not only review any cases, actual or potential, that come up in the courts, but take evidence from exiled organisations and reputable human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International on the operation of the law? In the

      643
      event of it fulfilling some of the fears that a number of us have put forward, will the Minister be prepared to propose substantive amendments to the legislation?
      Mr. Clark: I cannot give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he sought. We have set out clearly the way in which the reports will be laid before the House, and will be capable of being considered by it. As for his second point, I can, perhaps, be more reassuring. If serious questions of definition arose in the reports, certainly this but, I think, any Government would take them extremely seriously, and consider what changes were needed.
      Mr. Hughes: I welcome the Minister's explanation of how the Government would proceed in making requests of the person carrying out the review, but may I push him one small step further? Would it be possible for the Government to consult on the brief for that person with Conservative Front Benchers, with my colleagues and me, and with others who are interested? If he could go that one step further, I might help the House by saying that I would be happy not to press our amendment.
      Mr. Clarke: I can at least assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would give the person concerned copies of all the Hansards containing the various representations made not only by the hon. Gentleman and his party here and in the other place, but by the official Opposition in both Houses and by my hon. Friends. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance, if it is a reassurance, that my right hon. Friend will take all possible steps to ensure that the review considers fully the views expressed in our debates.
      I will not discuss the merits or otherwise of Special Standing Committees, and so on. Those are serious points, but they are not points for this debate.
      Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 17 and 107 are designed to tighten the all-important definition of terrorism in clause 1. We always said that we had not closed our minds to possible improvements in the Bill's definition of terrorism, and we believe that the amendments are useful modifications.
      Lords amendment No. 1 introduces the concept of terror to the definition by requiring that for the most part actions, or threats, are caught only if, in addition to satisfying the other elements of subsection (1), they are designed either to influence the Government—that is defined in Lords amendment No. 3—or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public. The important exception, set out in proposed subsection (1B), is where firearms or explosives are involved. That is to cover, for instance, an assassination in which the terrorist's motive might be less to put the public in fear, or to influence the Government, than to "take out" the individual. Examples might include religious leaders, or scientists involved in controversial research. Although we accept that such circumstances are likely to occur rarely, we think it important for the Bill to be framed in such a way that the police are in no doubt that the special powers it provides are available to them in those circumstances.
      Proposed subsection (1A)(c) makes it clear that only action that endangers the life of a person other than the person committing that action is caught by the definition of terrorism. That is intended to cover hunger strikes and similar situations.
      644
      Proposed subsection (1A)(e) specifically provides that serious interference with, or disruption of, electronic systems may be caught by the definition—provided, of course, that the action is designed to influence the Government or intimidate the public, and provided that it is taken to advance a political, religious or ideological cause. That provision was inserted to meet concerns that to "future-proof' the definition as far as possible—the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred to this—it was important to include computer- related terrorist action, without going for overly specific terminology that could quickly become out of date.
      Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 107 are consequential on the main amendment, in that they add offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to those that are "scheduled" in Northern Ireland. Lords amendment No. 2 is consequential on Lords amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Clarke: I will give way later, but as I am going to raise a number of issues, some of which relate to the hon. Gentleman's speech, he may prefer to wait. I am not about to sit down.
      Let me now deal with the non-Government amendments in the group, which raise important points. First, let me emphasise a point that has already been made. The version of clause 1 proposed in Lords amendment No. 1 clearly states:
      In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where—(a) the action falls within subsection (1A).
      That proposed subsection refers to actions involving serious violence, serious damage and so on. That test will have to be met.
      The second test is that
      the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
      That very important test also will have to be met. The third test is that
      the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
      Therefore, it is a case of "and, and, and" in which all three conditions would have to be fulfilled. It is an important consideration. I think that it also deals with the safe-blower example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), because the average safe-blower will not be seeking to fulfil, for example, proposed subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c). Various other examples also would not meet the various tests. Therefore, that definition dominates what we are proposing and the way in which we are operating. It is a very important point.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Hogg: The Minister has just assured the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that the safe-blower would not satisfy the tests in proposed subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c). However, my understanding is that the safe-blower would not have to satisfy subsection (1)(b), but only subsection (1)(c)? Is that correct?
      Mr. Clarke: No; I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. The point is that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) have to be fulfilled. The disapplication

      645
      that we have used in proposed subsection (1B) attempts to provide the type of qualification to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred. As there is a great deal of confusion in the matter, I shall explain it again.
      Proposed subsection (1B) disapplies only the point on influencing the Government and intimidating the public, not subsection (1)(c). If I was not clear in stating that earlier, I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and to the House. My point about safe-blowers is that, as far as I know, most safe-blowers are not seeking in their actions to advance a political, religious or ideological cause, and that they would therefore not be covered in that category. That is the key point. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
      In amendment (b), the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggests specifying that the use or threat is "directed against" as well as "designed to" influence. However, I do not think that it is at all clear how "directing against" adds to the sub-issue of seeking to influence the Government. If one's action is directed against the Government, it is seeking to influence the Government. Therefore, I do not think that amendment (b) would in any sense assist in our overall debate.
      In amendment (e) to proposed subsection (1B), the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey proposes replacing
      involves the use of firearms or explosives
      with
      is intended to cause death.
      I honestly believe that that amendment would make the situation in the disapplication that we are talking about even more difficult and problematic to define, for the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) asked the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey a very pertinent question on the issue. I think that there are very many definition issues in the matter of intent to cause death, as opposed to intent to cause other things. Additionally, how are we to measure intent? I hope that those questions will persuade the House not to support amendment (e), should the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey decide to press it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister may be planning to deal with this point later, but now may be the right time to deal with it, as it is related to other points that he has just made. What is his answer to the question that I asked the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)? Why is it that if the Bill is amended only by the Lords amendments, one person with one firearm who is motivated by a religious cause and endangers a person's life in a sub-post office would not be caught by the provisions and, therefore, defined as a terrorist?
      Mr. Clarke: I am always slightly hesitant to go into such examples, because it is ultimately for the courts to judge, and difficult judgments arise all the time. There have recently been cases of individuals carrying out acts motivated by values and beliefs that most people would consider terrorist. If the individual has the desire to murder one person, for whatever reason, that is different from someone with a political, religious or ideological
      646
      cause, which would imply a focus on more than one person. The hon. Gentleman's example pushes the bounds of understanding too far in that regard.
      I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has participated in the debate, not only today but throughout our proceedings. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North have spoken with complete integrity and raised serious concerns felt by themselves and others throughout the country.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington raised a small point about computer hacking. We have legislation on that, as the Computer Misuse Act 1990 created offences of unauthorised access to computer materials, unauthorised access with intent to commit a further offence and unauthorised modification. It is right that, when such mischief occurs for terrorist purposes, the powers in the Bill should be available to the police, but the general issue is already directly dealt with.
      My hon. Friend also raised a more general point about a general strike or direct action. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred to Greenpeace and submarines. I have to come back to the core definitions. We understand the general issues concerning
      the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause
      or seeking to influence the Government.
      Clearly, most direct action falls within those categories, but to fall within the scope of the Bill, such action must also fall within proposed subsection (1A), under which it must involve one of five things. The first is
      serious violence against a person.
      The second is "serious damage to property". That is far beyond the way in which one could categorise a Greenpeace vessel bumping something else on the high seas. The third is an action that
      endangers a person's life other than that of the person committing the action.
      That is another pretty serious hurdle. The fourth is
      a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.
      The fifth is the cyber-crime point to which I referred earlier.
      Those are all pretty serious hurdles. I have made it clear throughout that we do not have any intention of seeking to apply the legislation to any domestic, industrial or environmental action, precisely because we believe that Greenpeace, for example, is not seeking to do any of those five things. I understand the spirit behind the amendment in lieu, but I honestly believe that it is based on a wrong perception of where we stand.
      Mr. David Winnick: I know that my hon. Friend is not a lawyer, any more than I am, but is it not the case that judges can now refer to Hansard? What he has just said is a very important point should a prosecution ever be brought—in spite of all that he has said—in relation to an industrial dispute. Am I right to suppose that judges can refer to Hansard if requested by counsel to do so?
      Mr. Clarke: I am not a lawyer, but I think that it is open to counsel to make any reference to Hansard in

      647
      relation to the Government's intention in any legislation. However, I do not think that I have said anything different today from what I said on Third Reading or in Committee.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is an important point about which several of my hon. Friends and I are concerned. Can he assure us that if some rogue prosecution for terrorism should be mounted against an organisation such as Greenpeace—as my hon. F the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) suggested—the Government would not pursue that prosecution? If there was an attempt to pursue such a prosecution, can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the Government would be prepared to amend the Bill accordingly?
      Mr. Clarke: Although I am not a lawyer, I recognise the phrase "rogue prosecution" and I understand from my learned friends that there is no such thing as a rogue prosecution that involves lawyers. I am describing the activities of the organisations as they exist in current circumstances. If Greenpeace decided to breach the various causes in the Bill, that would be a different issue which would have to be addressed, so I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute guarantee. However, I can guarantee that if an organisation does not violate the provisions of clause 1, any prosecution could not succeed.
      My final point to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is that, while I acknowledge his creativity in tabling an amendment based on previous legislation, it contains a flaw. It is not the flaw of the use of the phrase
      or any other elected Government.
      That point has been addressed in previous discussion. However, to exclude from the definition of terrorism action that is designed to intimidate the public or a section of the public—as the amendment seeks to do—would be a mistake. I understand that the classic view of terrorism is that it is about influencing or overthrowing states, but in the current and, I suspect, future climate, it would be wrong to exclude from the definition of terrorism action designed to intimidate the public or a section of it. We all know of examples, which I shall not cite again, and for that reason alone, I urge my hon. Friends not to support the amendment if it is pressed to a vote.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: An additional point in reply to the point from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—and I hope that the Minister regards it as helpful—is that, subject to some limited exceptions, all prosecutions under the Bill would require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Therefore, to some extent, parliamentary accountability would exist through the Law Officers in the case of any aberrant prosecution.
      Dr. Godman: The procurator fiscal in Scotland.
      Mr. Clarke: That is true, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde says, the decision would go to the procurator fiscal in Scotland.
      Mr. Corbyn: What would be the Government's attitude to an attempt to use extradition law to obtain the removal of a foreign national legally resident in this country who was deemed to fall within the definitions for support for an organisation in their own country?
      Mr. Clarke: I regret to say that I have to duck that question. Extradition law is exceptionally complicated and we are reviewing it in the light of the experience of the attempted extradition of the former dictator of Chile. I am hesitant to touch on what would or would not be grounds for extradition in any particular case. However, I am happy to write to my hon. Friend to set out my understanding when I have had a chance to take advice on that point.
      Mr. Corbyn: I look forward to receiving my hon. Friend's letter, which I shall treasure as being from one non-lawyer to another. Can he also assure me that whoever reviews the legislation will also be asked to undertake a review of this aspect of the Bill, which has enormous implications in respect of our human rights legislation and the convention that will become British law in October?
      5 pm
      Mr. Clarke: The parliamentary reporting process established in the Bill will ensure that the review made available to the House every year takes account of all aspects of the operation of the legislation, including the aspect raised by my hon. Friend.
      My hon. Friend makes a serious point, and is right to raise it in this context. However, the approach that I intend to take is to ensure that, once the institution proposed in the Bill is established and fully operational, the full record of the debates on the matter is made available for consideration.
      I turn finally to the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I appreciate that his intention is to extend the scope of the application of the "influencing a Government" definition of terrorism to cover situations where chemical, biological or other agents rather than conventional explosives are used in a terrorist attack.
      As the Government explained when the amendments were tabled on Report in the House of Lords, the disapplication is intended to cover a set of circumstances that are rare, but which should not be ignored. Those circumstances would arise when an individual or place is attacked by a terrorist group whose intention is to "take out" that person or place for its own sake, rather than as a means of influencing a Government or intimidate the public.
      In introducing the disapplication, the Government felt that we needed to strike the right balance between ensuring that the most likely circumstances in which such cases might occur were covered, and broadening the disapplication so much that it undermined the usefulness

      649
      of the insertion of the important new limb into the definition. That is how we came up with the formula concerning
      the use of firearms of explosives.
      I acknowledge that the amendment does not cover all the ways in which assassinations could take place. For example, it does not cover drowning, poisoning or other ways in which people can be killed which do not involve guns or explosives. However, it would cover the types of incidents involving chemical and other agents set out in amendment (f), tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. That is because the most usual ways in which such agents are released involve the use of explosives. I hope that that offers some level of reassurance that the sort of circumstance envisaged in amendment (f)—and I think that it would be fair to call it a rare sub-set of what is already a rare category of terrorist attacks—is usually likely to be covered.
      I hope that I have dealt with the points raised in the debate. We made it clear from the outset that we recognised that the definition of terrorism was key to the whole Bill, and that we were committed to getting it right. We have tried to listen to concerns expressed at all stages of the debate in the House, and we have made a range of changes to try to address those concerns. We believe that the definition as amended in another place is an improvement, but we do not believe that the further modifications proposed add up to further improvements.
      We must have a workable definition that is broad enough to cover the range of circumstances that we can reasonably anticipate might confront us, without going too wide. The definition must be easy to apply, even under extreme time pressures. We believe that we have achieved those objectives in the definition as amended in the other place, and I hope that the House will support the Government amendments.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that the Government will seek to ensure that the report provided for by clause 125 will cover the concerns about the definition of terrorism raised in this debate by hon. Members of all parties. That is welcome, as is the procedure for getting the matter right. Some of us argued for an automatic review, but a mechanism that combines an annual report and the methodology that the Minister has set out will be very helpful.
      I posed a specific question, by way of example, to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and then to the Minister. It is possible to apply that example to one or more of the offences under the Bill. Most obviously, clause 16 makes it an offence to use money or other property for the purpose of terrorism. It takes no great stretch of the imagination to contemplate a person using money or other property to set up a raid on a post office, and that would bring that offence within the criteria set out by the Minister.
      That example illustrates the prospective, theoretical danger of an interpretation that makes the Bill wider than we might wish. The matter will, of course, be subject to the requirements and consideration of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the procurator fiscal, and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland). That is a protection for all of us, and other provisions require orders to be laid before the House later.
      650
      I do not pretend, and never have pretended, that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me, or the amendment in lieu tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), are the ideal solution. I think that we have all been honest enough to admit that. We have made attempts, collectively, to get a better Bill and, to be fair, the work has produced results and rewards. It would be wrong to suggest that the Bill would be perfect if our amendments were accepted or that it is perfect as it stands. The Bill would be imperfect in either case.
      Against that background, I am happy to accept the Minister's good faith, in terms of working with colleagues on both sides of the House to ensure that we keep the matter under review. We will want to do that—none of us will let the Bill disappear from sight once it becomes law. On that basis, I do not intend to press our amendments.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

    Clause 12

      SUPPORT
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 7, line 13, leave out from
      ("activities") to end of line 15.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this we may discuss Lords amendments No. 5 and amendment (a) thereto, amendments (b) and (c) in lieu thereof, and Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
      Mr. Hogg: I rise to speak to amendments (a), (b) and (c), in my name. I speak to them for reasons of general principle and also for particular reasons which I shall outline.
      I should like to touch briefly on the general point first. Clause 12 restricts free speech. I think that it is the business of the House always carefully to scrutinise whether it is right to impose restrictions on people's ability to speak their mind, even about pretty unworthy causes. Even more importantly, one should scrutinise the restrictions that we impose on the right of people to further the ability of other people to speak their mind.
      May I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the outcry in some quarters when the BBC and other organisations were prohibited from broadcasting the words of people such as Mr. Gerry Adams? I cannot, I am ashamed to say, remember his constituency, but as he does not appear in this place, perhaps I might be entitled to refer to him as Mr. Gerry Adams.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Belfast, West.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information.
      I was a very junior Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office at the time, and I had very real doubts, although they did not count for much, about the wisdom of prohibiting the broadcasting of the words of the

      651
      hon. Member for Belfast, West—as Mr. Adams may or may not then have been—not to say about our right to do so. That general principle informs my approach to clause 12.
      I am extremely unhappy about making it an offence for third parties, in effect, to organise public meetings that will be addressed by people who may be, or are, supporters of terrorism, in support of a terrorist organisation. That may not be a majority view—probably it is not. However, in general, I always lean in favour of rights and liberties.
      Of course, there is always a balance to be struck, and where it should be struck at any one time is a matter of nice judgment. However, the general principle is: when in doubt, preserve a freedom.
      Dr. Godman: I have much sympathy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. Was he in office when the decision was taken to raid the BBC in Glasgow?
      Mr. Hogg: I have no recollection of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers; I am sure that in none of the offices that I held did I play any direct role. Governments take many actions of which their individual members do not approve. If we all resigned on the slightest occasion, no Government would ever be formed.
      I have dealt with the general point. I turn to a particular and different point.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the general point and shall probably do so on the particular one. Does he agree that the reason for the general proposition is that, otherwise, we should have to accept the reverse—the "no platform rule"? At student unions and elsewhere, many people are not allowed to speak—whatever the desirability of their views—because it has been decided that they are beyond the pale. If debate does not take place, one can never win the argument.
      Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Whenever there is any doubt, we should preserve the right.
      The particular point is set out in my amendments. They deal with the proposal in Lords amendment No. 5 to impose a burden on the defence. That is the effect of subsection (3A). I readily acknowledge that the provision is subject to the new clause that would be provided by Lords amendment No. 19, and that that new clause would undoubtedly improve it. However, that does not alter the fact that the combination of those two provisions would impose an evidential burden on the defence. The burden is only evidential and not substantive, but the defence would none the less have to raise the issue.
      The question that the House needs to consider—although few Members are in the Chamber to do so—is whether it is right to impose any burden on the defence or whether it is right to pursue the normal canons of criminal law by leaving the burden, throughout, on the Crown. I think that in this case we should leave the burden on the Crown throughout.
      Amendments (b) and (c) would require the Crown to prove that the defendant knew that the speaker was, or professed to be, a member of the proscribed organisation,
      652
      and that the purpose of addressing the organisation was to provide support to, or to further the aims of, the proscribed organisation. The Crown should be required to prove—at the ordinary standard of criminal proof—all the elements that I think should be incorporated in the offence: that the defendant knew of the status and the intent of the speaker. I am not in favour of proceeding by way of the reverse burden of proof, although I recognise that it is evidential and not substantial.
      If the House is against me on this matter—as I suspect that it will be—I hope that it will consider the argument that one should remove the limitation contained in the offence to private meetings. If we take the reverse burden defence route—although I do not like it—I do not see, in principle, why the provision should be limited to a private meeting. Why should it not apply to public meetings?
      I am in favour of liberty and free speech, so within the framework of the Lords amendments I want to give people as much free speech as we can—even though they may be supporting an unworthy and disagreeable organisation. I want to strike out the word "private" so that the provision applies to any meeting. I suspect that the Minister will not accept that, but I look forward to hearing his reasons.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) for his amendments, which raise a perfectly proper set of issues. As he rightly said, few of us are in the Chamber to consider them and if a vote were called now, we might win it. However, as has happened before, people who have not heard the debate might appear from somewhere.
      5.15 pm
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7 have considerably improved the Bill in a small but important sense. I thank my noble Friends in another place—particularly Lord Goodhart, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Avebury—who worked assiduously in pursuing these issues for us and in helping to persuade Government to change their view.
      Lords amendment No. 4 would delete lines 13 to 15 of page 7 of the Bill as it was when it started its passage through the Lords—our procedure is rather bizarre—and would prevent an offence being committed if someone addresses a meeting and knows that the meeting will be addressed by someone belonging to or professing to belong to a proscribed organisation. Such mischief is not acceptable, but we do not think that it should be an offence. The original provision would have made a criminal of someone like the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), or me, who turned up on a platform to speak against a terrorist or someone who belonged to a proscribed organisation, such as an Irish proscribed organisation.
      Someone would commit an offence if he simply knew that he was about to share a platform with someone who belonged to a proscribed organisation or merely said that he belonged to such an organisation. That is clearly nonsense, because it means that the members of such organisations or those that claim to belong to them could never be engaged in debate—they would have the platform to themselves.

      653
      I understand the thinking behind the original provision. It was intended that if someone who claimed to be a member of a proscribed organisation or who was a member of such an organisation spoke at a meeting, no one else would turn up to speak on the same platform. However, that is not the way life works. One might not know in advance, or much in advance, who was going to speak and what his pedigree was. Therefore the Lords amendments have prevented the criminalisation of people who are free from any involvement in criminal or proscribed organisations. That is a good thing. It explains why the amendments in the other place were accepted, as a result of negotiations that took place both in the open and behind the scenes.
      Lords amendment No. 5 led to a debate on where the burden of proof lies. The Government accept half the loaf, but the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham seeks to persuade them to accept the whole loaf. The half loaf is represented by the defence that someone does not have reasonable cause to believe that he will share a platform at a private meeting with a member of a proscribed organisation. The burden of proof has shifted, because someone has to lay that defence on the table and it is up to the prosecution to carry out the remaining work.
      I would much prefer the burden of proof to remain fairly and squarely with the prosecution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to Lords amendment No. 19, which deals with the burden of proof. That issue exercised us much in Committee and it has been raised on this Bill and on other Bills currently before the House. However, I ask the Minister to recognise that the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is better than those that were accepted in the other place without a Division.
      Finally, I ask the House to accept amendment (a), tabled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It would delete the criterion which means that the provision will apply only to private meetings; it would now apply to both private and public meetings. We shall avoid another problem if we avoid defining whether the meeting is public or private. In theory, one could define one or the other, and if I were advising the prosecution, I could work out how one would do that and what criteria would have to be fulfilled. None the less, it is better simply to require the prosecution to prove the case if there are to be any such offences.
      The best outcome would be to not convict people or not provide that people should be criminalised if they speak on such a platform. However, if we cannot have that, I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will be prepared to accept the amendments. If he did that, we could have another debate ending in happy amity, without a Division, and, in my view, improving the Bill.
      Mr. Lidington: We are happy to accept the Lords amendments. It is important to remind the House that this group of amendments does not deal with the generality of terrorist organisations or individual terrorists, but only those organisations that have been proscribed under procedures in the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) addressed arguments about no platform and the need for democratic politicians to rebut publicly the arguments of unpleasant political groups.
      654
      However, we are talking about something different in this group of amendments, and are dealing with organisations whose record of activity in violence and murderous behaviour is such that the Government in office decide to make an order for proscription, which is endorsed by Parliament through approval of delegated legislation. In other words, the democratically elected representatives of the British people decide to put a certain organisation outwith the bounds of normal political discourse, at least until it has stopped resorting to terrorist activity.
      Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend consider that point a little further? I know that he will not accuse me of supporting terrorist organisations, particularly the IRA, as he has never done so in the past. However, I urge him to cast his mind back to the time when he was at university. Had I been president of the Oxford Union at that time—as I once was—I might well have been minded to organise an event at which a member of the IRA explained to the union what they were about. It is right that terrorist organisations should be exposed to criticism from the democratic community and have the ability to explain themselves. I should be very unhappy if the president of the Oxford Union could not do that.
      Mr. Lidington: I would certainly never dream of accusing my right hon. and learned Friend of supporting terrorism. However, I strongly disagree with him about supporting the notion that a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation should be given a platform that is available to other political groups in society.
      I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that there is a place for robust argument with extreme groups such as the National Front, the British National party and the Socialist Workers party. This group of amendments deals with organised criminal gangs, motivated by politics or ideology, whose record of violence is such that they have been proscribed by the Government and Parliament of the day. That point makes the difference. The Lords amendments tabled by the Government take us some way in the direction of concerns about civil liberties that have been expressed by Members of both Houses.
      The Bill should provide the statutory defence offered by Lords amendment No. 5 in respect of a private meeting. It is more difficult to argue that somebody engaged in organising a public meeting which is to be addressed by a member of a proscribed organisation is a complete innocent. It is right that we should deny publicity to organisations that Parliament has stated should be proscribed altogether.
      I hope, too, that Lords amendment No. 5 will deal with the matter that was raised in the Lords by my noble Friend Lord Glentoran. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point when he replies. My noble Friend asked what would happen in respect of meetings that had been convened to assist terrorist organisations to make the transition to democratic politics. He cited an example from Indonesia, where a terrorist group and the Indonesian Government had met at a conference arranged by a charitable organisation. Such meetings may be important in enabling a breakthrough to be made and in encouraging a terrorist organisation to commit itself to democratic and peaceful means of advancing its political objectives.

      655
      I hope that the definition of a private meeting in that amendment will take account of such circumstances, because those meetings are an important bridge in bringing proscribed organisations back into the democratic main stream.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I thank hon. Members for welcoming the changes that the other place has wrought to the Bill. Lords amendment No. 4 deals with concerns that were raised, and we accepted the weight of opinion on that subject. Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 add a new statutory defence where a person is charged with an offence under clause 12(2)(c). That will apply where a person is charged with the offence in respect of a private meeting, and makes it a defence for him to prove that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the address would support a proscribed organisation or further activities.
      I emphasise that it is to remain an offence to arrange, manage or assist in the arranging or managing of a meeting that one knows is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation. However, in certain cases there should be a statutory defence. That point was made by Lord Glentoran in the other place, and the statutory defence in Lords amendment No. 5 seeks to address that.
      I turn now to the amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Amendment (a) would remove the word "private" from the statutory defence so that it would apply also to public meetings, which is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's principal intention. We accept that there could be a genuinely benign private meeting to be addressed by a member of a proscribed organisation—one could think of various examples—and it could therefore be legitimate to arrange such a meeting under the circumstances set out in our statutory defence. However, we cannot accept the arranging of public meetings to be addressed by members of proscribed organisations, even when the person arranging the meeting does not think that the address will support the organisation.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of his experience as president of the Oxford Union and his desire to subject terrorists to the pressure of debate with Oxford undergraduates. There is no way to reconcile the difference of approach between us. The point of the offence in clause 12(2)(c) is to help to deprive proscribed organisations of what is commonly described as the oxygen of publicity. To excuse the arranging of any public meetings would be thoroughly detrimental to that objective. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear that he does not agree, citing examples from his experience in the Oxford Union and as a Home Office Minister dealing with issues arising from the Irish situation.
      5.30 pm
      I do not see any way across that division of opinion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will decide whether he wishes to push the matter to a vote. I acknowledge that it is a difficult issue. However, he has made his position clear this afternoon and on other occasions.
      I move on to amendments (b) and (c), in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and his motion to disagree with Lords
      656
      amendment No. 5. He proposes an entirely different approach. The proposal is that, rather than providing a statutory defence, it should be part of the offence itself that the person arranging a meeting should know that the address by the member of the proscribed organisation was to be
      with the purpose of providing support for that organisation or of furthering its aims.
      On amendment (b), I should first say that to commit the offence in clause 12(2)(c) a person does have to know that the meeting is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation. The word "know" appears at the end of subsection (2). So he does have to know that that person belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation. There is no need for an additional "he knows", as proposed by amendment (b).
      Amendment (c) raises a more substantive point. We considered an approach along the lines of that proposed by the amendment, and I do not dismiss the amendment out of hand, for that very reason. We decided against it because we did not wish to create an offence which depended not on one mens rea but on two. In other words, to commit the offence, the arranger would have to know, first, that the member of the organisation was to address the meeting, and secondly, that the addresser would have the purpose of, for example, encouraging support for the organisation or furthering its aims. An offence depending on the accused's knowledge of the state of mind of a third party would be extremely difficult to operate in practice.
      For that reason we decided to opt for the statutory defence approach. It focuses not on what the accused knew about the state of mind of the addresser, but on what he had reasonable cause to believe about the address itself. There has only to be evidence in favour of the accused that is sufficient to raise an issue. The burden then falls on the prosecution. That seems fair to both sides. We believe that this is the right way to go about these matters and that it will produce the right result.
      With that explanation, I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham will consider withdrawing his amendments.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7 agreed to.

    Clause 27

      DETAINED CASH
      Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 13, line 38, leave out ("of the following persons") and insert ("person").
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9, 10, 12, 117, 118 and 124.
      Mr. Clarke: Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are purely drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 10

      657
      and 12 provide opportunities for third parties to be heard in forfeiture proceedings. Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 124 correct references to Terrorism Bill forfeiture in the definitions of "realisable property" in other financial crime legislation.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 10 agreed to.

    Clause 44

      AUTHORISATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 20, line 24, after ("in") insert ("or on").
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 15, 20 to 24, 26, 27, 29, 37 to 63, 108 to 111, 119 and 125 to 131.
      Mr. Clarke: These are all minor, technical drafting and consequential amendments.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 15 agreed to.

    Clause 100

      VIDEO RECORDING: CODE OF PRACTICE
      Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 48, line 31, at end insert
      ("if they take place in a police station (within the meaning of Schedule 8)")
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 73, 74, 76 and 77.
      Mr. Clarke: Amendments Nos. 16 and 77 make it clear that interviews need only be audio or video recorded if they take place at a police station. During the Commons Committee stage, the Government undertook to re-examine the drafting of the beginning of schedule 8, which we have done. Amendment No. 73 is designed to make the intention clearer; amendment No. 74 provides that references to a police station include references to places that the Secretary of State has designated; and amendment No. 76 provides that, where a requirement is in place for video recording with sound, the Secretary of State need not also require audio recording.
      Mr. Hogg: I have a question. I am not at all sure why the requirement is limited to police stations; after all, interviews can take place elsewhere—for example, on the alleged offender's property, or in a car, or in many other circumstances. Given that, as I understand it, video recording is designed to ensure that there can be no suggestion of improper treatment by the police of the alleged offender, and audio recording to ensure that there is a proper record of that which is said, I should have thought that, in respect of serious offences, it would be best to ensure that all interviews, wherever conducted,
      658
      were subject to the requirement. That was, I understand, the effect of clause 100 as originally drafted, and I am not sure why we should want to limit its effect.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, have a question. Do the amendments provide that the clause will relate only to police stations, or will its provisions apply to the three—prospectively one—detention centres in Northern Ireland. In Committee, we debated the Government's welcome plans to reduce the number of such centres, but such centres are currently in use. I cannot remember whether we are down to one yet—[Interruption.] I thank the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, for indicating that there are currently two detention centres.
      Will the Minister of State, Home Office, tell us whether it is intended that, as well as police stations, the rules should apply to detention centres and to every other premises which the police in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom might use. It is possible that, in addition to the private premises mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), more public premises might be used—for example, military police conducting an investigation might use Ministry of Defence property. I do not necessarily have a problem, but I want to ensure that places that would normally be used for those purposes will be covered by the provisions relating to audio and video recording.
      Finally, I do not know whether the Minister of State is in a position to provide an answer, but the Committee agreed that we should extend the availability of audio and video recording facilities as broadly as possible. The police want such facilities, as do the authorities, defendants and lawyers—no one does not want them; the issue is one of time and resources. Therefore, I should be grateful for any information regarding the time scale envisaged for the implementation of common good practice.
      Mr. Lidington: My understanding is that one of the amendments' effects is to require the Secretary of State to designate specific places that could serve as alternatives to police stations for the purposes of questioning suspects and that the Bill would not, as we had thought, give the Secretary of State a broad power to say that people could be interrogated wherever he deemed appropriate. If that interpretation is correct and the Secretary of State will be under a duty to draw up a specific list of places that are not police stations where people can be questioned once detained under clause 41 powers, I, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), simply ask why the locations thus listed should not have the same audio and video recording facilities as would normally be required in police stations.
      Mr. Clarke: To answer the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the reason for the change is purely practical. The vast majority will, as now, be detained at police stations, the main exception being those who will be examined for a relatively short time under the ports powers in schedule 7. It is sensible for those people to be detained at the port, rather than having to be taken to a police station, but it is

      659
      not sensible to propose that silent video recording be required for all such interviews. For a more serious interview, the person would be moved to a police station.
      On the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the silent video recording provision covers interviews at holding centres in Northern Ireland. A holding centre is not a police station, but the Bill enables the Secretary of State to direct places where terrorist suspects may be detained. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that holding centres will be designated under the power, and so will
      police stations within the meaning of Schedule 8
      by virtue of Lords amendment No. 74.
      The code of practice under the EPA makes it clear that the current provision applies to interviews at holding centres. That is where those detained under the PTA or EPA are currently held in Northern Ireland. The equivalent under the Bill is the silent videoing of interviews at police stations. It is envisaged that the holding centres will be designated, as I said. That should cover the situation entirely.
      The rules will apply to all places designated as places of detention under the Act. In answer to the timetable point, we expect audio recording to be in place when the Act is brought into force early next year.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister remind the House what provisions of law there are that would prevent the police from carrying out substantive interviews, for example at the defendant's home or in a car?
      Mr. Clarke: The short answer is that I cannot do so off the cuff, but I will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As he may know, we debated that extensively in Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, addressed the matter at length. There are substantive safeguards in place, which would meet the reasonable concern expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [Interruption.] It may help him to know that I am advised that the code of practice to be approved by Parliament will set out the procedures that provide the necessary protections. I will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, nevertheless.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 17 agreed to.

    Clause 117

      CONSENT TO PROSECUTION
      Lords amendment: No. 18, to leave out clause 117 and insert the following new clause—Consent to prosecution—
      (" .—(1) This section applies to an offence under any provision of this Act other than an offence under—

      (a) section 36,

      (b) section 51,

      (c) paragraph 18 of Schedule 7,

      (d) paragraph 12 of Schedule 12, or

      (e) Schedule 13.

      660
      (2) Proceedings for an offence to which this section applies—

      (a) shall not be instituted in England and Wales without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and

      (b) shall not be instituted in Northern Ireland without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

      (3) Where it appears to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland that an offence to which this section applies is committed for a purpose connected with the affairs of a country other than the United Kingdom—

      (a) subsection (2) shall not apply, and

      (b) proceedings for the offence shall not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General or the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.")

      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 34.
      Mr. Clarke: We have always recognised the particular sensitivities that apply in dealing with some types of international terrorism. That is why we have decided that it is desirable for decisions in such matters to be made by the Attorney-General, rather than by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I believe that we have taken account of many of the concerns raised in Committee and in the other place.
      Mr. Lidington: Although, as I said earlier, we support the extension of counter-terrorist law to cover international terrorism, we also acknowledge that in the debates on the Bill, serious concerns have been expressed in all parts of the House about how powers in relation to activities directed at foreign Governments should be exercised. The amendments are a sensible and constructive response to those concerns.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: It would be ungenerous of me not to say, on behalf of my colleagues in the other place, that I am grateful to the Government for taking on board the representations made and amendments moved, particularly those by my noble Friend Lord Goodhart, on the matter.
      As the Minister said, in an international case, which for obvious reasons raises wholly different issues, the best method of triggering the prosecution, in our view, was by a decision of the Attorney-General, who could answer directly for those matters in the House, instead of the indirect authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions and his opposite numbers in Northern Ireland and Scotland. That seems to provide the most satisfactory accountability for the wider and potentially more controversial extension of the legislation. We welcome the amendment and the Lords' acceptance of our proposition.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 19, after clause 117, to insert the following new clause—Defences—
    " .—(1) Subsection (2) applies where in accordance with a provision mentioned in subsection (5) it is a defence for a person charged with an offence to prove a particular matter.

    661
    (2) If the person adduces evidence which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.
    (3) Subsection (4) applies where in accordance with a provision mentioned in subsection (5) a court—

    (a) may make an assumption in relation to a person charged with an offence unless a particular matter is proved, or

    (b) may accept a fact as sufficient evidence unless a particular matter is proved.

    (4) If evidence is adduced which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) the court shall treat it as proved unless the prosecution disproves it beyond reasonable doubt.
    (5) The provisions in respect of which subsections (2) and (4) apply are—

    (a) sections 12(3A), 39(5)(a), 54, 57, 58, 77 and 103 of this Act, and

    (b) sections 13, 32 and 33 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (possession and information offences) as they have effect by virtue of Schedule 1 to this Act."

    5.45 pm
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment deals with anxieties that have been raised in this House and in another place about several of the Bill's statutory defences. The Government's view is that the Bill was already compatible with the European convention on human rights when it left this House. However, in order to provide reassurance whenever possible, we have tabled the amendment, which is not intended to alter the effect of the relevant provisions, but simply to set out in the Bill what we believe would be the effect of the provisions as originally drafted.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a small point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not mortally offended, but the Annunciator shows that a Mr. K. Hughes of Doncaster, North spoke between 17.43 and 17.45. I do not believe that he did. [Interruption.] The Labour Deputy Chief Whip indicates to me that he would be troubled to hear that he had spoken. Colleagues on the Labour Benches appear surprised that he has spoken. As it was one of my briefest contributions, I would not want it attributed to someone else.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Annunciator is now correct. That shows the power of the Chair to effect such changes very rapidly.
    Mr. Hughes: There are many places that I might want to represent, but Doncaster would be one of the more controversial options, which I am glad that I do not have to consider.
    The Minister introduced amendment No. 19 briefly, but I am sure that he acknowledges that it is an extremely important change—the other most important change that was made to the Bill in another place. We held much debate on burden of proof on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. The amendment was tabled in another place after great anxiety had been expressed inside and outside the House about the original proposal on burden of proof. At last, the amendment changes the original proposition of reverse
    662
    burden of proof. It will now be sufficient for a defendant to raise an issue; after that, the prosecution will again have to prove matters beyond reasonable doubt.
    The amendment is highly significant in criminal law terms. It is important because it returns to grave offences the consideration that it is for the prosecution to prove, not for the defence to disprove. I understand the argument that it may be appropriate to ask the defence at least to put something on the table to return the burden of proof to the prosecution. That is not inappropriate in the context of terrorist legislation.
    The amendment is also important because there was controversy about whether the original proposals were compatible with the European convention on human rights. The Government claimed that they were, but strong legal advice from outside the House suggested that they might not have been. We will, thankfully, not have to test that because the Government have made a concession.
    I want to make another point, which is more question than observation. In the context of burden of proof, we asked about all the clauses under which specific arrangements for Northern Ireland would continue. I should be grateful if the Minister of State, Home Office, or the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—to give him a walk-on part—through his colleague in the Home Office would tell us the latest timetable for the Government's plans to phase out the Northern Ireland provisions.
    The Minister was courteous and helpful in Committee, and he outlined the Government's plan. Clauses 65 to 113 remain controversial. Under them, extra powers are still granted for Northern Ireland. Those powers are given an extended life, but the Government did not intend them to exist indefinitely. I ask about that because in some clauses the evidential burden will not revert to the normal position under English law. Amendment No. 19 will do that for other provisions.
    Controversial clauses remain on the so-called Omagh provisions, although I understand that they have never been used. They were introduced almost two years ago when the House was recalled after the Omagh bombings. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether I am right in thinking that they have not been used. Although those controversial provisions remain, the burden of proof matter has been dealt with and a less controversial form of words has been used.
    We welcome that change; it represents a significant improvement, and many people have been encouraged by the fact that the Government have been willing to listen and have agreed to make a similar change in other Bills, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. We hope that the Northern Ireland provisions will be phased out speedily, as has been suggested, and that the Bill will become more clearly compatible with the European convention on human rights so that the rights of the individual are defended while the interests of the state are safeguarded.
    Mr. Lidington: I confess that I am somewhat puzzled about the importance of the amendment. I thought that I heard the Minister say that it was designed to clarify the Bill, yet the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) says that it represents an important shift in the evidential requirements of the legislation. Perhaps that matter could have been sorted

    663
    out at the appropriate Cabinet Sub-Committee before this debate. I hope that the Minister will spell out exactly the Government's view.
    As a fully paid-up member of the non-lawyer tendency of the House, I am always grateful for the occasional interpolation of plain English into legislation. The amendment is helpful in making plain the assurance that the Minister repeatedly gave in Committee about the importance of the statutory defences included in the Bill. I hope that he will be able to tell us whether the amendment marks a shift in the evidential balance, or whether it is no more than an important clarification.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I have enjoyed these exchanges. The whole House, the whole country and, possibly, the whole world will know that this is a listening Government who listen to all proposals, and I am grateful to hon. Members for acknowledging that.
    The powers under the Omagh provisions have not been used to date, but it is important that they remain as powers that can counter the terrorist threat. The Irish Government recently renewed their equivalent powers for 12 months. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the timetable. The situation is reviewed annually. The Government intend that the power should end as soon as the security situation allows, but such matters are security dependent and we must see how the situation develops. There is a time limit of five years, after which the powers will return to the House. I hope that that clarifies the specific points.
    On the claims and counterclaims, which I always appreciate, about the importance and constitutional significance of the amendment, I shall repeat what I said earlier. It is the Government's view that the Bill was already compatible with the European convention on human rights when it left the House, although we saw the expensive and powerful legal opinions that were circulated that stated that the Bill was not. We are always interested in counsels' opinions, but we had our own views and certified that the Bill was, in our view, compatible with the ECHR.
    In the light of the Kebeline case, we accepted that it would be helpful to make express provision for the burden placed on the defendant under the Kebeline provision to be evidential rather than persuasive. The new provision will apply not only to the Kebeline offence itself under clause 57, but to similar provisions in clauses 12(2)(a), 39(5)(a), 54, 58, 77 and 103, together with their equivalents in the transitional Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, which is retained under schedule 1.
    I emphasise that the amendment is not intended to alter the effect of the provisions; it merely states what we believe would have been their effect as originally drafted. We want to clarify how we think the courts will interpret the provisions. That is reasonable, given that the aim is to produce as wide a consensus as possible for important legislation of this kind, and we were delighted to do so. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 24 agreed to.

    Clause 122

      ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 58, line 8, leave out ("1(2)(b)") and insert ("2(2)")
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 28, 30 to 33, 35 and 36.
      Mr. Clarke: These amendments relate to transitional provisions in schedule 1.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 26 to 63 agreed to.

    Schedule 7

      PORT AND BORDER CONTROLS
      Lords amendment: No. 64, in page 104, line 41, at end insert
      ("and
      "vehicle" includes a train.")
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 65 to 72.
      Mr. Clarke: These amendments deal with provisions on ports and border controls. They are primarily technical.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will these amendments have any knock-on effects on the way in which immigration and nationality directorate officers' powers can be applied at ports? I ask that question in ignorance, and if the Minister cannot answer it now, but will let me know later, that will be perfectly satisfactory.
      Mr. Clarke: I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 65 to 74 agreed to.

    Schedule 8

      DETENTION
      Lords amendment: No. 75, in page 111, line 25, at end insert—
      ("( ) This paragraph does not confer the power to take—

      (a) fingerprints, non-intimate samples or intimate samples (within the meaning given by paragraph 9F below), or

      (b) relevant physical data or samples as mentioned in section 18 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 as applied by paragraph 22 below.")

      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 78 to 106, 112 to 116 and 120 to 123.
      Mr. Clarke: These primarily technical amendments deal with rights in detention and the withholding of information.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments No. 76 to 131 agreed to.
      5.58 pm
      Sitting suspended until Seven o'clock, there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business).

  Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  First, I pay tribute to the two people who have done most of the work in creating and drafting the Bill: Mike Harris, the director of West Berkshire council, who has special responsibility for recreation, and Monica Peto, who has acted as our parliamentary agent.
  There can be few people in the country who have never heard of Greenham common, made famous internationally by the protests of the 1980s against the stationing of nuclear cruise missiles. Some hon. Members are rather envious of my constituency as it seems to attract protesters—Aldermaston, Greenham common and, more recently, the Newbury bypass. However, that period was but one chapter in the chequered history of a unique piece of land just south of Newbury in west Berkshire.
  Before the second world war, both Greenham common and Crookham common, which adjoins it, were areas of heathland common, open to the public at large and over which rights of common were exercisable. Since that time, the people of Newbury and the surrounding area have had to put up with a lot. Most of the land was requisitioned in 1941 from the then Newbury borough council and other landowners for use as an air base. Although de-requisitioned in 1947, it was re-requisitioned in 1951 for defence purposes and the land was subsequently purchased by the Secretary of State and used as an air base, mainly for the United States air force.
  The people of Newbury lived with the base and the aircraft disturbance until a new use for the land emerged, as a nuclear cruise missile site. The transformation of the site into a storage facility for nuclear weapons meant that local residents saw their area become the focus of sustained protest on a scale seldom seen in this country.
  Nuclear district council—[Laughter.] Newbury district council—sometimes known as Nuclear district council—which has now become West Berkshire district council, owned most of the land surrounding the air base when it was deactivated in 1991. It saw the opportunity to regain the land for the people of Newbury and wider afield and to transform it back into an area of open countryside, to be used for recreational purposes.
  At the time, I was a member of Newbury district council. On 16 July 1991, I had the privilege of moving a motion that said:
  Following the deactivation of RAF Greenham Common, this council:

  1. reaffirms its desire that, on termination of any military requirement for the continued occupation of parts of Greenham and Crookham Commons, this land, as far as possible, should revert to public open space;

  2. deplores the purported extinguishment of rights of common; and

  3. seeks to discover whether the status of the land as common land and the rights of common may be preserved for posterity in order to preclude any further development of the common.

  In the years that followed, members and officers, a group of local campaigners including many commoners—known as Commons Again—and many others worked tirelessly

  667
  towards that vision of restoring the land for public use, spurred on by the commitment of the local ward members, Councillors Tony Ferguson and Audrey Appleby. Negotiations with the Defence land agent took many years, until eventually the open area of the air base was purchased by the council in 1997.
  A charitable trust known as the Greenham Common Community Trust Ltd. was established, in partnership with local business men, led by Sir Peter Michael, to acquire the developed area of the air base in order to develop a business park. Under that imaginative public-private partnership, profits from the business park are to be paid to the council to reimburse its costs incurred in restoring the open area and removing the remnants of the military occupation, including runways, buildings, oil tanks and pipework, as well as the substantial fuel contamination.
  The council is spending approximately £2.5 million to restore the land that it has acquired to fitness for public access. Help towards those costs is coming not only from the trust but from various other organisations, such as English Partnerships and English Nature. A small, and more or less symbolic, section of the surrounding fence was removed in September 1997, opening about 20 hectares to the public.
  Much more importantly, on 8 April 2000 I was present when the council's dream started to become a reality and the whole of the rest of the fence began to come down. It was an emotional day, as local people who had been excluded from the land for 60 years could at last walk freely over the whole area. It was a time for reconciliation, as former protesters walked side by side with wardens and others who had opposed their presence: a time when it could truly be said that swords were being turned into ploughshares.
  A new chapter in the life of the commons is unfolding, and I am proud not only to have been associated with the council's progress to date but to be supporting the Bill today. The Bill completes the picture by providing several main elements. It restores commoners' rights extinguished by the Ministry of Defence under the Defence Lands Acts. It extends commoners' rights across the whole area so that it can be managed as a single entity. It sets up a new register of commoners' rights that can be kept up to date. It grants a right of public access in perpetuity, on foot, horseback and bicycle, over defined paths.
  The Bill creates a new, locally accountable body, the Greenham and Crookham Common Commission, to assist in the management of the common. That body will have an equal number of commissioners appointed by public and other bodies and elected by the commoners themselves. The Bill places new general duties on the council and the commission in respect of the management of the common, including a specific duty to prepare and keep under review a management plan for the common.
  Finally, the Bill contains measures to regulate public access and the exercise of commoners' rights, to avoid conflict and ensure the conservation of this important area of ecological, cultural and historic significance.
  The council conducted extensive consultation before promoting the Bill, with other local authorities in both west Berkshire and Hampshire, with conservation bodies and amenity groups, with the Crookham and Greenham
  668
  Commoners Association and all known commoners, and, indeed, with the public at large. The initial drafting of the Bill was amended in response to comments received, and its principles have received support from all who have expressed views to the council.
  Let me give the House two examples. The head teacher of Whitelands primary school, Thatcham, Mrs. J Salmon, said:
  As the Headteacher of a local primary school, I welcome the Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill, as it will increase the amount of land available for recreational and educational activities.
  Garry Poulson, manager of Newbury Volunteer Bureau, said:
  Volunteering plays and will become an increasingly important feature of the life of the commons and we feel that anything that can be done to create a stable and well defined open space that is accessible to all should be encouraged and welcomed.
  There remain three outstanding petitions against the Bill, but the points raised are concerned with detailed provisions of the Bill and the petitioners have all made it clear that they support it in principle. The Open Spaces Society said that it
  wishes to assure Members that they fully support its purpose and contents in principle and have no wish to delay its progress.
  English Nature said that it
  sees this Bill as a positive way forward and congratulate West Berkshire on their visionary approach… It is our duty to ensure the nature conservation of Greenham and Crookham Commons SSSI, both now and in the future, and because of this we have to make sure that the Bill advances the nature conservation aims for the site.
  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said:
  We believe that our concerns could be easily remedied in a manner which is wholly consistent with the overall purpose of the Bill.
  It is my intention and that of the district council that we shall do everything that we can to meet any remaining reservations that the petitioners may have about the Bill by introducing appropriate amendments in Committee.
  Mr. John Redwood: I join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to the council for the work that it has put in to try to find the right answer, but I am worried that there remain detailed objections from the prestigious bodies to which he referred, which are trying to do their best for the local flora and fauna. Can he give us a better idea of when the new drafting may be completed and whether it will meet all those worries or whether there will be a compromise?
  Mr. Rendel: I cannot answer for the bodies as to whether they will feel that all their objections have been met. The drafting of the original form of the Bill is complete, in the sense that it will—I hope—get its Second Reading tonight. The Bill could be amended in Committee. My understanding is that negotiations are continuing with various bodies which have set out objections to the Bill and it is believed that all their requirements will be able to be met. However, in such situations, with so many different potential users of the site—some on foot, some on bicycles, some wanting to do one thing and some another—there is the potential for some conflict. The potential also exists for conflict between wildlife on the common and human uses of the common. I cannot guarantee to the right hon. Gentleman that all the objections will be met: all I can say is that the

  669
  district council and I will work as hard as we can to meet the objections. Much work has already been done and it is fair to say that all those who have objected now feel that their objections will be met sufficiently. It may be that some form of agreement will have to be reached between the various objectors, with each getting some of what they want, but I hope that such compromises will be avoided as far as possible.
  The promotion of the Bill in Parliament received unanimous cross-party support at the council meeting which agreed its promotion. I hope and understand that during this debate support will also be shown by the other two hon. Members whose constituencies include parts of the west Berkshire district. We were also very pleased to receive a letter from the Minister, who in February of this year wrote:
  I am pleased to say that the objectives of this Bill appear entirely consistent with Government policy in this area—particularly the proposal to secure public access to the common in perpetuity.
  This is a proud moment for me as we near the fulfilment of what is, for me and many people in west Berkshire, a long-standing dream. I hope that hon. Members will make it a happy moment for me by giving their total commitment to the Bill in its Second Reading tonight.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: I also welcome the Bill and congratulate the local authority, the local campaigners, the local councillors and the hon. Members who have worked so hard to bring it to fruition. We all have a long-standing affection for Greenham common in our different ways. I remember being threatened with surcharge in the 1980s, as the chair of finance for the Greater London council, for seeking to send sleeping bags to the Greenham common women at ratepayers' expense. [Interruption.] Well, it was an enjoyable period in which we were able to support those campaigning to bring about a pacific world.
  Several hon. Members objected to the promotion of the Bill at an earlier stage to encourage debate today. That objection was not to the content of the Bill but to the failure of the Government to address the issue of private Bills and their compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. I am happy to withdraw that objection. We have received assurances from the promoters of the Bill that it complies with the Act, but I have again to draw the House's attention to the fact that all other legislation under section 19 of the Act requires a statement from the promoters or the Minister in charge that the Bill complies with the human rights legislation and that statement should be on the face of the Bill. I urge the Government to consider that matter again, otherwise we will have the debate time and again on private Bills. There is no rationale for private Bills to be excluded from the human rights procedures on which the House has legislated so recently. Having said that, I wish the Bill a fair wind and hope that I will be able to accompany other hon. Members when the commons are reopened.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: Following my intervention on the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and his reply, I am grateful to him for the information that he and those behind the Bill are seeking a way forward with the three bodies that have made
  670
  representations that its detail could be improved. I urge those promoting the Bill to try to come to an accommodation and to be flexible towards any amendments tabled in Committee.
  Some of the drafting of the Bill could be improved. Clause 23, for example, which is the guts of the Bill because it would give commoners their rights, contains a set of propositions that would impose restrictions on the use of commoners' rights as well as a provision that commoners' rights must take precedence over the restrictions in various areas. It is plain from that long and complex clause that the Bill is still somewhat muddled. We are told that people cannot graze
  stallions, rams, bulls or other male entire commonable animals.
  However, further on we are told that people cannot be prevented from grazing two or fewer animals and that that overrides the exclusion on stallions, rams and bulls. However, I presume that the idea behind the prohibition on stallions, rams and bulls was the fear of what they might do to some of the other animals seeking to enjoy the advantage of the commons. That is one example of many I could cite, but it would repay a little study in Committee to try to sort out some of the loose drafting.
  I hope that it will be possible for the council and those actively furthering the Bill to reach agreement so that the legitimate concerns of English Nature and the RSPB, in particular, can be met. I am sure that the people of the west Berkshire district want to feel when the commons are opened up and returned that they will be a good sanctuary for birds and other wildlife. That will be one of the reasons why public money will be committed in the future to the maintenance of the area as a green and open space in what is otherwise becoming a congested and overbuilt county.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Martin Salter: While I do not stand to benefit financially from the Bill, I should declare the fact that I am a member of the Open Spaces Society. However, it did not consult me when it lodged its petition, and I might have withdrawn my £15 a year had it done so.
  In December, it was my privilege to write to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and formally record my support for the provisions of this important and historic—locally, at least—proposed legislation. I enjoy an interesting relationship with West Berkshire district council and add my congratulations to Mike Harris, who has a senior position in the council, and to Councillor Tony Ferguson who, despite being a slippery Liberal, is sound on some of the nuclear-related issues.
  For 60 years, local people from across Berkshire and elsewhere were denied access to that once beautiful piece of our county. We do not need to get into the whys and wherefores of the siting of cruise missiles on British—never mind Berkshire—soil, because anyone who saw Greenham common in its previous incarnation could not fail to conclude that the presence there of a military base represented a blot on the landscape of an outstandingly beautiful part of the upper Kennet valley.
  It is important that hon. Members on both sides support the restoration of commoners' rights. I am looking forward to taking my recreation time on Greenham common. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), I attended certain political events in the 1970s and 1980s outside Greenham common

  671
  and I will consider it a political event to be able to walk freely across that countryside that will, once again, become part of Berkshire and of England.
  I would welcome the opinion of my hon. Friend the Minister on whether the Bill represents the first nationalisation under new Labour. If it is, many of us will rejoice.
  I shall conclude by saying that I understand the objections raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. He and other Labour Members are engaged in a campaign to draw attention to some of the anomalies in the private Bill process. I pay tribute to them for withdrawing their objections and for wishing the Bill a fair wind in its passage through the House. They have not conceded the very important principle that motivates them, and I share much of their concern, but this Bill is a boon for the people of Berkshire and of this country as a whole.
  Our country is extremely overcrowded, and Berkshire suffers from the same problem. A Bill that gives us a little more beautiful open space is to be whole-heartedly supported, and I am proud to do so.
  7.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I have no intention of being drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on the broader political implications of the Bill. Before we conclude this brief debate, it might be helpful if I gave the House the Government's view on the Bill.
  The Government are adopting the traditional neutral stance on private Bills, although the parliamentary agents for the promoters are aware that we have concerns about some of the Bill's provisions. However, the Standing Committee to which the Bill will be referred will be in a far better position to consider points of detail and hear expert evidence on them.
  I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and that it will be allowed—
  Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hill: I must allow myself to be tempted.
  Mr. Redwood: Is the Minister reluctant to express a view on the Bill because he thinks that he will need a lot of the green space on the commons for the massive house-building project that he wishes to force on Berkshire? Will he take advantage of this opportunity to apologise to the people of Berkshire, and lift the spectre of more homes?
  Mr. Hill: That intervention reminds us all why the right hon. Gentleman remains on the Back Benches.
  The Government hope that the Bill will be allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

  Alcohol and Young People (Wirral)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Ben Chapman: I am delighted to have secured an Adjournment debate on this important subject. The issues surrounding high-proof alcohol and its effects on our young people are matters of serious concern. In my many discussions with the police in my constituency, the severe problems surrounding high-proof drinks are a regular topic.
  I take this opportunity to thank the local police, especially Sergeant Seeborn and the community police team based at Bromborough for their work on the problem, and for providing a great deal of background information. I know that they are pleased that the matter is being brought before the House today.
  The police tell me that most of the time in the community forums that they hold locally in the Wirral is taken up with discussing complaints related to young people engaged in anti-social behaviour. I do not believe that Wirral, South is any different in that respect from other constituencies, which I am sure are experiencing similar problems. The problems are often exacerbated by the fact that the youths involved have consumed alcohol.
  Gangs of youths can be perceived as intimidating even when sober and behaving well. When they are drunk, the perceived threat is much more substantial, especially to elderly citizens. That problem is much evident in Wirral, South, where a high proportion of the population is over pensionable age.
  The problems are made significantly worse because the drinks involved are often high-proof drinks—8, 9, 10 or even 12 per cent. by volume in some cases. In effect, young people of 13 or 14 years of age are drinking the equivalent, in each bottle or can, of three or four pints of ordinary beer. The consequences are predictable—anti-social behaviour, damage, theft, graffiti, assault, and so on.
  Vandalism and damage to churches and churchyards is becoming increasing common in my constituency, and I am sure that it is a direct result of the actions of youths who have been drinking. That is especially distressing to many people.
  Research reported last year showed that youngsters between 11 and 15 are drinking more than twice as much alcohol as in the early 1990s. The charity Alcohol Concern believes that as many as 2.75 million pints of beer are consumed every week by under-age young people. Last year, Liverpool's Alder Hey children's hospital revealed that doctors were treating 200 intoxicated youngsters a year—some of them as young as 9 years of age. If anyone doubted the scale of the problem, those facts show it clearly.
  Wirral magistrates tell me that more cases involving young people are connected to alcohol than to drugs. As Alcohol Concern has stated:
  More young people drink alcohol than take drugs, and more get into trouble from it.
  I shall give a brief outline of how the problem came to light in the Wirral. The Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 gave police power to confiscate alcohol

  673
  from young people in public areas, and it has proved highly successful. Merseyside police mounted Operation Cask in June 1998 in the central Wirral area, which includes my constituency. That highlighted the extent of the problem as, between 6 pm and 9 pm on a Friday evening, alcohol worth £700 was seized.
  The significant result was not that such an amount was seized, shocking as that might be, but that the received wisdom of the time—that alcopops were the main contributor to under-age drinking—was discovered to be untrue. The House will recall the public outcry when those drinks were introduced to the market but, although I have strong reservations about them, they do not seem to be the major cause of the problems.
  During the operation, no alcopops were seized, and, in any case, their alcohol by volume is only about 5 per cent. The alcohol seized was all either lager or cider, and all of it had a high alcohol content. The drinks were much stronger than alcopops, and much cheaper. For example, cider, which costs as little as £1 per litre in an off-licence is, on average, twice the strength of most beers, so the stark reality is that £1 allows kids to consume major amounts of alcohol. It can be no surprise that the young people involved are frequently drunk and abusive. Many are not in control of themselves: they are, indeed, out of their minds.
  In most other respects, the youngsters are well behaved. They may have no income other than pocket money, and their parents often have no idea about what is going on. For example, parents might give a child £5 for the cinema, little knowing that it could be spent on alcohol. A considerable amount of alcohol can be consumed for £2 or £3, and the evidence is building that many youngsters' first experience of alcohol is with these high-volume products.
  Why are the kids on the street in the first place? They will tell people that there is nothing else to do and, sadly, in some cases, that is true. In my constituency, for example, there is a lack of facilities for teenagers. Most importantly, there are too few facilities that they want to use-as opposed to what we older people think that they should want to use.
  Moreover, facilities are often in inner-city and urban areas. Little thought seems to be given to suburban areas such as those in my constituency. I continue to press the lottery boards to take account of suburban issues and to put right the consequential lack of lottery funds for projects such as the West Wirral Trust for Sport. The facilities that it could offer could greatly help in attracting youngsters away from the streets and parks and into productive fun. That would be an alternative to the "bit of fun" that drinking represents in an area where the youngsters say that they have nothing to do.
  Any alcoholic drink is strong to people in their early teens, but the high-proof drinks multiply that problem considerably. We often forget that alcohol is a drug, and must represent a potential cause of harm when it is taken in such strong doses.
  All police operations since Operation Cask have resulted in the confiscation of high-volume lager and cider. The police tell me that they are now having difficulty in finding the stashes of drink that youngsters go to increasingly greater lengths to conceal. The police believe—and I believe them—that youngsters sneak these drinks through their back doors at home, unnoticed and
  674
  attracting no comment. To some extent, that happens on the back of, or under cover of, alcopops. The drinks involved may be bootleg imports.
  Who buys these drinks, and why are they produced? My hon. Friend the Minister will recall from his visit to Wirral, South earlier this year that a call on an off-licence, particularly a discount off-licence, can provide evidence of the hard sell that surrounds such products. He will recall that they formed a major part of the display in an off-licence that he visited, and that the sales staff confirmed that they were a good seller.
  This is surely a time when the social responsibilities of the brewing industry, off-licences and perhaps supermarkets need to be examined closely, not least by the industry and the outlets themselves. These beers and ciders are packaged to be attractive to young people. The cider comes in blue or green bottles. It is consumed—as is the fashion these days—from the neck of the bottle. All these drinks have a high alcohol content. They are seen as "wicked" in both senses of the word—in the sense that they are fashionable for young people, and in the sense that they are harmful and undesirable because they have a bad effect on youngsters and because anti-social behaviour surrounds their sale and consumption.
  Is there any need to sell such beers? They may provide a good profit margin, but surely the damage that they do to our young people outweighs that commercial consideration. I enjoy a drink or two of beer, but neither I—nor anyone else I have spoken to—drink beers with such a high alcohol volume. That is simply an observation, not a scientific fact, but it bears out the police's view that the consumption of high-alcohol content products is, in the main, by under-age drinkers and alcoholics. They are not enjoyed, bought or consumed by social drinkers.
  Why does the industry produce such products? Why are they sold in such a high-profile way? A cynic might assume that they are targeted at young people. I understand that in some supermarkets, sales of these products can make up to 1 per cent. of total sales.
  The social cost of these products is far too high. It is time for action, and if the industry is not prepared to look at this problem voluntarily, I ask the Government to ensure that it does.
  Before concluding, it is important to say something about the outlets for these products. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) is seeking to tighten the laws against those who sell alcohol to under-age drinkers, and I support his proposals wholeheartedly. However, such measures would not solve the problem in its entirety. The majority of licensed premises in Wirral, South do not sell alcohol to young people. However, that does not mean that there does not need to be even more supervision of off-licences and other outlets. They may not be the direct cause of the problem, but disturbance, violence and criminal activity often occur nearby. If they are not the cause, they are certainly often the focus.
  Research shows that disorder around licensed premises has increased dramatically—by about 30 per cent. from the mid-1990s. We need to ensure that youngsters under 18 are not being sold alcohol of any type. We need to monitor displays in off-licences and supermarkets. The police have to ensure that frequent visits are made to outlets and, as far as possible, measures need to be taken to discourage and stop adults from buying drink for teenagers.

  675
  That brings me to a more sinister aspect of the problem. A large number of people over 18 are more than willing to purchase alcohol for under-age youngsters. Legitimate customers can be harangued, but are often bribed, into buying alcohol for teenagers. Sadly, in some cases, parents buy the drinks. More disturbingly, the police often find groups of teenagers—mainly girls—in the presence of males over 18. One can draw one's own conclusions as to the motives behind that, but assault and sexual assault on youngsters too drunk to know what is happening cannot be ruled out, and does occur.
  Will the Government be taking action to criminalise purchasing alcohol and supplying it to under-age drinkers? The anti-social behaviour of such youngsters is a huge problem, but of equal concern is the danger that they put themselves into, and the risk of assault, or even accidents, when drunk.
  The only purpose of these products seems to be to ensure that the consumer gets drunk quickly and cheaply. To me, high-volume ciders and beers with a high alcohol content often taste appalling. To my lights, they are not social drinks in any shape or form.
  To impose a punitive tax on high percentage products is one suggestion for drinks with, for example, a percentage volume greater than 6 or 6.5 per cent. That would place these products further out of the price range of the pocket-money drinkers, and might be the best solution, short of their withdrawal from sale.
  High-profile advertising and health campaigns against their use, educating not only young people but their parents of the dangers of such products, would also be a welcome measure. Indeed, following Operation Cask, Merseyside police wrote directly to parents about the problem, and are continuing to do so. There is a role for schools and for the youth service. I ask the Minister to comment on what could be done in these areas.
  The fact remains, however, that all these measures still leave these products on the shelves, available and obtainable in one way or another. I hope that I have outlined my serious concerns about the problem, which certainly needs addressing.
  I call on the industry and retail outlets to address the issue voluntarily by looking at the way in which the products are marketed and produced, and at the need for them in the first place. I call for Government action if the industry is not prepared to do this. I call for the introduction of a punitive tax on beers and ciders with a percentage volume greater than, say, 6.5 per cent. I call for increased supervision of licensed premises and the displays within them. I call for a high-profile campaign, aimed particularly at adults, to highlight the dangers of these products. Finally, I call for measures to criminalise the purchase of alcohol for consumption by under-age youths.
  7.36 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on securing the debate and by saying how grateful I am that he has done so. I visited my hon. Friend's constituency earlier this year, and talked at length to a number of organisations,
  676
  particularly the police, about the issues that he has described so graphically this evening. The situation that was described to me demonstrated that the issue was of such importance and significance that we must address it actively. I intend to set out this evening our approach to the matter.
  I regret that the issues described by my hon. Friend are not restricted to the Wirral, but also apply to other parts of the country. In too many parts of the country, there is too much drinking of strong alcohol by young people in parks, as my hon. Friend described. That leads to a range of crimes and disorders that cause problems for society as well as, more significantly, causing serious problems for the individuals as they go about a process of personal decline, which is tragic in its own way.
  It may be of interest to the House if I describe the general situation in this country, so that some of the figures are on the record. Our starting point must be a recognition that nearly 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom population take alcoholic drinks and spend something like £25 billion a year on them. The vast majority enjoy alcohol sensibly—my hon. Friend indicated that he occasionally takes a glass, and I confess that I do, too. However, the industry, with its wide variety of representative organisations, is encouraging sensible drinking and positively discouraging the kind of drinking that my hon. Friend describes as taking place in some parts of his constituency and elsewhere.
  The fact is that alcohol-related crime, disorder and nuisance, particularly at weekends outside some pubs and clubs, is an increasing problem in many areas. The Government are determined to give the police and local authorities the support and powers that they need to deal with those who abuse alcohol and behave in the kind of unacceptable ways that my hon. Friend has described. For example, it seems that more than 80 per cent. of criminal damage cases are committed by offenders under the influence of alcohol. That figure demonstrates that it is a real issue which impacts on the quality of life in our communities, affecting in particular those who happen to live in the vicinity of certain pubs and clubs.
  I have seen figures suggesting that up to 75 or 80 per cent. of those who go to hospital accident and emergency departments have alcohol in their bloodstream. In itself, I suppose that that should not be a particularly surprising statistic; nevertheless, the scale indicates the impact of alcohol consumption on society as a whole.
  Research indicates that under-age consumption of alcohol increases substantially the risks of young people becoming involved in criminal or disorderly activity, as well as leading to under-achievement at school, poor health and poor employment prospects. That is an important contributory factor to the cycle of decline that has affected too many of our young people.
  The evidence suggests that young people have substantial access to alcohol. The youth life styles survey conducted between 1998 and 1999 suggested that 84 per cent. of 12 to 17-year-olds had drunk alcohol at some time in their lives—with their drinking increasing as they grew older. The survey found that 63 per cent. of those aged between 16 and 17 and 10 per cent. of those aged between 12 and 15 who had drunk during the past year said that they usually bought alcohol for themselves—most often in pubs, bars and nightclubs.

  677
  As I travel around the country—not only in the Wirral, but elsewhere—police and local authorities report to me that the problem of alcohol consumption at, say, 2 am on a Friday or Saturday night is not only serious in itself, but requires a considerable diversion of police resources to keep control of difficult and problematic situations.
  The problem is real and substantial. There are important implications for the health service, for crime, for social services and for other aspects. Furthermore, although it may seem a lesser problem, too many parks are made unattractive for people to use, because certain areas are dominated by groups of young people consuming high-strength alcohol, as my hon. Friend described.
  The problem addressed by my hon. Friend is important and profound for our society. Unfortunately, too many of our opinion formers in various walks of life have tended to undervalue the seriousness of the issue. Because we all have a drink from time to time, we tend to think that the problem of alcoholism is not too serious. In fact, alcohol abuse is increasing—especially among young people—and it should be reduced.
  Earlier this year, in response to the problem, as the responsible Home Office Minister, I convened two seminars for the large range of individuals and organisations involved in the matter. There was wide participation—including the police, magistrates, representatives from local government and from victuallers and licensees associations, members of pressure groups such as Alcohol Concern, the Portman Group and pub watch schemes, and representatives from companies involved in beer production and in the leisure industry.
  I convened the seminars—a further one will be held in September—to find out what common ground existed between all those organisations, so that we could make progress in addressing the issues. I am glad to report to the House that much common ground exists. For example, breweries are not interested only in maximising the consumption of alcohol. They accept that it is in their interest that alcohol consumption be regarded as a civilised and reasonable leisure activity in our society. It should not be seen to lead to excess, and to the problems and difficulties described by my hon. Friend.
  All the organisations acknowledge the obligation to try to work more effectively to address the issues. We have begun a serious dialogue about what we should try to do. A range of initiatives are under way. In some localities, there are arrangements between club doorkeepers and the police. I visited York a few months ago, where there is a good relationship between the police and licensees—with a requirement for licensees to meet the police for discussions every year.
  In some parts of the country, photographs are circulated of certain offenders who drink to excess in particular places. In some areas, licensees play an active role in carrying out their responsibilities effectively. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out and as I saw in the Wirral, the role of off-licences in selling—or not selling—alcohol to young people is a matter of concern. In my hon. Friend's constituency, I saw an off-licence near a railway station, where there were serious problems. People obtained alcohol and caused the type of disorder that my hon. Friend so eloquently described. There are too many similar examples.
  The main message from the discussions that have taken place is that there is a real commitment to a series of measures based on partnership, which will powerfully and
  678
  efficiently address the issues. As a result, I am glad to tell the House that, later this year, the Government will publish toolkits setting out ways in which organisations can work together, so that the dialogue between licensees, local authorities, the police and the companies can be put into effect. They will include various measures, for example, on pub design and strengthened glass, as well as more effective byelaws to prevent drinking in public places. That will enable us to move forward.
  There is wide consensus that an effective proof of age card is needed to ensure that alcohol is sold only to those who are legally entitled to buy it. There are still serious issues to deal with in order to address that problem effectively. The optimistic note that I offer my hon. Friend is the real willingness on the part of the whole industry to co-ordinate effective measures. That is a serious and most important point.
  Our statutory crime and disorder partnerships address these issues. It is significant that more than 60 per cent.—three in five—of local crime reduction partnerships identified tackling alcohol and crime as a priority. That work has shown that, as with drugs, the consumption of alcohol is a major accelerator of crime.
  In addition, we have taken some general measures. The White Paper "Time for Reform", published earlier this year, recognised the need for a real balance between people's rights and freedoms and tough measures to punish those who abuse those rights and freedoms. For example, the White Paper proposed that, in certain circumstances, the police should be able to close down clubs where there had been particular problems. New powers are proposed for the police to shut disorderly premises and to combat under-age drinking—especially in public.
  We propose new measures to back up the age of 18 as the legal age for buying and drinking alcohol on licensed premises, including off-licences. That will include a new offence of buying alcohol on behalf of an under-18-year-old. That deals with one of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. I urge him to continue to press the matter. As the measure is recommended in the White Paper, I am confident that it will be introduced, but it is important to change public perceptions on that matter. There will be a new offence of knowingly permitting the sale of alcohol to an under-18-year-old and a new duty on those selling alcohol to satisfy themselves as to the age of their customers. A proof of age card would have special relevance in that context.
  As my hon. Friend said, some of these issues have been covered by the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell)—the Licensing (Young Persons) Bill. It has had cross-party support and has made good progress in the House. If it is given a fair wind in another place—I hope that it will be—it will become new law in this parliamentary Session. It will improve the effectiveness of our licensing laws by protecting youngsters in advance of the changes proposed in the White Paper. We therefore have proposals to deal with under-age drinking.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South raised a difficult matter on which the police in his constituency have been particularly active. He referred to the means of

  679
  banning the unacceptably and extraordinarily high-strength beers, ciders and lagers that are sold in many off-licences and which are welcomed by young people who want to get blotto for reasons that pass my understanding and, I suspect, that of my hon. Friend. This is an issue for the Department of Trade and Industry, but the Government take it seriously and we are actively considering what we can do. I cannot say anything positive tonight, but, as with what I said about sales to those aged under 18, I hope that he will continue his campaign and press it strongly.
  There are technical and difficult problems about distinguishing between the obvious high-alcohol drinks, such as vodka, and the drinks that are marketed in a
  680
  particular fashion. Those difficulties present problems in setting about addressing the issue effectively, but it is important that my hon. Friend continues to press his fcampaign in the powerful way that he has done today.
  My congratulations to my hon. Friend are genuine. It is an important campaign whose time has come. Many people have already suggested that they want to work together and the Government are determined to make progress on these issues. I wish him well and urge him to continue the pressure that he has started with this debate. I hope that the House will agree that this has been a worthwhile debate and that it is a worthwhile subject for the Government to focus on in their actions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

HEALTH

  NHS Staff Vacancies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies for(a) doctors and (b) nurses there are in NHS hospitals in the Greater London area. [126268]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and doctor vacancies1 in NHS trusts, within the London Regional Office area, as at 31 March 1999

  Total number (headcount)

  Doctors

  90

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff2

  2,350

  1Three month vacancies

  2Revised figures

  Note:

  Numbers rounded to nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies Survey 1999

  Carers Grant
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Carers Grant is additional to the amount county councils have already spent on respite care; how much Kent County Council will receive from the Carers Grant; and if he will make a statement. [126247]

  Mr. Hutton
  The carers special grant is allocated to local authorities to stimulate the diversity and flexibility of provision that enables carers to have a break from caring. Services funded in this way must be additional to any breaks services previously provided.

  Kent County Council received a carers special grant of £530,713 in 1999–2000 and £1,264,352 in 2000–01.

  These figures are in addition to the figure of approximately £197 million and £207 million which Kent received for the provision of personal social services, in 1999–2000 and in 2000–01 respectively, through the standard spending assessment. This money can also be spent on services which benefit carers.

  Antidepressants
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what quantity of each(a) antidepressant and (b) benzodiazepine was prescribed by doctors in England in 1999. [127967]
  360W
  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Benzodiazepines: number of prescription items dispensed in the community, England, 1999

  Thousand

  Drug group

  Prescription item

  Temazepam

  4,878

  Diazepam

  4,108

  Nitrazepam

  2,210

  Lorazepam

  728

  Chlordiazepoxide

  402

  Oxazepam

  289

  Lormetazepam

  246

  Clonazepam

  231

  Loprazolam

  200

  Clobazam

  85

  Total

  13,378

  Notes:

  1. Data cover all prescriptions dispensed in the community, i.e. by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered. Prescriptions written in hospitals and dispensed in the community are included. Information on items dispensed in hospitals is not available.

  2. Benzodiazepines are contained within British National Formulary paragraphs 4.1.1, hypnotics and 4.1.2, anxiolitics. Also included are benzodiazepines within 4.8.1, drugs used in the control of epilepsy, and 4.8.2, drugs used in status epilepticus, as they are also used for anxiety relief. The therapeutic classifications are based on the British National Formulary No. 38, September 1999 version.

  3. Figures may not add up due to rounding.

  Antidepressants: number of prescription items dispensed in the community, England, 1999

  Thousand

  Drug group

  Prescription item

  Tricyclic and related antidepressant drugs

  Amitriptyline Hydrochloride

  3,712

  Dothiepin Hydrochloride

  3,254

  Lofepramine Hydrochloride

  782

  Clomipramine Hydrochloride

  481

  Trazodone Hydrochloride

  383

  Imipramine Hydrochloride

  362

  Trimipramine Maleate

  249

  Doxepin

  154

  Nortriptyline

  145

  Mianserin Hydrochloride

  62

  Maprotiline Hydrochloride

  17

  Protriptyline Hydrochloride

  9

  Amoxapine

  6

  Amitriptyline Embonate

  2

  Viloxazine Hydrochloride

  1

  Desipramine Hydrochloride

  0

  Total for Tricylic and related antidepressant drugs

  9,619

  Monoamine-Oxidase Inhibitors (Maois)

  Phenelzine Sulphate

  37

  Moclobemide

  36

  Tranylcypromine Sulphate

  33

  Isocarboxazid

  6

  Total for Monoamine-Oxidase Inhibitors (Maois)

  112

  SSRIs and related antidepressants

  Fluoxetine Hydrochloride

  3,437

  Paroxetine Hydrochloride

  3,145

  361W

  Antidepressants: number of prescription items dispensed in the community, England, 1999

  Thousand

  Drug group

  Prescription item

  Citalopram

  1,214

  Sertraline Hydrochloride

  1,088

  Fluvoxamine Maleate

  45

  Total for SSRIs and related antidepressants

  8,929

  Other antidepressant drugs

  Venlafaxine Hydrochloride

  825

  Flupenthixol Hydrochloride

  271

  Mirtazapine

  167

  Nefazodone Hydrochloride

  106

  Reboxetine

  74

  Tryptophan

  5

  Total for other antidepressant drugs

  1,447

  Total for all antidepressant drugs

  20,108

  Notes:

  1. Data cover all prescriptions dispensed in the community, i.e. by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered. Prescriptions written in hospitals and dispensed in the community are included. Information on items dispensed in hospitals is not available.

  2. Antidepressants are contained within the British National Formulary section 4.3, antidepressant drugs. The therapeutic classifications are based on the British National Formulary No. 38, September 1999 version.

  3. For reasons of confidentiality, drug groups where less than 50 prescription items were dispensed are not listed but the information is included in the total.

  4. A "0" indicates less than 500 prescription items.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from Mrs. F. Butler of Augustine Road, Sheppey, dated 3 April. [128473]

  Ms Stuart
  A reply was sent to Mrs. Butler on 7 July.

  Care Accommodation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were living in care accommodation under the provisions of the care in the community legislation on 1 May. [128875]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are not currently held in the form requested. However, the table shows the number of places or registered beds available for people with mental health problems in residential homes or private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics.

  England, as at 31 March 1999

  Number

  Places in residential care homes for people with mental health problems

  38,200

  Of which:

  In Local Authority staffed homes

  3,500

  In Private homes

  23,400

  In Small homes

  2,500

  In Voluntary homes

  —

  Dual registered homes

  2,800

  Registered beds in mental nursing homes

  6,100

  Note:

  Figures may not add because of rounding

  Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the speed of onset and progression of age-related macular degeneration; [128724]

  (2) what guidance he has issued on the assessment of treatment options for age-related macular degeneration; and if he will make a statement; [128725]

  (3) how many cases of age-related macular degeneration can be treated by photodynamic therapy per annum; [128727]

  (4) if he will refer Visudyne to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; [128728]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the efficacy of Visudyne following the publication of the two year clinical trial data; [128729]

  (6) what estimate his Department has made of the possible cost of treating age-related macular degeneration with Visudyne; and if he will make a statement; [128780]

  (7) what steps he has taken to promote the use of Amsler grid tests with GPs to test for age-related macular degeneration; [128781]

  (8) what plans he has to promote the increased use of Amsler grid tests in GP surgeries; [128782]

  (9) if he will make a statement on referral protocols for age-related macular degeneration and Visudyne. [128783]

  Mr. Denham
  It is estimated that age-related macular degeneration (AMD) affects one in 100 people over the age of 75, with some 500,000 people affected overall. There are two major types of AMD: wet and dry. Some 20 per cent. of patients have 'wet' AMD which is sometimes susceptible to laser treatment. Visudyne is a light-activated compound which has been used in a trial of an alternative photodynamic therapy. Visudyne has not yet been approved for use here or in the other countries of the European Union, but the EU Commission is expected to make a final decision on the approval of an application in the next few months. Visudyne is also among the topics we are considering for appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) during the remainder of the current year and in later years. We will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Consideration of the need to review arrangements for screening, including wider use of Amsler grid tests, would follow any consideration by NICE.

  NHS Hearing Aid Services
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the NHS hearing aid services pilot project. [128909]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) on 6 June 2000,Official Report, columns 143–44W.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with(a) relapsing remitting

  363W
  MS and (b) secondary progressive MS receive beta interferon in each health authority area in England. [128697]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available at the level of detail requested. However, we estimate that between 1,700 and 1,800 people in England are currently receiving beta interferon on the National Health Service.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what additional funding has been provided since 1997 to secure provision of NHS dental treatment in Devon and Cornwall; [129207]

  (2) what percentage of the £60 million extra funding for NHS dentistry announced earlier this year (a) has gone and (b) will go towards improving NHS dental treatment in (i) Cornwall and (ii) Devon; [129208]

  (3) what plans he has to provide additional funding for the provision of NHS dental treatment in Devon and Cornwall. [129206]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have already made good progress towards improving access to dental services in Cornwall and Devon. Investing in Dentistry grants amounting to £1,095,165 have been approved in the area in return for promises of up to 110,200 new National Health Service registrations. Since 1998, a dental access centre pilot has been operational in Cornwall and the NHS Executive is currently working with North East Devon and South West Devon Health Authorities to develop two further dental access centres.

  We have accepted in full the recommendations of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body, which include an annual £17 million scheme to reward the loyalty and commitment of NHS dentists in England.

  The NHS Executive wrote on 16 May to all health authority chief executives asking them to tell us whether more needs to be done to improve NHS dentistry in their locality and inviting ideas for potential funding.

  Further initiatives to improve access to services will form part of our plans for modernising NHS dentistry, which will be published this summer in conjunction with the National Plan for the New NHS.

  Ultrasound
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for a non-urgent NHS patient to receive an ultrasound examination for a possible thrombosis in each(a) London hospital and (b) NHS region for each of the years (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [129238]

  Mr. Denham
  The data requested are not collected centrally. We take the issue of delays in diagnosis very seriously. Through such initiatives as the national booked admissions programme, the cancer services collaborative, action on cataracts and action on orthopaedics, we are encouraging hospitals to streamline their services so that tests are carried out, and a diagnosis made, as quickly as possible and with the patient making the minimum number of visits to hospital.

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what payments were made to(a) the Chief Executive and (b) Deputy Chief Executive of Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust upon their resignations; [129415]

  (2) what salary and other remuneration is paid to the former Chief Executive of Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust in his new employment with Avon Health Authority. [129408]

  Ms Stuart
  The severance arrangements agreed between the former chief executive and deputy chief executive and Plymouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust are a confidential matter between the individuals concerned and the trust.

  Avon Health Authority has engaged the former chief executive for a year to develop a strategic framework for acute services in Avon. He is being employed on normal NHS terms and conditions.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many agencies of his Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public; [129633]

  (2) how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems. [129627]

  Ms Stuart
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 439W. The Department's Public Enquiry Office has an automated call handling system that uses touch tone telephone steering. Callers without a touch tone telephone will be automatically diverted to a public enquiry office adviser.

  Coronary Services (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated to coronary services in the Coventry area in the last three years. [129446]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is in the table.

  Spend for Coventry Health Authority on cardio secondary care

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Angiography

  434

  472

  526

  PTCA1

  441

  481

  508

  Cardiac Surge

  1,576

  1,651

  1,786

  Pacemakers

  117

  109

  145

  Outpatient services

  207

  187

  211

  Total

  2,775

  2,900

  3,176

  1Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty

  Note:

  A comprehensive analysis of spending on coronary services would also draw on information regarding primary care, community services, prescribing etc. This form of program budget is being developed in Coventry but is not readily available.

  Source:

  Coventry Health Authority

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress made on his Department's national publicity campaign to tell young people they can talk to health professionals about sex and contraception in confidence; and what funding has been allocated to the campaign. [129253]

  Yvette Cooper
  Our media campaign on teenage pregnancy will begin in autumn 2000, following a period of research into promising approaches by similar campaigns elsewhere. Levels of funding for this current year are to be decided, and for future years will depend on the outcome of the Spending Review.

  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local co-ordinators for teenage pregnancy have been established since the publication of the Social Exclusion Unit report "Teenage Pregnancy", in June 1999. [129256]

  Yvette Cooper
  Every area in England now has a local teenage pregnancy co-ordinator, jointly nominated by the local authority and health authority. In total there are 141 co-ordinators, with some working to social services boundaries and some to health authority boundaries, depending on local circumstances.

  Tranquilliser Addiction
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide funding(a) under section 64 and (b) generally for the Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction. [128329]

  Yvette Cooper
  Although project funding has been provided in the past, the Department has no current plans to fund this organisation under the section 64 scheme or generally in this financial year. The very high level of demand for cash limited funds has resulted in many worthy applications having to be rejected. This does not prelude the Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction from seeking funding in future years.

  The problems of dependence upon tranquillisers have been recognised for many years. In 1994, the Department issued copies of "Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence", published by the Mental Health Foundation, to all health authorities and recommended their use by general practitioners. Various treatments may be offered in general practice or by the specialist mental health services for those who have developed dependence upon tranquillisers.

  Dentists (Pensions)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy towards the pension fund contributions paid by the Treasury for NHS contracted dentists where the agreed increase in payments is phased. [129981]

  Mr. Denham
  Contributions towards the National Health Service pension scheme are based on actual levels of pensionable remuneration. Therefore, where increases have been phased in the past, the amounts paid by way of contributions into the pension scheme by both the employer and employee have been based on the actual pensionable remuneration that was paid.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the resources available to the National Audit Office; and if he will make a statement. [128234]

  Mr. Sheldon
  It is the main concern of the Commission to ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has the right resources to undertake his work. The Commission last met on 2 December 1999 to consider the Supply Estimate for the National Audit Office for 2000–01. The Commission took account of the growing work load of the National Audit Office and recommended additional funding for 2000–01 as a result.

  While the Commission will continue to monitor the situation, I am satisfied that, at present, the current level of funding for this work is adequate and that, were the Comptroller and Auditor-General to need more staff or other resources in the future, he would request extra funding from this House when compiling his annual Supply Estimate.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Conservation Trust
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what support is given by the commissioners to the work of the Church Conservation Trust; and if he will make a statement. [128228]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The work of the Churches Conservation Trust is jointly funded, 30 per cent. by the Church of England and 70 per cent. by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  The Church's share of the Trust's budgeted expenditure for the three years beginning on 1 April 2000 is £3.8 million. This will be met partly from a share of the sale proceeds of redundant churches and partly from the Church Commissioners' own funds.

  Over 330 redundant churches of historic and architectural interest are now maintained by the Churches Conservation Trust, many opening for occasional acts of worship. A full list is available from their offices at 89 Fleet Street.

  Church Repairs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent representations he has received calling for reduced rates of VAT on church repairs; and if he will make a statement. [128230]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I am hopeful that with the persistence of those hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), we shall achieve our goal—that is, reduced rates of VAT on church repairs.
  367W
  The Church continues to make representations on this issue to the Government and has briefed members of the General Synod informally during their current meeting in York.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the steps the commissioners take to involve congregations in the disposal of Church property declared redundant by the Church authorities. [128232]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 12 June 2000,Official Report, column 494W, in which I explained that the procedure for settling the future of redundant Church of England churches gives priority to dioceses seeking and achieving suitable alternative uses.

  Church Buildings
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many church buildings were sold or otherwise disposed of in 1999; and to what uses these buildings have been put. [128233]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  During 1999 the future of 16 redundant churches was settled by appropriation to alternative uses—six for community purposes, five for residential use, two by other Christian congregations, and three for, respectively, arts purposes, as a restaurant and as a shop.

  Stipends
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what proportion of stipends new incumbents may expect to be met by current congregations. [128231]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  In 1999, some 68 per cent. of the national stipends pay bill, excluding the stipends of Bishops, archdeacons and cathedral clergy, was financed by giving. However, the proportion will vary from parish to parish. A large part of the remainder of the bill is met by allocations from the Commissioners, individual grants, fees and glebe and trust income.

  Bishops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what percentage of the Church Commissioners'(a) total and (b) discretionary expenditure was spent on bishops' emoluments, in each year from 1979 to date. [129657]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The costs of bishops' stipends, administrative support (including staff salaries) and (for diocesan bishops) housing are met by the Commissioners. While the level of that support varies between individuals according to their particular resource needs arising, inter alia, from the nature of their ministry, we none the less meet those needs in full, subject to our guidelines and budgetary procedures. It is therefore not possible to isolate a discretionary element in our provision.
  368W
  Our spending on bishops expressed as a proportion of the Commissioners' total expenditure for the years 1979–99 is:

  Year

  Proportion percentage

  1979

  5.9

  1980

  5.8

  1981

  6.5

  1982

  6.6

  1983

  6.6

  1984

  6.1

  1985

  6.0

  1986

  6.2

  1987

  5.9

  1988

  5.8

  1989

  5.8

  1990

  6.2

  1991

  6.8

  1992

  7.2

  1993

  7.4

  1994

  7.9

  1995

  8.7

  1996

  9.3

  1997

  10.2

  1998

  9.3

  1999

  9.5

  From 1990 the Commissioners took on full funding responsibility for suffragan bishops' working costs. The rising proportion during the years in question also partly arises from factors such as developments in IT.

  The expenditure of the Church of England as a whole was £760 million in 1999; the Commissioners' spending represented 2 per cent. of that sum.

  Rents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how much rent is paid by Lady Brentford in respect of her occupancy of the cottage in the grounds of Lambeth Palace. [129831]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  It is not our practice to disclose rents paid by individual tenants. Nonetheless, the rent has been set at a market level on the basis of comparable evidence.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how much rent is paid by Ruth Davy in respect of her occupancy of the Old Palace at Canterbury. [129824]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners know of no occupant at the Old Palace at Canterbury called Ruth Davy. Parts of the property are commercially let; in addition, housing is provided for the Steward at the Old Palace.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many times Ministers in her Department have sought the advice of the Permanent
  369W
  Secretary under the circumstances envisaged in Paragraphs 118, 121 and 123 of the Ministerial Code; and on which occasions such advice was sought. [129176]

  Clare Short
  Neither I, nor my Under-Secretary of State have sought advice from the Permanent Secretary under the circumstances described.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on how many occasions since May 1997 Ministers in her Department have made a declaration of interest to their colleagues under circumstances envisaged in Paragraph 110 of the Ministerial Code. [129165]

  Clare Short
  There have not been any occasions when I or the Under-Secretary of State have made a declaration of interest.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 23 May 2000,Official Report, column 408W, on St. Helena, if she will make representations to the Government of St. Helena about publishing the report on the feasibility of an airstrip. [129214]

  Clare Short
  This is a matter for the Government of St. Helena.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the policy since 1989 on writing annually to those of her Department's staff who are paying reduced rates of National Insurance contributions, reminding them of the rules governing the payment of reduced rates, as recommended in the Inland Revenue guidance note on reduced rate National Insurance contributions for married women. [129484]

  Clare Short
  The Pay and Personnel Agency (PPA), which is an Agency of the Ministry of Defence, has been the payroll provider for the Department for International Development since October 1995.

  The PPA relies upon checking systems at the employee's place of work, the Agency pay office and within computer systems to identify and act upon any changes of circumstances which affect the continuing payment of reduced rate National Insurance contributions. These systems were subjected to an audit in March 1998 by Inland Revenue and Department of Social Security personnel, which included a 100 per cent. check of all staff then paying reduced rates of contributions. No problems were identified with the systems operations.

  It is not the current practice of the PPA or DFID to write annually to officers paying reduced rates of National Insurance contributions.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Shoreditch Magistrates Court
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to renovate and use the former Shoreditch Magistrates Court in Old Street; and if he will make a statement. [129247]
  370W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has no plans to make use of the former magistrates court building in Old Street. This building is owned by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police Service. It is part of the Inner London Courthouse estate, which will be transferred to the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority on 1 April 2001.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions he has had with English Heritage about the future use of the former Shoreditch Magistrates Court in Old Street. [129246]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have had no discussions with English Heritage on the future use of Old Street Magistrates Courthouse.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many times ministers in his Department have sought the advice of the Permanent Secretary under the circumstances envisaged in Paragraphs 118, 121 and 123 of the Ministerial Code; and on which occasions such advice was sought; [129179]

  (2) on how many occasions since May 1997 Ministers in his Department have made a declaration of interest to their colleagues under circumstances envisaged in Paragraph 110 of the Ministerial Code. [129153]

  Mr. Byers
  Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to require the renewables obligation on electricity suppliers to be met by renewable energy generated solely within the United Kingdom by 2010. [129221]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The renewables obligation will require licensed electricity suppliers to supply electricity generated from renewable sources of energy to their customers in Great Britain. Suppliers will be free to purchase this electricity in a competitive market. The Government expect that suppliers will purchase the bulk of their renewable electricity from within the United Kingdom, but it will of course comply with the requirements of European law on access for imported electricity.

  Letters and Packets
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 13 June 2000,Official Report, columns 595–96W, on letters and packets, if he will list, in respect of each change in weights of letter post made under Directive 97/67 of 1997 and its predecessors, the (a) reasons for such change and the amount concerned, (b) date of its coming into force, (c) consideration by Parliament and (d) Minister of the

  371W
  Crown who gave consent to the directive and changes arising from it, giving the reasons for any such changes. [129596]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Directive 97/67 was the first Postal Services Directive passed by the European Commission. It has no predecessors. A memorandum setting out how the Government intended to implement each of the requirements of the EU Directive, including draft postal services regulations, was published for consultation on 8 July 1999. Subsequently, the Postal Services Regulations (S.I. 1999/2107) transposed the Directive into United Kingdom law and amended the Postal Privilege (Suspension Order) 1981/1483 to include the words
  either weighs not less than 350 grams or.
  This had the effect of adding a weight threshold of not less than 350 grams to the existing £1 price threshold in order to be compliant with the Directive. The price threshold was already within the limit required by the Directive of five times public tariff for an item of correspondence in the first weight step of the fastest standard category. The Statutory Instrument was laid before Parliament on 27 July 1999 and came into force on 1 September 1999. The Minister responsible for postal issues at that time was my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.

  Post Office Network
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to pay subsidies to post offices before 2003. [129417]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]I refer the hon. Member to my statement and subsequent exchanges on 28 June 2000,Official Report, columns 907–20 and the PIU report also published on 28 June, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure that each sub-post office will be entitled to offer the full range of Post Office and contracted Government services subject to the commercial decisions of the sub-postmaster involved. [128753]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In his statement on 28 June 2000,Official Report, columns 907–20, on the Post Office network, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a range of proposals and measures designed to modernise and sustain the post office network. Among them were proposals to develop new areas of business facilitated by the installation of a modern on-line computer system in every office throughout the country. Certain services are likely to remain restricted to a proportion of the network because of the client's requirement for cost-effectiveness in selecting channels for the delivery of their services.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Universal bank will be required to provide banking services to any applicant irrespective of financial status. [128752]
  372W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Post Office is developing plans, in conjunction with the high street banks, for the Universal Bank. It is intended that the Universal bank should cater for as wide a range of customers as possible, bringing many more people into the financial mainstream.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the services of the proposed Universal bank in sub-post offices will differ from those provided by the Alliance and Leicester Girobank. [129988]

  Mr. Byers
  Alliance and Leicester Girobank offer a full range of banking services. The Universal bank is intended to cater for a wide range of people currently outside the financial mainstream and will therefore offer basic bank accounts without overdraft or borrowing facilities.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to publish a business plan for the Universal bank in sub-post offices. [129987]

  Mr. Byers
  The business plan for developing and operating a Universal bank service at post offices will be a commercially confidential document.

  Benefit Payments (ACT)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if claimants who wish to receive their benefits in cash, and who have no other bank account, will be required to open a new Universal bank account under the Government's proposals for switching benefit payments to ACT. [129605]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  From 2003, the normal method of paying benefits and pensions will be directly into bank or building society accounts. Those who wish to collect their benefits in cash from the post office after 2003 will still be able to do so.

  The establishment of the Universal bank will provide the means for any recipient to have an account for benefits to be paid into, and accessed across a post office counter using a card rather than a benefit book. However, we also recognise that there may still be a small number of people and payments which the Benefits Agency will be unable to pay by ACT. For these, we are considering what alterative simple money transmission system, which could be accessed by post offices, may be commercially available.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to help small businesses minimise the impact of regulations dealing with(a) parental leave and (b) working time regulations. [129950]

  Ms Hewitt
  Officials consulted widely with business and business organisations, and implemented parental leave regulation with a light touch to ensure that they were fair to both employers and employees. To help people understand and adapt to the new regulations, the Department of Trade and Industry has produced clear and detailed guidance material. My right hon. Friend is leading a review of maternity pay and parental leave, and it will consider as part of its remit whether it is possible further to simplify legislation in this area.
  373W
  The Working Time Regulations implemented the Working Time Directive in the UK so as to balance the proper protection of workers with minimising burdens on business. The 1999 amendments to the Regulations both simplified the record-keeping requirements and provided for the provision of statutory guidance.

  Guidance on both parental leave and working time is available in hard copy or on the DTI internet site www.dti.gov.uk/er

  Horizon Project
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the decision by the Post Office to write off the cost of the Horizon Project was taken in the knowledge of the Government's plans for a Universal bank in sub-post offices. [129986]

  Mr. Byers
  The Post Office decision was taken solely in the context of Financial reporting Standard 11.

  Euro Policy
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department was made aware of the leaking of the document from the head of the Invest in Britain Bureau relating to the Government's euro policy; and if he will take steps to establish how this document was made public. [129443]

  Mr. Byers
  On 2 July. An investigation is under way.

  Foreign Investment
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the trend in the level of foreign direct investment into the UK since January 1999. [129445]

  Mr. Caborn
  On 5 July, Invest UK (formerly the Invest in Britain Bureau), announced at its Annual Review another record year for attracting inward investment projects into the UK. Between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000, Invest UK recorded 757 inward investment decisions to locate in the UK by foreign-owned companies, with some 52,783 associated new jobs over the next three years.

  Figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 29 June showed that at the end of the first quarter 2000 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) stock in the UK had risen to £252.4 billion—up 23 per cent. compared with a year earlier.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements apply to end users of armaments(a) sold and (b) transferred by the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement. [129308]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  Most defence exports to Saudi Arabia are organised under Government-to-Government arrangements. I am unable to disclose specific details of these arrangements under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, but I can say that it is normal
  374W
  practice to include a clause in the Memoranda of Understanding which prohibits the transfer of material to third parties without the approval of the UK Government.

  For exports not covered by Government-to-Government arrangements, the risk of diversion to third parties is taken into account in considering export licence applications.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on ministerial transport in each of the last two years. [98720]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 1 December 1999,Official Report, columns 255–56W. In addition, the Ministry of Defence, spent in 1997–98 £174,836 and in 1998–99 £179,707, on transport services for Ministers.

  Queen Mother (100th Birthday)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much public money has been spent on commemorations for HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's 100th birthday. [127909]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 28 June 2000]: The main event to mark Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's 100th Birthday will be a Service of Thanksgiving to be held at St. Paul's Cathedral on 11 July, and a Pageant to be held on Horse Guards on 19 July. Events to mark Her Majesty's Birthday on 4 August have yet to be announced.

  Significant costs are likely to arise only from the Pageant on 19 July, which is being funded primarily from private sources. There will be some additional incidental costs borne by the Ministry of Defence. The actual additional cost of this, and of the other events, could be identified only when they have taken place.

  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Commissioner of Police for the City of London that no identifiable costs have yet been incurred by the Metropolitan police service and the City of London police.

  Costs to the Royal Parks Agency as a result of the Pageant will be identifiable only following the event.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of his proposals for DERA on the number of staff employed by private companies at the DERA base at West Freugh. [128284]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which Sir John Chisholm, Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA give him on 29 June 2000,Official Report, column 593W.

  Under our current proposals, we envisage that the capabilities provided by West Freugh will form part of the NewDERA company. It is, therefore, likely that the

  375W
  DERA staff at West Freugh would transfer to the private sector. The status of other staff at DERA West Freugh will continue unchanged.

  We are confident that our proposals will secure a long-term future for both NewDERA and those elements to be retained within the Ministry of Defence, which should have a positive impact on job prospects. In addition, the new freedoms proposed for NewDERA will open up a range of commercial opportunities not previously available and help secure jobs in the longer term.

  No final decisions on the PPP will be taken until all the inputs received during the consultation exercise, which ended on 9 June, have been fully analysed. We hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the way ahead for DERA before the summer recess.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many departmental telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by interactive voice response systems; [127399]

  (2) how many agencies of his Department use interactive voice response systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public; [127407]

  (3) how many agencies of his Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public; [129631]

  (4) how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems. [129629]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Former Civil Servants
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the posts assumed by the 14 officials who have notified his Department that they have taken up appointments in the private sector. [129012]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is as follows:

  Name

  Appointment

  Date taken up

  Field Marshal The Lord Inge GCB DL

  Consultant, British Aerospace

  January 1998

  Non-executive Director, Greenley's

  July 1998

  Consultant, Sedgwick Group

  November 1998

  Consultant, Short

  Sir Moray Stewart KCB

  Brothers plc

  February 1998

  Air Marshal Sir Michael Graydon GCB CBE

  Consultant, Willis Coroon Hinton

  April 1998

  Non-executive Director, Thomson (UK) Holdings

  January 1999

  Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten GBE CB AFC

  Chief Military Adviser, Rolls Royce Military Aero Engines

  May 1998

  Air Marshal Sir Roger Austin KCB AFC

  Fellow of Strategic Forum SERCO Defence

  June 1998

  Professor Sir David Davies CBE

  Non-executive Director, ERA Technology

  October 1998

  Member of the Strategy Board, British Aerospace Virtual University

  December 1999

  376W

  Name

  Appointment

  Date taken up

  Sir Charles Masefield

  Vice-chairman, GEC

  December 1998

  Air Marshal G Robertson CBE

  Military Adviser, British Aerospace plc

  March 1999

  Group Head of Strategic Analysis, British

  Mr. M. J. V. Bell CB

  Aerospace plc

  April 1999

  Non-executive Director,

  Admiral Sir Jock Slater, GCB LVO

  Vosper Thornycroft Holdings plc

  July 1999

  Senior Military Advisor, Lockheed-Martin

  January 2000

  Lieutenant General Sir Robert Hayman-Joyce KCB CBE

  Non-executive Director, Comax

  September 1999

  Consultant, Surestock

  Air Marshal I. D. MacFadyen CB OBE

  Health Services (Unipart Group)

  November 1999

  Group Managing

  Air Marshal Sir Colin Terry KBE CB

  Director, Inflite Engineering Service Ltd.

  November 1999

  Admiral Sir John Brigstock KCB

  Chief Executive, St. Andrew's Hospital Trust

  April 2000

  Information about applications approved by the Prime Minister under the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants is published in the annual reports of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to amend the rules that apply to senior officials from his Department joining private sector companies. [129014]

  Dr. Moonie
  The rules on the acceptance of outside appointments are set out in the Civil Service Management Code and apply to Crown servants in all Government Departments. The Defence Secretary has no plans to propose any changes to them.

  SA80 Rifle
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 June 2000,Official Report, column 319W, if the modified SA80 rifle will be added to the NATO Nominated Weapons List. [128771]

  Dr. Moonie
  In 1997, the SA80 was suspended from the NATO Nominated Weapons list, the list of those weapons used for testing ammunition that is seeking NATO qualification. Once modified, the SA80 will be re-assessed and should be re-admitted to this list.

  Defence Housing Executive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when empty Defence Housing Executive accommodation in Leeming will be placed on the market; and if he will make a statement. [129096]

  Dr. Moonie
  Twenty empty properties in Leeming Village were handed back to the owners, Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL), on 26 June. It is, of course, for the owners to decide how to dispose of these properties but they are likely to be sold privately through a nominated agent. It is probable that 10 of the remaining properties in Leeming will be part of a future release but they are currently subject to planning and approval processes and a number of them are occupied.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for his Department and its agencies the approved list of manufacturers of(a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles; and if he will make a statement on his Department's leasing and purchasing policy. [128984]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not operate an approved list of manufacturers of cars or commercial vehicles. The supplier is normally selected through competition. The Department's policy is to seek the best value for money and this will determine whether we purchase or lease vehicles in specific cases. However, management of cars and commercial vehicles is not core MOD business and as a consequence the Department is actively pursuing the provision of vehicle and support services through a competitively let Private Finance Initiative contract. It will be for the contractor to determine the type and mix of vehicles to provide the necessary service.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions since May 1997 Ministers in his Department have made a declaration of interest to their colleagues under circumstances envisaged in Paragraph 110 of the Ministerial Code; [129159]

  (2) if he will list the occasions since May 1997 on which Ministers in his Department have sought the advice of the Permanent Secretary under the circumstances envisaged in paragraphs 118, 121 or 123 of the Ministerial Code; [129106]

  (3) if he will list the occasions since May 1997 on which Ministers in his Department have sought the advice of the Permanent Secretary under the circumstances envisaged in paragraphs 118, 121 or 123 of the Ministerial Code. [129178]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Married Quarters (Arborfield)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason surplus married quarters at Arborfield were not disposed of on the open market; and if he will make a statement. [129245]

  Dr. Moonie
  The properties at Arborfield were included in the sale, on a 999 year lease, of most of the Service Families Quarters in England and Wales to Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) in November 1996. At that time there was a requirement for the properties to house Service families and they were underleased back from AHL. The properties have since been declared surplus to Service requirements and, under the terms of the sale agreement a total of 105 have been handed back to AHL. The option of sale on the open market is therefore a matter for the owners, AHL.

  Cyber-warfare
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed cyber-warfare unit, identifying its proposed size and detailed costs. [129283]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: There are no plans to establish a cyber-warfare unit in the Ministry of Defence.

  Church Fenton Airfield
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what environmental appraisal has been conducted regarding his Department's plans to secure planning permission for housing on Church Fenton airfield. [129815]

  Dr. Moonie
  To date it has been premature to discuss the issue of environmental appraisals with Selby District Council (SDC). The Ministry of Defence, or the site's eventual developer, will, prior to the submission of any planning application(s), liaise with SDC over the provision of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for those aspects of the development for which one may be required under planning/environmental legislation.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what environmental and conservation bodies have been consulted by his Department in connection with its plans to secure planning permission for housing on Church Fenton airfield. [129814]

  Dr. Moonie
  Under the Town and Country Planning legislation it is the duty of the local planning authority (LPA) to consult with environmental and conservation bodies, where necessary, over any applications for development. It is not known what consultations Selby District Council have undertaken in respect of RAF Church Fenton. It would be premature for us to initiate these discussions as our plans are being tested at the Local Plan Inquiry.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations his Department has had with local parish councils regarding his Department's proposal to secure planning permission for housing on Church Fenton Airfield. [129830]

  Dr. Moonie
  Under the Town and Country Planning Acts it is an obligation of the local planning authority (LPA) to consult with the parish councils once they receive a planning application for redevelopment. In August 1998, my Department submitted an application for redevelopment of part of the Church Fenton site and the LPA should have consulted the parish councils. Their response is not known. We subsequently agreed to hold any decision on that application in abeyance until the result of the current Local Plan Inquiry was known. As for our submissions to, and appearance at, the Local Plan Inquiry, the local parish councils would have been part of the LPA's consultation process throughout the preparation of the plan. However, they were also specifically advised of our proposals by letter from our planning consultants in early June of this year.

  Departmental News Director
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what civil service grade is held by the Director
  379W
  of News, Mr. Martin Howard; what civil service post was held by Mr. Howard prior to his appointment as Director of News, who the previous holder of the position of Director of News was; and what Mr. Howard's job description is as Director of News. [129829]

  Dr. Moonie
  Mr. Martin Howard is a member of the senior civil service. His previous appointment was in the Ministry of Defence as Head of the Overseas Secretariat. The previous incumbent of the post of Director of News was Ms Oona Muirhead, also a senior civil servant. The role of Director of News is to act as the official spokesman of the Ministry of Defence and to identify media opportunities for promoting the key themes of the Defence Mission proactively, effectively and consistently.

  Journalists (Meetings)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the journalists he has had meetings with at his Department since December 1999; and on what dates these meetings were held. [129828]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been interviewed by the following journalists and broadcasters at the Ministry of Defence since December 1999:

  Interviewer

  Date

  Ian Kirby (News of the World)

  6 January 2000

  Alex Nicholl (Financial Times)

  1 March 2000

  Peter Ryan (Economist)

  2 March 2000

  Lucy Jackson (British Forces Broadcasting Service)

  21 March 2000

  News piece1(BBC TV News)

  23 March 2000

  Anita Anand (Zee TV)

  4 April 2000

  Richard Norton-Taylor (The Guardian)

  17 April 2000

  Tim Sebastian (BBC Hardtalk)

  8 May 2000

  Jon Craig (Express on Sunday)

  5 July 2000

  1Interviewer name not recorded

  In addition, I have had a number of door-step interviews at the MOD with various different broadcast news teams, particularly during May and June when a large number of British troops were deployed to Sierra Leone.

  I have also hosted the following press conferences to which a wide range of journalists and broadcasters have been invited:

  Press conference subject

  Date

  Announcement of Eurofighter missile and heavy lift aircraft procurement decisions

  16 May 2000

  Launch of Defence Estates Strategy

  7 June 2000

  Military Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidents there were in which deceased aircrew were found guilty of gross negligence in aircraft that were not fitted with cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders since 1980; and what proportion of accidents involving military aircraft this represented. [108491]
  380W
  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to the reply, 7 February 2000, c. 31W]: I regret that there was an error in the information given. The answer provided was based on an examination of aircraft summaries rather than the original Board of Inquiry reports.

  We have now completed a detailed check of the Board of Inquiry reports of the military aircraft accidents from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 1999. There were 486 aircraft accidents and a further 51 personal injury cases involving aircraft within this period. Of the 486 accidents, 317 occurred in the first 10 years. In 20 of the accidents, findings for gross, culpable or serious negligence were made against deceased aircrew in aircraft not fitted with cockpit voice recorders and accident data recorders; 16 of the cases occurred in the first 10 years.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Tax Credits
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households would be taken off(a) Housing Benefit and (b) Council Tax Benefit in each tenure category if a flat rate housing allowance was introduced for recipients of Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Persons Tax Credit at (i) £10, (ii) £15, (iii) £20, (iv) £25 and (v) £30 per week. [125412]

  Angela Eagle
  Precise estimates cannot be made because of the uncertain behavioural effects that would result from the introduction of such an allowance. However, we estimate that introducing a flat rate housing allowance of £30 per week for all recipients of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) would move some claimants off Housing Benefit (HB) in Great Britain in a full year. Assuming that eligible rent in Housing Benefit is reduced by the amount of the housing allowance, the estimated numbers moving off benefit is dependent on the way in which the extra income is treated in the assessment of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (CTB). The following table gives estimated results based upon either disregarding the housing allowance as income so that claimants do not lose in net income terms:

  Estimated number of claimants who would be taken-off benefit in 2000–01 under the proposed £30 housing allowance

  Thousand

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Housing allowance disregarded

  140

  0

  Housing allowance assessed as income

  170

  90

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the Family Resources Survey.

  2. There is currently no administrative data to link WFTC receipt with HB or CTB, so estimates based solely on household survey data should be treated as illustrative only.

  3. This household sample does not have an adequate sample size or the necessary information on disability to be able to produce corresponding estimates for Disabled Persons Tax Credit. The reduction in the number of recipients of Housing Benefit as a result of introducing the allowance for recipients of Disabled Persons Tax Credit is, however, likely to be small.

  4. Some cases taken-off Housing Benefit may also be among those taken off Council Tax Benefit, so totals cannot be summed.

  5. Separate estimate for each tenure category are not available.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what would be the gross and net costs of introducing a flat rate housing allowance to single people under retirement age currently in receipt of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit if such an allowance was set at(a) £10, (b) £15, (c) £20, (d) £25 and (e) £30; how many people would be entitled to such an allowance and how many people would be taken off Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit completely in each category (a) to (e); [125413]

  (2) if he will estimate the net costs of a flat rate housing allowance, assuming savings on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, if such an allowance was set at (a) £10 per week, (b) £15 per week, (c) £20 per week, (d) £25 per week and (e) £30 per week. [125410]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available as introducing a flat rate housing allowance would need to be considered in the context of the employment tax credit. As set out in chapter 3 of the Treasury paper "Tackling Poverty and Making Work Pay—Tax Credits for the 21stCentury", we will extend the principle of the Working Families Tax Credit to people without children. The detailed design parameters of the new credits have yet to be finalised.

  Pensions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be without any pension entitlement on retirement in(a) 2000 and (b) each five year period thereafter to 2050; and if he will make a statement. [127837]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are working towards a system which will ensure that no one will retire without a pension entitlement.

  Minimum Funding Requirement
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 2000,Official Report, column 533W, on the minimum funding requirement, which organisations he will be considering representations from; when he will make public the report from the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries; and if he will make a statement. [129213]

  Mr. Rooker
  We intend to publish the report from the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries alongside a consultation document on any proposals for change arising from the review of the minimum funding requirement. We will consider all representations that we receive in response to the consultation.

  Disability and Carers Benefits Directorate
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the practice of the Director of the Disability and Carers Benefits Directorate in replying to letters from hon. Members writing on behalf of constituents; and if he personally signs such replies. [130008]
  382W
  Mr. Bayley
  When letters are received from hon. Members, acknowledgements are issued on the day of receipt with a commitment to respond fully within 10 working days. This is in line with the Secretary of State's targets for answering correspondence.

  The Director of the Disability and Carer Benefits Directorate personally signs replies unless he is unavailable. A nominated deputy will then reply on his behalf.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have taken place in staff and premises since the ending of family credit; and what future changes are planned. [130007]

  Angela Eagle
  Family Credit was centralised in the North West. Working Families Tax Credit replaced Family Credit from 5 October 1999. At the time, the majority of staff transferred to the Inland Revenue and they continued to use the same premises.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what average time was taken from receipt of application to payment of benefit for family credit; and what was the average number of cases outstanding over the last year of its operation. [130004]

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

  Information on clearance targets

  Percentage

  Target

  Achievement against target (April 1999 to September 1999)

  60 per cent. of applications settled within 13 working days

  83.7

  95 per cent. of applications settled within 42 working days

  98.9

  90 per cent. of "express" applications settled within five working days

  90.1

  The average number of Family Credit cases outstanding in Great Britain during year ending September 1999 was 42,000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on(a) the level of farm gate milk prices and (b) the milk industry, since the breaking up of Milk Marque. [126932]

  Ms Quin
  The Government recognise the considerable problems currently facing the dairy industry, where a combination of factors have reduced milk prices and had a consequential effect on incomes in the sector over the past two years. It is difficult to predict how the creation of the Milk Marque successor companies will affect milk prices in the longer term. Much will depend on the way in which the new companies are run as well as other
  383W
  factors, such as the sterling/euro exchange rate. It should also be noted that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has announced that the successors to Milk Marque will be able to become involved in processing.

  Organic Farmers
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of Government regulation on Britain's organic farmers. [127167]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government seek to minimise regulatory burdens where possible and consults the industry on their impact. Standards for organic farming are contained in Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91. Additionally, the private sector bodies that certify organic farmers are able if they wish to impose standards which go further, and some do. Rigorous production controls are important if public confidence in organic food is to be maintained. It is for producers to decide with which certifier they wish to register.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the PFI contracts entered into by his Department, indicating(a) their dates of commencement, (b) their value, (c) if they have been subject to refinancing and (d) if his Department has a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing. [129044]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF is responsible for reporting on the PFI/PPP contract let by the Environment Agency in respect of the Pevensey Bay Sea Defences.

  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Date of Commencement—1 June 2000

  (b) Contract Value—No private sector capital expenditure will be made throughout the life of the contract.

  (c) Subject to refinancing—No

  (d) Is there a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing?—No

  Crop Contamination
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will compensate organic farmers whose crops and organic status are at risk from contamination by GMOs. [128594]

  Mr. Morley
  No. Any issue of liability in these circumstances would be a private law matter between the farmer and the person who caused the problem, and farmers would have to take advice on their individual circumstances.

  Rod-caught Fish
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of angler-caught(a) salmon, (b) grilse and (c) sea trout caught in England in each of the last five years; and what his estimate is of the number of each of these three categories of fish taken by seals in English waters in each of these years. [128827]
  384W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: The table sets out the figures for rod-caught salmon, grilse and sea trout caught in England in the last five years. The figures include fish caught and released.

  Declared rod catch for English waters

  Year

  Salmon1

  Grilse1

  Sea trout

  1995

  3,202

  8,658

  16,581

  1996

  4,066

  7,910

  16,562

  1997

  2,441

  6,984

  16,228

  1998

  2,152

  10,619

  23,911

  19992

  2,686

  6,449

  22,209

  1Numbers of salmon and grilse estimated from age/weight keys and the size distribution of fish caught in principal salmon rivers

  2Provisional figures

  No estimate is available of the number of these species of fish taken by seals in English waters. The predominant species targeted by seals are known to be cod, whiting and sandeels. Nationally, salmon, grilse and sea trout form a very small part of seal diet.

  Drift Net Fishery
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his estimate is of the number of(a) salmon, (b) grilse and (c) sea trout taken by the North East drift net fishery in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what his estimate is of the number and percentage of these fish which were bound for Scottish rivers, indicating also his estimate of the number and percentage which were bound for the River Tweed and its tributaries. [128826]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: The table sets out the figures for salmon, grilse and sea trout taken by drift nets in the North East coast fishery in each of the last five years.

  Year

  Salmon

  Grilse

  Sea trout

  1995

  19,101

  28,904

  29,521

  1996

  7,465

  7,707

  13,225

  1997

  6,305

  12,936

  12,387

  1998

  5,985

  11,343

  11,339

  1999

  8,523

  16,289

  15,059

  No precise estimates are available for the proportion of these fish that were bound for Scottish rivers or the River Tweed and its tributaries. However, a joint MAFF and Scottish Office report on "Salmon Net Fishers" (1991) estimated that 80 per cent. of the salmon and grilse taken by the total North East coast fishery in 1987–88 were bound for Scottish rivers and that 40 per cent. were bound for the Tweed. The "Report of the Technical Working Group on the English North East Coast Salmon Fishery" (1997) suggested that up to 50 per cent. of the sea trout caught in the North East coast fishery may be bound for Scottish rivers, the majority of these to the Tweed. Based on the above approximate percentages, the estimated numbers of salmon, grilse and sea trout caught in the North East coast fishery in the past five years that were bound for Scottish rivers and the River Tweed and its tributaries are given in the table.
  385W

  Year

  Salmon

  Grilse

  Sea trout

  Scottish rivers

  1995

  15,281

  23,123

  14,761

  1996

  5,972

  6,166

  6,613

  1997

  5,044

  10,349

  6,194

  1998

  4,788

  9,074

  5,670

  1999

  6,818

  13,031

  7,530

  River Tweed and its tributaries

  1995

  7,640

  11,562

  14,761

  1996

  2,986

  3,083

  6,613

  1997

  2,522

  5,174

  6,194

  1998

  2,394

  4,537

  5,670

  1999

  3,409

  6,516

  7,530

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which overseas countries supplied the United Kingdom during the last 12 months with(a) beef and (b) lamb for human consumption; what quantities were imported; and if he will make a statement. [129504]

  Ms Quin
  The table lists the countries supplying beef and lamb products to the UK, for human consumption, from May 1999–April 2000 as recorded by the Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Lamb and Lamb Products

  Country

  Tonnes

  New Zealand

  99,892

  Australia

  12,581

  Netherlands

  4,896

  Irish Republic

  3,653

  Uruguay

  1,296

  France

  1,097

  Spain

  1,010

  Germany

  656

  Belgium

  264

  Chile

  256

  Denmark

  152

  Argentina

  67

  Other

  86

  Grand Total

  125,905

  Beef and Beef Products

  Country

  Tonnes

  Irish Republic

  99,801

  Brazil

  66,101

  Netherlands

  12,578

  Uruguay

  9,614

  Argentina

  8,611

  France

  7,221

  Australia

  6,733

  Namibia

  6,692

  Zimbabwe

  6,292

  Botswana

  5,428

  Germany

  2,926

  Denmark

  2,720

  Belgium

  2,017

  Spain

  1,767

  New Zealand

  1,330

  Mauritius

  714

  Italy

  615

  Sweden

  536

  Swaziland

  421

  386W

  Beef and Beef Products

  Country

  Tonnes

  South Africa

  381

  USA

  214

  Other

  186

  Total

  242,900

  Note:

  The data are provisional and subject to amendment

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the process of rendering animal carcases in destroying prions. [129646]

  Ms Quin
  The UK has evaluated historical rendering practices by jointly funding, along with the European Commission and European Renderers Association, research work on the effectiveness of rendering systems in inactivating both sheep scrapie and BSE. Both studies have subsequently been published as indicated below, and resulted in consequential changes to European legislation on processing standards.
  References:
  Taylor D. M. Woodgate S. L. and Atkinson M. J. Inactivation of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent by rendering procedures. Vet Rec (1995) 137 605–610.
  Taylor D. M. Woodgate S. L. Fleetwood A. J. and Cawthorne R. J. G. Effect of rendering procedures on the scrapie agent. Vet Rec (1997) 141 643–649.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has evaluated into the effect of the use of the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos on the health of children; what uses are authorised; and at what thresholds. [129993]

  Ms Quin
  Both the UK and EU systems for regulating pesticides contain routine review programmes of older pesticides to ensure they meet current safety standards. Chlorpyrifos is presently under review in both the UK and EU review programmes. Both reviews have required the submission of data and research studies by companies wishing to support the compound.

  For the UK review 171 toxicology and metabolism studies relevant to the risk posed by chlorpyrifos to the health of people, including children, have been submitted. The Government's scientific evaluation of these studies is currently being examined by the independent experts of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) and the Food Standards Agency. Once the Committee's review has been completed, in line with normal practice, a detailed evaluation document listing the studies evaluated and setting out the assessment made by the ACP will be made publicly available.

  The European Commission has yet to reach a decision on the European status of chlorpyrifos. The initial evaluation of the safety of the compound carried out by Spain for the Commission is currently being peer reviewed by the relevant experts in the EU member states. The European Commission's review report on

  387W
  chlorpyrifos will be made available to the public once a final decision on the EU status of chlorpyrifos as a pesticide has been taken.

  I will write to the hon. Member with the details of the crops, maximum individual doses and maximum number of treatments for those products containing chlorpyrifos approved for use in agriculture, horticulture and amenity use and place copies of my letter in the House Libraries.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much Forestry Commission land has been sold in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [R] [128043]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 June 2000]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its Chief Executive, Dr. Bob McIntosh, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Colin Breed, dated July 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the areas of Forestry Commission land sold in each of the last 10 years.
  The following table shows the areas, in hectares, of both forest land and other land sold by the Commission throughout Great Britain.

  To year ending 31 March

  Forest Land

  Buildings and other land

  Total

  1990

  5,559

  2,292

  7,851

  1991

  4,770

  2,658

  7,428

  1992

  6,263

  648

  6,911

  1993

  6,827

  3,762

  10,589

  1994

  14,419

  531

  14,950

  1995

  10,014

  794

  10,808

  1996

  8,217

  871

  9,088

  1997

  9,605

  1,237

  10,842

  1998

  10,756

  1,886

  12,642

  1999

  4,261

  1,493

  5,754

  The Government stopped the large scale sales of forest land by the Commission when they took up office in May 1997. The Commission may now only sell agricultural land, land associated with houses and other buildings, unplantable land and relatively small and isolated blocks of forest land which do not make a significant contribution to its objective and which are surplus to its requirements. The Commission may also sell areas for development where this is in the public interest. Areas of forest land which are important for public access will not be sold unless an access agreement is in place.

  Most of the sales in 1997 and 1998 were agreed before May 1997.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the PFI contracts entered into by his Department, indicating(a) their dates of commencement, (b) their value, (c) if they have been subject to refinancing and (d) if his Department has a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing. [129049]
  388W
  Mr. Hain
  The FCO has three significant PFI contracts:Lease Plan Cars (Public Private Partnership PPP deal)—lease and operate vehicle fleet—value dependent on the number of posts taking up lease-plan option—1996. The lease-plan deal is a PPP arrangement and is not structured in the manner of a standard PFI contract.
  Minerva—record retrieval software—value £1.62 million (net presentive value n.p.v.)—1997. The Minerva contract has not been subject to re-financing.
  FTN—FCO telecommunications network—value £106 million (n.p.v.)—May 2000.
  Berlin—build and operate new Embassy—value £49.8 million (n.p.v.)—June 2000.

  Both the Berlin and FTN contracts have only recently commenced.

  The FCO does not have a "claw-back" entitlement built in to existing PFI contracts.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the BBC World Service online website and its development. [129602]

  Mr. Hain
  The BBC World Service websites currently receive about 25 million page impressions and audio listens a month. We support the World Service's ambition to develop its online services further, including in some vernacular languages into fully multimedia sites. Provision for the development of such services has been included in the FCO's bid on behalf of the World Service under the 2000 Spending Review.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many agencies of his Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [129640]

  Mr. Battle
  None.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems. [129622]

  Mr. Battle
  Two.

  Moluccas
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek the establishment of an international fact-finding mission to undertake an impartial investigation into the atrocities in the Moluccas. [129456]

  Mr. Battle
  We have been deeply disturbed by reports of escalating violence in Maluku. But a solution cannot be imposed from outside. Diplomatic efforts are now focused on pressing the Indonesian Government to take urgent and effective action. I discussed the issue with the Indonesian Ambassador on 3 July. The Head of the Diplomatic Service raised our concerns directly with President Wahid in Jakarta on 4 July. We and others are continuing to urge the Indonesian authorities to redouble their efforts.
  389W
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia in respect of the intimidation of Moluccan Christians. [128332]

  Mr. Battle
  We have been deeply disturbed by reports of escalating violence in Maluku. I discussed the issued with the Indonesian Ambassador on 3 July. The Head of the Diplomatic Service raised our concerns directly with President Wahid in Jakarta on 4 July. We and others are continuing to urge the Indonesian authorities to redouble efforts. The UK has seconded a specialist to work with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to establish mechanisms for managing the international humanitarian response. UNDP dispatched a Humanitarian Co-ordinator on a one week needs assessment visit to Maluku on 9 July.

  European Regulations and Directives
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 2000,Official Report, column 701W, on European directives and regulations, how access to the Celex Database can be obtained; and from what source the information it contains originates. [129610]

  Mr. Vaz
  Access to the Celex Database can be obtained either by CDROM or via the internet. The information contained in the Database is provided by the European Commission and originates primarily from the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Iran
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Iran regarding the verdict in the trial of the Jews from Shiraz. [129495]

  Mr. Hain
  We have made clear to the Iranian authorities our deep concern at the verdicts and sentences passed on 10 Jews and two Muslims on 1 July. We have done so through a public statement issued on 1 July, and on 5 July, both through our Ambassador in Tehran, and here with the Iranian Ambassador to London.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Iranian Government on human rights in that country; and if he will make a statement. [129514]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: We and our EU partners regularly press the Iranian authorities over our concerns about certain human rights issues in Iran. On each of the three occasions that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met his Iranian counterpart Dr. Kamal Kharrazi, human rights have featured prominently in their discussions. I too discussed our concerns with Deputy Foreign Minister Sarmadi during his visit to the UK in March.

  In addition, we regularly raise our concerns through our Ambassador in Tehran and the Iranian Ambassador to London.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what talks he has had with human rights organisations regarding the sentencing of the Iranian Jews convicted of espionage. [129675]
  390W
  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: We have maintained regular contact with a number of concerned organisations, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Inter-Parliamentary Council Against Anti-Semitism on this case.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Iran. [129676]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: We will be consulting with the Iranian authorities to arrange mutually convenient dates for a visit.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact he has had with other EU Governments regarding the sentencing of the Iranian Jews for espionage. [129677]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: We and our EU partners have been in regular contact throughout the detention and subsequent trial on espionage charges of the 13 members of the Shiraz Jewish community and eight Muslims. A statement expressing the deep concern of all EU member states at the sentencing of 10 of the Jewish defendants and two of the Muslim defendants was issued shortly after the verdicts were announced on 1 July.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iranian Government following the sentencing of the Iranian Jews. [129715]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: We have made clear to the Iranian authorities our deep concern at the verdicts and sentences passed on 10 Jews and two Muslims on 1 July. We have done so through a public statement issued on 1 July, and on 5 July, both through our Ambassador in Tehran, and here with the Iranian Ambassador to London.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Pakistan concerning the timetable for the return to democracy. [129592]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on 27 June 2000,Official Report, columns 446–47W.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his role in formulating the first draft of the Charter of Fundamental Rights at the start of the German Presidency of the Council of Ministers; and if he will deposit the text of that draft in the Library. [129821]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) (the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office) gave him on 17 June 1999,Official Report, column 226W.
  391W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he first was informed of the interest shown by the German Presidency of the Council of Ministers in the formulation of a Charter of Fundamental Rights. [129922]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 405W.

  India
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Indian Government concerning the recent violence against Christians in India. [129661]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns over attacks on religious minorities with the Indian Home Minister, L. K. Advani, during this visit to London in June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also discussed freedom of religion with the Indian Minister for External Affairs, Jaswant Singh, during his visit to India in April. We will continue to make our concerns known.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received of attacks on Christians and their places of worship in(a) Uttar Pradesh, (b) Andhra Pradesh, (c) Karnataka and (d) Goa in India. [129520]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: We are aware of attacks on Christians in India, including the murder of a Brother George Kuzhikandham in Uttar Pradesh and the bomb attacks on churches in Karnataka, Goa and Andhra Pradesh in June. We regularly raise our concerns over incidents of religious intolerance with the Indian Government. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the Bill in Uttar Pradesh introducing restrictions on the use and construction of places of worship in India; and what representations he has made to the Indian Government. [129710]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: We are aware of the Uttar Pradesh Religious Places Bill. Although we have not discussed the Bill with the Indian Government, we have regularly raised our concerns over incidents of religious intolerance in India. The Indian authorities can be in no doubt about our commitment to freedom of religion and the rights of minorities.

  Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Council's legal opinion on whether the Cologne and Helsinki councils' decisions regarding security and defence policy require treaty amendments. [129924]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Presidency report to the Feira European Council on strengthening the common European security and defence policy took note of the opinion of the Council Legal Service. The Government joined other member states in adopting the report by consensus at the Feira European Council. The issue of Treaty change will continue to be examined between the Feira and Nice European Councils.

  Currency Transactions
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the 24 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Social Development, with particular reference to the conclusions concerning the possible taxation of international currency transactions. [129286]

  Mr. Hain
  The Special Session of the General Assembly, following up the World Summit for Social Development, protected the commitments made by governments in Copenhagen five years ago and identified some new, forward-looking initiatives. One such initiative is an analysis of proposals for developing new and innovative sources of funding for social development.

  EU Accession
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited each of the states currently engaged in accession negotiations with the EU. [129781]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last visited the following countries currently engaged in accession negotiations on the dates shown:

  Country

  Date

  Bulgaria

  19–20 October 1998

  Czech Republic

  27–28 November 1997

  Estonia

  26 July 1999

  Hungary

  26 November 1997

  Poland

  28 November 1997

  Romania

  21–22 October 1998

  Slovakia

  6 March 2000

  Slovenia

  23 November 1998

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also visited Turkey, which is a candidate for EU membership, on 18–19 November 1999. He plans to visit Hungary on 25 July and the Czech Republic on 26 July. Of the other countries in negotiation for EU membership, I myself have just returned from a visit to Malta on 5–6 July and plan to visit Latvia and Lithuania in the autumn. I have also visited Hungary on 18–19 October and Poland on 19–20 October last year.

  Animal Experiments
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to consult British embassies about animal experimentation overseas. [129780]

  Mr. Hain
  Our Embassies continue to monitor the development of science policy in their host countries. I have no plans to consult Embassies about animal experimentation overseas.

  Euro (Leaked Telegram)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Ministers in his Department were informed of the leaking of the telegram from the British Ambassador to Japan on the Government's euro policy; and if he will take steps to establish how this document was made public. [129442]
  393W
  Mr. Battle
  Ministers were first informed of the leak in the late afternoon of Monday 3 July. An inquiry is under way.

  Financial Bodies
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total cost to public funds so far of Her Majesty's Government participation in the(a) Financial Action Task Force and (b) Financial Stability Forum. [126755]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Her Majesty's Government have, since 1997, paid £75,429.87 in subscription towards the UK's membership of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The subscription for 2000 is approximately £25,000. Information for previous years is not readily available. FATF meetings are attended by officials from HM Treasury, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Home Office, HM Customs and Excise and the Financial Services Authority. Details of costs incurred from travel and accommodation resulting from participating at FATF meetings could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Costs incurred by Her Majesty's Government to date in participating in the Financial Stability Forum, consisting of travel costs, accommodation costs, and subsistence are £23,677.59. These costs were incurred in attending the three meetings of the Financial Stability Forum, and also through HM Treasury's participation in the Financial Stability Forum's working group on Offshore Centres.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Roads and Highways SSA
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the standard spending assessment relating to roads and other highways for each English county for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01 (i) in total cash terms and (ii) as a percentage of the standard spending assessment; and if he will make a statement. [125719]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  GMOs
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the current contracts between his Department and the Central Science Laboratory that are connected with GMOs. [128066]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department does not as such have any contracts with the Central Science Laboratory because they are an Agency of Government and Government 394W
  cannot enforce a contract with themselves. CSL are, however, currently working for my Department on three projects:
  Project

  1. Research to assess possible environment risks of GM plants grown in containment.

  2. Monitoring gene-flow within the fields of the farm-scale evaluations and to neighbouring crops.

  3. Inspection and enforcement relating to the deliberate release and marketing of GMOs.

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many employees of his Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage this represents of total staff. [129101]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Since the New Deal programme commenced, the number of people recruited through New Deal DETR (Central) is 14 and its executive agencies is 23. This represents 0.3 per cent. and 0.1 per cent. of the total staff respectively. The number of New Deal staff in DETR (Central) and its executive agencies shown as a percentage of posts at a level recommended for New Deal staff is 1.5 per cent. and 0.5 per cent. respectively.

  The Department is actively looking to increase these numbers by further recruitment exercises in the coming months.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the cost of consultants employed by each of the regional development agencies to date; and what is the projected expenditure over the next two years. [128899]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In 1999–2000, the first full year of the RDAs' operations, the estimated expenditure on directly-employed consultants was less than 1 per cent. of their total budget, as follows:

  £000

  One NorthEast

  910

  Northwest Development Agency

  1,960

  Yorkshire Forward

  1,040

  East Midlands Development Agency

  1,550

  Advantage West Midlands

  950

  East of England Development Agency

  350

  South East Development Agency

  680

  South West Development Agency

  290

  Total

  7,730

  Estimates for expenditure on consultants for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are not available.

  Migration
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the proportion of the demand for new housing which arises from population migration(a) between the English regions and (b) from London to other parts of the South East. [128866]
  395W
  Mr. Raynsford
  No explicit estimates are made about the proportion of the demand for new housing that arises from population migration. Trend-based household projects are just one of the considerations taken into account. These are derived from trend-based population projections that contain assumptions about inter-area migration. The migration assumptions are set out in Table 6 of the Office for National Statistics 1996-based Sub-national population projections, England, Series PP3 No. 10, published by TSO.

  However, this publication does not include information on migration flows between specific areas. The Office for National Statistics has therefore provided the additional information on projected migration in relation to the South East Planning Region, given in the table.

  Annual net migration for SERPLAN

  Thousand

  1997

  2001

  2006

  2011

  2016

  2021

  From London

  105

  106

  106

  108

  110

  112

  To London

  68

  68

  68

  70

  71

  70

  Net from London

  37

  38

  38

  38

  40

  41

  From other English regions

  138

  140

  142

  144

  144

  143

  To other English regions

  149

  152

  155

  159

  161

  161

  Net from other English regions

  -10

  -12

  -13

  -15

  -17

  -19

  Net migration from London and other English regions

  27

  26

  25

  23

  23

  23

  Source:

  ONS 1996-based Sub-national population projections

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for his Department and its agencies the approved list of manufacturers of(a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles; and if he will make a statement on his Department's leasing and purchasing policy. [128987]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department's purchasing policy is based on achieving best value for money, taking into account whole life cost and quality. In determining what represents best value for money, the leasing option is considered.

  The Department does not have an approved list of manufacturers of cars and commercial vehicles. It uses various supply and leasing contracts awarded by itself and other Government Departments as a result of competitive tender processes appropriate to the value of each contract.

  The Department also makes use of the Government Car Service (GCS).

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the matters discussed and decided upon at the OSPAR meeting on Control of Marine Pollution in the North East Atlantic, held in Copenhagen on 26 to 30 June; and if he will place in the Library a report of the meeting. [128861]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: At its annual meeting in Copenhagen last week, the OSPAR Commission adopted, by consensus, a programme for
  396W
  more detailed work on the implementation of the OSPAR Commission's strategy on radioactive substances. This provides for the adoption of national plans, the submission of detailed forecasts of how the elimination or reduction of radioactive substances from both nuclear and non-nuclear sources will be achieved, in order to meet the OSPAR 2020 goal on radioactive discharges, emissions and losses, and to enable the Commission to develop a collective oversight of progress towards this goal.

  The OSPAR Commission finalised a first and essential step in the implementation of its long-term strategy on hazardous substances. As a result, twelve new hazardous substances were added to the OSPAR List of Chemicals for priority action.

  The Commission also adopted several measures to control chemicals from both offshore and land-based sources, including the setting of a new international standard for the regulation of the use and discharge of offshore chemicals and drilling fluids.

  Under the strategy to combat eutrophication, the OSPAR Commission agreed which areas of the North East Atlantic do not present eutrophication problems, adopted on a trial basis guidelines for evaluating nutrient inputs to the sea, and put in hand work on comprehensive assessments of the areas where there are, or may be, eutrophication problems.

  The Commission adopted and launched the Quality Status Report on the whole of the North East Atlantic, the "QSR 2000". This report, together with reports covering the five regions of the OSPAR maritime area, is the first review of the health of the North East Atlantic in such detail.

  The OSPAR Commission also finished reviewing its working methods and established a new organisational structure, to keep the effective implementation of its five long-term strategies and the effective follow-up to the QSR 2000.

  Twelve OSPAR states adopted a decision requiring a review of nuclear processing in preventing accidental pollution. Although the UK drew attention to its recently published draft national discharge strategy, all the OSPAR states except France supported the decision, and the UK and France abstained.

  I am arranging for copies of the Summary Record of the Commission's meeting to be placed in the Library when it becomes available.

  Connex
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the dispute affecting Connex's trains on its ability to meet agreed performance targets. [129305]

  Mr. Hill
  The Franchising Director is responsible for monitoring the performance of train operating companies. He publishes the results of his monitoring in his "On Track" report, available in the House Library. This shows that the punctuality and reliability of Connex services has been affected by the dispute. The report also explains that incentives are given to operators to handle disruptions in a planned way.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will provide local authorities with the detailed arrangements for creating arm's-length companies and for raising levels of investment in their housing stock. [129260]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We outlined in the Housing Green Paper proposals to allow authorities which have set up arm's-length companies to manage their housing stock and demonstrate high standards to invest more of their rental income in their stock. As the Green Paper promised, we will be working with the Local Government Association and others to work up the proposals in greater detail over the coming months. We will consult on our proposals later this year and have guidance in place in the early part of 2001.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how long it will take local authorities to invest in their housing stock through the creation of arm's-length companies; what assessment he has made of the contribution this will make in tackling the investment backlog in local authority housing within five years; and if he will make a statement. [129259]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The additional resources to be made available for authorities which have set up arm's-length companies to manage their housing stock and demonstrate high standards will be announced as part of the Spending Review. We expect that the first year in which the new regime will operate will be 2002–03. In the meantime, authorities considering this option will need to undertake detailed preparation to enable them to meet the demanding criteria which will apply. Our overall aim, set out in the Housing Green Paper, is to ensure that all social housing reaches a decent standard within 10 years.

  Light Railway Systems
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to fund(a) tram and (b) light railway systems as part of urban regeneration schemes; and if he will make a statement. [129307]

  Mr. Hill
  Tram and light rail systems can have an important role to play in delivering integrated transport in major conurbations. Decisions on whether to provide central Government support for tram and light rail systems are taken on a case-by-case basis on the merits of the particular scheme. Where systems cannot be funded entirely from local sources or by the private sector, promoters must demonstrate that their scheme provides good value for money and forms an essential part of a local transport plan, and that the objectives of that plan cannot be met in other ways. In the Department's appraisal process, the wider economic impacts of a particular scheme, including any regeneration benefits are considered.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many agencies of his Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [129642]
  398W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Touch tone telephone steering systems are used in a number of the Department's agencies, to a varying degree. These are:

  >The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)—approximately 343 lines

  The Driving Standards Agency (DSA)—up to 300 lines

  Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) are piloting a national number in Scotland that is likely to be rolled out nationwide in October 2000

  Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA)—5 lines available

  Highways Agency—the Information line, which can handle up to 15 calls simultaneously.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems. [129624]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  DETR(C) have four telephone lines available to members of the public which offer the opportunity to redirect their call using a touch tone system. These are:

  The Mobility Unit—to order literature about disabled access

  Orange Badge System—to order leaflets and application forms

  Biotechnology Unit—to request information about the public register

  Vehicle Import Advice Line—to request booklets.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional funding he will make available to local authorities for work on the rights of way network consequent upon the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. [129402]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: Local authorities will be properly and reasonably funded for additional rights of way tasks. The funding expected to be required as a result of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is identified in the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill as between £12 million and £19 million per annum. We shall determine the exact sums to be made available in the next three years in the light of the outcome of the current spending review.

  Animal Rendering
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental controls are applicable to the process of rendering animal carcases; and which organisation is responsible for them. [129647]

  Mr. Hill
  Animal rendering plants are regulated by local authorities under the air pollution control regime established by Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Where aqueous discharges arise the discharges are regulated by the Environment Agency under the Water Resources Act 1991.

  Animal rendering plants will be subject to integrated pollution control under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 when it applies as set out in the draft Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000. It is envisaged under the regulations that local authorities will be the regulators, subject to the Environment Agency having power to specify emission limit values or conditions to prevent or reduce emissions into water.

  Planning
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in determining the division of responsibilities for planning matters between(a) county and unitary councils, (b) district councils and (c) the proposed South Downs National Park. [129685]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: We have asked the Countryside Agency to look at the detailed arrangements for handling planning matters for the proposed new National Park in the South Downs. They have established a working group who are now examining options for the division of responsibilities between existing authorities and any new National Park Authority. The Agency will be consulting locally on these options before advising Ministers on what they consider to be the most appropriate arrangements.

  Coastal Resorts
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent steps his Department has taken to(a) help regenerate coastal resorts and (b) improve bathing water quality. [129951]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We are continuing to address the needs of disadvantaged areas, including coastal resorts, though our regeneration programmes. Recent steps include:Running Round 6 of the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) where 20 per cent. of new SRB resources are targeted on areas, including coastal towns, which are outside the most deprived districts. Bids for resources are currently being considered for schemes commencing summer 2000 onwards. Round 2 of the New Deal for Communities (NDC) also includes assistance to some coastal towns;
  Enabling more coastal resorts to be eligible to receive European Structural Funds. The 2000–06 Objective 1 programmes for South Yorkshire, Cornwall and Merseyside are expected to be formally approved shortly. The Commission formally approved the Objective 2 map for 2000–2006 programmes on 30 March. This includes more coastal areas than before. The Objective 2 programmes are currently under negotiation and we expect them to be approved before the end of the year;
  Securing substantial additional investment by water companies to raise bathing water compliance with the normal EU quality standard to 97 per cent. by 2005 and to help more resorts reach the higher standard needed to gain 'Blue Flag' status.

  EU Flags
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers are available to local authorities to restrict the flying of EU flags on public buildings. [129757]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The European flag may be flown provided planning permission for the flagstaff has been granted and express consent to fly the flag (under the separate arrangements for control of advertisements) has been given by the local planning authority. A Crown body that wishes to undertake development that would otherwise require planning permission, or express consent to display an advertisement, follows the non-statutory arrangements set out in part IV of DOE Circular 18/84. On 29 June I announced proposals to amend the Town and Country
  400W
  Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. One of the proposed amendments is to allow the European flag to be flown from a flagstaff without having to apply to the local planning authority for permission to do so. National flags already benefit from this exemption.

  Affordable Homes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of the number of new affordable homes required to meet demand; what plans he has to increase the provision of affordable houses; and if he will make a statement. [129796]

  Mr. Raynsford
  While the Government have from time to time commissioned studies of the extent and nature of housing need to inform our views on the requirement for affordable housing in England, we believe that neither national nor regional estimates can adequately reflect the wide diversity of needs and priorities which exist at the local level. For these reasons the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to carry our robust assessments of housing need in their areas.

  This Government are already making available an additional £5 billion for investment in housing over the life of this Parliament. Much of this is spent on tackling the repairs backlog, but local authorities are able to use these resources to invest in additional affordable housing, where this best meets local needs and priorities. In addition, local authorities have powers to require affordable homes to be provided as part of new developments.

  Future levels of provision to fund affordable housing will be announced on completion of the Spending Review.

  First Place Housing
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason First Place Housing of Tavistock Street, Dunstable have been refused a further grant from his Department; and if he will make a statement. [129312]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: My Department offered First Place Housing a grant this year towards the costs of their outreach service. They decided however to forgo this grant and discontinue this area of their work. First Place Housing then bid for a grant under the new Special Innovation Fund. The Fund was significantly oversubscribed and we had to make some very tough choices, which has led to a large number of organisations being disappointed—many of which, like First Place Housing, had submitted proposals for worthwhile projects.

  Houses (Multiple Occupancy)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to introduce compulsory licensing for homes in multiple occupancy. [129531]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We plan to introduce a licensing system for houses in multiple occupancy as soon as Parliamentary time can be found for the necessary primary legislation.
  401W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many homes in multiple occupancy there are in(a) Coventry, (b) the West Midlands and (c) the UK. [129532]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information given to my Department by local authorities indicates that there are 1,000 houses in multiple occupation in Coventry, and 15,441 in the West Midlands. The English House Condition Survey indicates a figure of 525,000 for England. My Department does not hold information concerning houses in multiple occupation in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  Household Statistics
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the projected number of households in each five year period for each county and metropolitan area between 1996 and 2021, assuming zero net internal migration. [129751]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on(a) the scale of net regional population migration assumed in its projected level of household formations proposed for the current trend of draft regional planning guidance and (b) the assumed scale of migration underlying the figures published by the Office for National Statistics in the sub-national population projections; [129749]

  (2) what scale of net regional population migration is assumed in the projected level of household formation proposed for the current round of draft regional planning guidance (a) in each of the eight English regions and (b) for the spatial development plan for London. [129748]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Household projections are just one of the considerations taken into account in determining likely housing requirements. No explicit assumptions about population migration are made in considering draft regional planning guidance.

  One of the inputs into the household projections is the sub-national population projections. These contain assumptions about inter-area migration. The migration assumptions for each area are set out in Table 6 of the Office for National Statistics 1996-based Sub-national population projections, England, Series PP3 No. 10, published by TSO.

  This publication does not include information on migration flows between regions. The Office for National Statistics will be making some additional information available on these flows, shortly. I will write to my hon. Friend once this statistical information has been derived.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the(a) initial and (b) longer-term cargo-deck heights on the sprinter trains proposed by the winner of the recent rail freight competition; and if the layout of their longer-term sprinter-train design has been finalised. [129997]
  402W
  Mr. Hill
  The deck-height of the Railtrack MPVC (multi-purpose vehicle container) used in the trials is 120 mm and of the intermediate container flats 100 mm. Further development of the Multi-Purpose Vehicle into a freight Multiple Unit will be on the basis of a 1100 mm deck-height.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the target date is for having new road-rail equipment and systems in-service to allow containers arriving at docks to reach their final destinations by rail. [129998]

  Mr. Hill
  9' 6" deep sea containers can be conveyed on most rail routes today. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority is developing a routing and gauge enhancement strategy with Railtrack intended to permit the carriage of 9' 6" high ISO containers on the network in the forecast over the next 20 years. The implementation of the various stages of this plan will be flexible.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the maximum cargo height on the piggyback trailer systems that have been proposed by the winner of the recent rail freight competition. [129996]

  Mr. Hill
  The maximum cargo-height will be 3.4 m permitting the conveyance of the semi-trailer of 9' 6" ISO containers in the wagon pockets or a C45 Swapbody over SB1-c cleared routes. SB1-c is Swapbody clearance agreement version c. This is an agreement between freight operators and the Channel Tunnel operators concerning maximum dimensions for swapbody containers which will be conveyed through the channel tunnel and also on such internal rail lines within Great Britain as have been cleared to that standard.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for which loading gauges the piggyback trains that have been proposed by the winner of the recent rail freight competition will be suitable.[129999]

  Mr. Hill
  The piggyback trailer on the multi-modal wagon will conform to the Railtrack W6A loading gauge, enabling it to run over most of the rail network.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Transport Council held in Luxembourg on 26 to 27 June; and what plans there are to make EASA a European Community agency. [130000]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 July 2000,Official Report, columns 181–83W to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), which described the outcome of the Council. There was a debate on the establishment of a European Aviation Safety Authority, at the end of which the Council asked the commission to produce a formal proposal for a community agency.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the
  403W
  software that failed at West Drayton Air Traffic Control Centre on 17 June was installed; and if he will make a statement. [130009]

  Mr. Hill
  The software which failed on 17 June was a Flight Data Processing System known as the National Airspace System (NAS). The current software version was introduced in January 2000, with an interim upgrade in April 2000. In addition to this, the system's database and configuration parameters are modified each month. Until June this year, this software version had continued the excellent track record of reliability established by the NAS system in recent years.

  The failure was cleared by reverting to a previous version of the software and as an additional precautionary measure a system message was input which actively prevented the system from exercising the faulty code sequence. Subsequently a permanent software design solution was devised, tested, and successfully installed. This has enabled National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) to restore capacity levels in the key Scottish sectors which carry a substantial amount of North Atlantic traffic.

  EU Galileo Project
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the share of the capital cost of the EU Galileo project that will fall to the UK taxpayer; and if he will make a statement. [129994]

  Mr. Hill
  The costs of the Galileo project would depend on decisions taken by the Council of Ministers on the project later in the year. The Government have not made an independent estimate of the costs, but the European Commission's current estimate of the capital cost is 3 billion euro for the period 2000–08, of which an estimated 1.25 billion euro would be provided by member states through European Community Programmes and the European Space Agency (ESA). The UK makes its contributions to the EU budget as a whole, not to specific programmes. We estimate that the UK share of the EU budget is around 18 per cent. The UK is contributing about 7 million euro to ESA's work on the definition phase of Galileo. A decision on whether to proceed to the development phase of Galileo may be taken by the December Transport Council. No decision has yet been made as to the UK's contribution to ESA's share of the development costs.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to include the safety issue of gaps between railway station platforms and trains, in the criteria for obtaining future train operating franchises. [129435]

  Mr. Hill
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked the Franchising Director to evaluate bids for replacement franchises against the following criteria: commitment to secure better performance and customer services, the extent to which extra or earlier investment can be secured, the extent to which passengers will be given a greater voice in the level and standard of services, and value for money to the taxpayer. The Franchising Director will look to bidders to provide better access to the network,404W
  particularly for those with limited mobility and disabilities. Bidders will be encouraged to consult interested stakeholders, including local authorities and Rail Passengers' Committees, giving them the opportunity to raise issues which they would like to see addressed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to ensure that warning signs are provided at stations where there is a large gap between the railway station platform and the train. [129436]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack, as infrastructure controller, is responsible for the safe operation of its platforms. The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) publish "Railway Safety Principles and Guidance" which, among other things, sets acceptable stepping criteria between trains and platforms. In areas where there is a large gap between the railway platform and the train, warning notices reading 'Mind the Gap' with hatching along the platform edge, or other agreed measures such as public announcements, may be required.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many railway stations there is distance between the platform and the train which exceeds 250 mm vertically, 275 mm horizontally and 350 mm diagonally. [129437]

  Mr. Hill
  The records held by the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) are insufficiently detailed to provide information on locations where gaps may exceed particular dimensions. However, Railtrack have acknowledged that at 76 per cent. of their 2,454 stations there are one or more platforms that do not comply with the specifications for acceptable stepping criteria between trains and platforms as set out in HMRI's "Railway Safety Principles and Guidance". Railtrack is developing a strategy of identifying and dealing with these on a prioritised basis. HSE is monitoring progress.

  Flood Defence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the(a) percentage and (b) actual increase in the amount of money provided by the Department for Flood Defence to Devon county council through the standing spending assessment in each of the last three years. [130001]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The changes in Flood Defence Standard Spending Assessments for the last three years for Devon county council are as follows:

  £million

  Year

  Percentage change in SSA

  Actual change in SSA

  2000–01

  +3.1

  0.108

  1999–2000

  +1.7

  0.059

  1998–991

  -31.6

  -1.567

  1As from 1 April 1998 Devon CC area was reduced following the creation of Plymouth and Torbay unitary authorities. If the 1998–99 Flood Defence SSAs for Plymouth and Torbay are added to the 1998–99 Devon CC figure then the results would be (a) -0.7 per cent.

  (b)-£0.037 million.

  Radon
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance his Department is giving to householders and local authorities in areas where the radioactive gas radon is a problem. [130214]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following the success of three pilot studies to encourage and assist householders to carry out radon remedial works, I am pleased to announce that we are embarking on a new programme in partnership with 31 local authorities from the areas most affected by radon.

  The radon measurement programme, carried out by successive Governments since 1987, has meant that every home in England with a greater than 5 per cent. probability of being above the radon 'Action Level' has been offered a Government-funded radon test. In total, some 40,000 homes have now been found to be above the radon Action Level. However, only 10–20 per cent. of these households have taken any action to reduce radon levels in their homes. Radon is a naturally occurring, radioactive gas. Without proper action to lower levels in the home it can add to the risk of lung cancer.

  To encourage action, DETR, with the support of the Department of Health, has been working in partnership with Derbyshire Dales, Cherwell and Mendip district councils in pilot studies to encourage and assist householders to carry out remedial work. In this new approach the local authority has been the main point of contact with householders, supported in the background by Central Government Departments.

  The pilot studies have been very successful both in terms of the numbers of householders seeking advice and the numbers that have subsequently gone on to carry out remedial work. I should like to pay tribute to the enthusiasm, commitment and hard work of the three local authorities involved.

  The 31 local authorities listed in the table, which all have areas within their districts with notable levels of radon, responded to the Department's invitation to work in partnership with us to extend the approach used in the pilot studies to other parts of the country.

  In order to assist these authorities, and other with a radon problem, we have produced a "Good Practice Guide" based on the lessons learned and the experience gained in the pilot studies. This guidance has been made available in draft to all of the authorities involved in the new programme, and is being published today. I have arranged for copies to be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
  406W
  Local authorities participating in DETR's Radon roll-out programme

  Devon

  West Devon borough council

  South Hams district council

  Torbay district council

  Somerset

  South Somerset district council

  Bath and North East Somerset Unitary Authority

  Dorset

  North Dorset district council

  Gloucestershire

  South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority

  Stroud district council

  Northamptonshire

  Kettering borough council

  Daventry district council

  East Northamptonshire district council

  Corby borough council

  Northampton borough council

  South Northamptonshire district council

  Leicestershire

  Harborough district council

  Melton borough council

  Rutland Unitary Authority

  Cambridgeshire

  Huntingdonshire district council

  Lincolnshire

  South Kesteven district council

  North Kesteven district council

  Shropshire

  South Shropshire district council

  Oswestry borough council

  Derbyshire

  High Peak borough council

  Nottinghamshire

  Ashfield district council

  Staffordshire

  Staffordshire Moorlands district council

  Cumbria

  South Lakeland district council

  Lancashire

  Lancaster City council

  North Yorkshire

  Craven district council

  Richmondshire district council

  Northumberland

  Alnwick district council

  Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recent report by Cardiff University on the effect of the Government's regional development policies on competitiveness differentials between regions. [129834]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A central plank of the Government's economic policy is to improve the competitiveness of our regions. That is why we set up the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), to address the disparities which had been allowed to grow within and between the regions under the previous administration. The RDAs have made an excellent start—securing thousands of jobs, as well as providing new work sites, promoting regeneration and reclaiming derelict sites. We are also looking to strengthen their
  407W
  role as economic drivers, and have embarked on a package of measures to ensure our regions have the skills and knowledge needed to compete successfully in the modern global marketplace.

  Advantage West Midlands
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure the effective management of Advantage West Midlands; and if he will make a statement. [129783]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  On Friday 30 June, the contract of Advantage West Midlands' Chief Executive, Tony Cassidy, was ended by mutual consent.

  To ensure effective management, Advantage West Midlands will now seek to recruit a replacement. They have also arranged for the post to be filled on a temporary basis by John Edwards, Regeneration Director of Advantage West Midlands, and previously Chief Executive of the Rural Development Commission.

  The Chief Executive of any non-departmental public body (NDPB) is accountable to the board. The position of the Chief Executive, and of any employee of an RDA, is an internal matter for that RDA.

  I am confident that the Board and the Chairman are working in the best interests of the West Midlands.

WALES

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he is pursuing to safeguard jobs in the motor components industry which may be under threat from the sale of Rover; and if he will make a statement. [121727]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I remain in close contact with all stakeholders to ensure Welsh interests are considered.

  The acquisition of Rover by the Phoenix consortium, which plans to maintain volume car production of existing models at Longbridge offers a welcome outcome for suppliers of the motor components industry.

  The Wales Task Force has prepared a study on the possible impact on the Welsh automotive industry and is also undertaking a long-term strategy to improve competitiveness of the industry over the next five years. This was considered by the Economic Development Committee of the National Assembly for Wales on 6 July, who gave their approval. The Welsh Task Force will now concentrate on implementing the recommendations made in the report, through the establishment of a Project Management Board.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning NHS waiting lists, with particular reference to those waiting over a year; and if he will make a statement. [126974]
  408W
  Mr. Hanson
  Both I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meet regularly with the Assembly First Secretary and the Assembly Health Secretary to discuss the Health Service in Wales.

  The subject of waiting lists is, of course, of concern to us all and is therefore often included in our conversations.

  In March, the Government announced an additional £1,299 million for Wales over four years as a consequence of increases in the NHS budget for England. The Assembly has decided this will all be spent on health in Wales and has invested £40 million from this year's allocation to help reduce waiting lists and address emergency pressures. In addition, they have recently set strict targets for Health Authorities to meet.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which companies or partnerships have seconded staff to his Department since May 1997; how many have been seconded; and who pays for seconded staff. [128469]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has paid for three secondees since May 1997, one from Chestertons Property Consultants, one from Eversheds, and one from King Sturge.

  Information is not held centrally on secondees in all instances where their company continues to fund the employee themselves. There have been two secondees from Barclays Bank, and one from BT, where those companies have paid for their own staff, but there may be others who have not been recorded centrally.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions since May 1997 Ministers in his Department have made a declaration of interest to their colleagues under circumstances envisaged in Paragraph 110 of the Ministerial Code. [129162]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  New Deal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the New Deal for lone parents; and if he will make a statement. [129502]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary on a range of UK Government policies including the New Deal.

  The New Deal for Lone Parents was piloted in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan from July 1997 and implemented countrywide in October 1998. To the end of March 2000, about 10,800 lone parents in Wales had attended an initial interview. More than 10,000 of these (93 per cent.) agreed to participate in the scheme, which provides advice and guidance on finding and retaining suitable work.

  To date, some 3,600 lone parents in Wales have secured jobs through the New Deal.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent measures have been introduced to help lone parents achieve a better balance between work and family life. [127244]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 29 June 2000]: The Government's work-life balance campaign was launched by the Prime Minister on 9 March. Work-life balance describes any set of policies and practices that both help people to achieve better balance between work and their lives outside work and benefit the business.

  The campaign aims to increase the number of employers who adopt work-life policies and practices. By introducing flexible working policies employers can increase job opportunities and recruit from a wider pool, especially from those with caring responsibilities, such as lone parents, or those with disabilities.

  The discussion document "Changing Patterns in a Changing World" describes how we will take the campaign forward in partnership with an alliance of 22 leading businesses committed to promoting the business benefits of work-life balance. Our campaign builds on and complements the work of the National Work Life Forum.

  Last month we invited employers to apply for our new £2.25 million Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund. Successful applicants will receive free consultancy advice about implementing flexible policies which improve both their business and help their employees balance work and the rest of their lives.

  New Deal
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many participants from Dumfries and Galloway in(a) the New Deal for 18–24 year olds and (b) the New Deal for 25 year olds and over have returned to (i) Jobseeker's Allowance, (ii) other benefits and (iii) unsubsidised employment through the New Deal. [128468]

  Ms Jowell
  Latest figures to end April 2000 for the categories requested in Dumfries and Galloway are set out as follows. However, they are expressed as leavers from New Deal rather than returners as everyone starting either of the New Deals is already claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. We cannot therefore describe them as returning to other benefits or unsubsidised employment.

  Leavers

  New Deal 18–24

  New Deal 25+

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  178

  446

  Other benefits

  116

  71

  Unsubsidised employment

  379

  68

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are eligible for the guaranteed minimum take home pay of £170 per week under the New Deal for the over 50s(a) nationally, (b) on Teesside and (c) in the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East; and if he will make a statement. [128638]
  410W
  Ms Jowell
  New Deal 50-plus is a major new programme of personal advice, support and financial help for people over 50 who are looking for work. The programme is aimed at unemployed and economically inactive people in receipt of benefit for six months or more and their dependent partners. The table shows those people who are directly eligible for New Deal 50-plus. However, in addition dependent partners of these benefit recipients will also be eligible, as will be men aged 60–65 receiving National Insurance credits automatically.

  The £170 minimum income guarantee applies to those people going into full-time work and additionally receiving the Employment Credit of £60 per week. It is not possible to say how many people will be eligible for the Employment Credit but our assumption is that about 90 per cent. of those that apply will be eligible.

  Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance recipients aged 50 or over with a current claim duration of six months or more, as at February 2000

  Thousand

  Area

  Income Support

  Jobseekers Allowance

  Incapacity Benefit

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Great Britain

  1,725.3

  98.2

  860.6

  135.9

  Teesside (total of Unitary Authorities):

  19.7

  1.9

  13.8

  1.2

  Middlesbrough UA

  5.5

  —

  3.1

  *0.4

  Redcar and Cleveland US

  5.0

  —

  3.9

  *0.2

  Hartlepool UA

  4.0

  —

  2.6

  *0.3

  Stockton-on-Tees UA

  5.2

  —

  4.1

  *0.3

  Middlesbrough and Cleveland, East Parliamentary constituency

  2.9

  0.3

  2.1

  *0.2

  Notes:

  1. Numbers marked '*'are based on very few sample cases and are subject to a high degree of sampling error. These figures should be used as a guide to the current situation only.

  2. Income Support figures exclude claimants who also receive IB/SDA.

  3. IB and SDA figures exclude those persons receiving National Insurance Credits only.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people have found(a) non-subsidised jobs and (b) education, training or work experience through the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, (i) nationally, (ii) on Teesside and (iii) in the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East; and if he will make a statement. [128641]

  Ms Jowell
  The latest information, to the end of April 2000, is shown in the table. This sets out the number of unsubsidised jobs taken by young people through the
  411W
  New Deal and those who have benefited from education, training or work experience opportunities on the New Deal options.

  New Deal for Young People

  Unsubsidised jobs

  New Deal options

  Great Britain

  191,360

  168,900

  Teesside

  3,914

  4,083

  Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East

  468

  550

  We are on target to meet our manifesto commitment to help 250,000 young people into jobs through the New Deal. At the end of April we had reached a total of 216,200.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated capital value of jobcentre sites in the United Kingdom. [129087]

  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. John Bercow, dated 10 July 2000:
  As the Employment Service is an executive agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the estimated value of the Jobcentre sites in the United Kingdom. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The network of roughly 1000 Employment Service Jobcentres operates in a mixture of freehold and leasehold premises. All Jobcentres in freehold and long leasehold property are subject to a rolling programme of professional valuation. The results of this are collated annually and shown as 'Land and Buildings' in the Employment Service Annual Report and Accounts. The latest audited accounts are for the year 1998–99. These show the total value of Employment Service Land and Buildings as at 31 March 1999 to be just under £122m.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what guidance he issues to Jobcentres about preventing persons not lawfully entitled to work in the United Kingdom having access to their services; and if he will make a statement; [128921]

  (2) what checks Jobcentres are required to undertake (a) generally and (b) prior to reference to an employment agency in order to ensure that persons seeking employment are allowed to work in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [128924]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. David Lidington, dated 10 July 2000:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about ensuring that persons seeking employment in the United Kingdom are entitled to do so.
  412W
  Permission to work in the United Kingdom is a matter for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office. While Jobcentres do have advice available to them on which groups of jobseekers from outside the UK are entitled to work in the UK, it would not be practical for them to undertake nationality checks given the fact that they make some 20 million job submissions annually. It is the responsibility of employers to ensure that jobseekers have permission to work.
  Employment Service guidance to Jobcentres states that non-EEA (European Economic Area) jobseekers are not entitled to obtain work in the UK without a work permit. It advises staff to pass inquiries to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Similarly, vacancies advertised via the Employment Service website carry a statement which makes clear that the vacancies are not open to non-EEA jobseekers.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Examination Scheduling
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has made to awarding bodies concerning the scheduling of GCSE and A level examinations after the summer half-term break. [128633]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the awarding bodies have recently reviewed the arrangements for GCSE and AS/A level examination timetables. We have agreed their proposals which take effect from 2001, re-scheduling some of the major entry GCSE subjects, English literature and geography, to after the summer half-term, maximising study and preparation time. The timetable for the new AS/A level examinations caters for an increased number of papers and although slightly longer than its predecessor has approximately the same number of written papers scheduled in May.

  Medical Schools
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources and money are being made available to widen access to medical schools to ensure that students from all economic groups can enter the profession. [128803]

  Mr. Wicks
  Medical students, in common with other students, benefit from a range of government policies to widen access to higher education: £74.6 million for Access Funds in the academic year 1999–2000; a further £42 million a year from 2000–01 to broaden the social profile of entry into higher education; and from 2001–02, non-repayable Opportunity Bursaries of up to £1,000 for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. In addition, some medical schools have special schemes to encourage a wide range of potential students to study medicine.

  Folklore
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the universities which teach(a) an undergraduate and (b) a postgraduate course in folklore; and how many students were on each course for the last year for which figures are easily available. [128878]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information is not available centrally.

  Child Care
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many net child care places were
  413W
  created in the financial year 1999–2000 in (a) the parliamentary constituency of Birkenhead and (b) the parliamentary constituencies in the Wirral. [128911]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: The number of child care places created are as follows:

  (a) Constituency of Birkenhead: 49 net places1

  (b) Constituencies of the Wirral: 368 net places

  1The figure for Birkenhead does not include child minder places as these are not broken to constituency level. A proportion of the 120 net child minder places in the Wirral area may be in the constituency of Birkenhead.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list new children places created in each early years development and child care partnership in 1999–2000. [129991]

  Ms Hodge
  Early years development and child care partnerships have reported that by end March 2000 they had created some 140,000 new child care places. These 140,000 to the stock of child care places across England, Providing child care for over 141,000 extra children. Attached is a breakdown of the number of new child care places created by early years development and child care partnerships in 1999–2000.

  1999–2000 New places

  Partnership Area

  Out of school

  Pre-school

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  335

  151

  486

  Barnet

  1,247

  642

  1,889

  Barnsley

  140

  190

  330

  Bath and North East Somerset

  137

  233

  370

  Bedfordshire

  756

  303

  1,059

  Bexley

  204

  252

  456

  Birmingham

  848

  806

  1,654

  Blackburn UA

  205

  178

  383

  Blackpool UA

  226

  102

  328

  Bolton

  459

  280

  739

  Bournemouth UA

  253

  245

  498

  Bracknell Forest UA

  9,581

  116

  9,697

  Bradford

  620

  235

  855

  Brent

  636

  331

  967

  Brighton and Hove UA

  321

  225

  546

  Bromley

  622

  422

  1,044

  Buckinghamshire

  1,022

  831

  1,853

  Bury

  370

  212

  582

  Calderdale

  115

  289

  404

  Cambridgeshire

  1,341

  1,151

  2,492

  Camden

  96

  113

  209

  Cheshire

  948

  686

  1,634

  City of Bristol

  247

  406

  653

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  206

  303

  509

  City of London

  267

  20

  287

  Cornwall

  816

  430

  1,246

  Coventry

  552

  481

  1,033

  Croydon

  357

  407

  764

  Cumbria

  254

  213

  467

  Darlington UA

  194

  86

  280

  Derby UA

  668

  142

  810

  Derbyshire

  664

  94

  758

  Devon

  1,123

  1,148

  2,271

  Doncaster

  205

  127

  332

  Dorset

  173

  174

  347

  Dudley

  180

  105

  285

  Durham

  707

  569

  1,276

  414W

  1999–2000 New places

  Partnership Area

  Out of school

  Pre-school

  Total

  Ealing

  338

  548

  886

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,325

  381

  1,706

  East Sussex

  352

  355

  707

  Enfield

  194

  428

  622

  Essex

  2,072

  1,472

  3,544

  Gateshead1

  TBC

  TBC

  TBC

  Gloucestershire1

  TBC

  TBC

  TBC

  Greenwich

  911

  63

  974

  Hackney

  257

  282

  539

  Halton UA

  170

  105

  275

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  115

  83

  198

  Hampshire

  3,458

  1,854

  5,312

  Haringey

  800

  280

  1,080

  Harrow

  238

  115

  353

  Hartlepool UA

  96

  44

  140

  Havering

  98

  45

  143

  Herefordshire, County of

  590

  228

  818

  Hertfordshire

  1,224

  892

  2,116

  Hillingdon

  240

  372

  612

  Hounslow

  262

  97

  359

  Isle of Wight

  312

  146

  458

  Isles of Scilly

  24

  21

  45

  Islington

  469

  163

  632

  Kensington and Chelsea

  134

  113

  247

  Kent

  1,818

  806

  2,624

  Kingston upon Thames

  484

  348

  832

  Kirklees

  524

  462

  986

  Knowsley

  234

  145

  379

  Lambeth

  927

  307

  1,234

  Lancashire

  1,581

  1,479

  3,060

  Leeds

  1,538

  974

  2,512

  Leicester UA

  2,664

  200

  2,864

  Leicestershire

  686

  1,030

  1,716

  Lewisham

  324

  56

  380

  Lincolnshire

  757

  235

  992

  Liverpool

  426

  434

  860

  Luton UA

  249

  212

  461

  Manchester

  275

  353

  628

  Medway (Rochester and Gillingham)

  853

  352

  1,205

  Merton

  111

  145

  256

  Middlesborough

  309

  84

  393

  Milton Keynes UA

  353

  498

  851

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  364

  242

  606

  Newham

  606

  99

  705

  Norfolk

  266

  381

  647

  NE Lincolnshire

  45

  86

  131

  North Lincolnshire UA

  94

  143

  237

  North Somerset

  836

  230

  1,066

  North Tyneside

  186

  293

  479

  North Yorkshire

  1,230

  729

  1,959

  Northamptonshire

  814

  972

  1,786

  Northumberland

  179

  129

  308

  Nottingham UA

  242

  291

  533

  Nottinghamshire

  1,138

  1,278

  2,416

  Oldham

  202

  65

  267

  Oxfordshire

  837

  1,095

  1,932

  Peterborough UA

  659

  101

  760

  Plymouth

  656

  410

  1,066

  Poole UA

  52

  92

  144

  Portsmouth UA

  389

  246

  635

  Reading UA

  53

  0

  53

  Redbridge

  191

  14

  205

  Redcar and Cleveland UA

  188

  64

  252

  415W

  1999–2000 New places

  Partnership Area

  Out of school

  Pre-school

  Total

  Richmond upon Thames

  181

  149

  330

  Rochdale

  310

  182

  492

  Rotherham

  597

  230

  827

  Rutland UA

  116

  107

  223

  Salford

  609

  350

  959

  Sandwell1

  TBC

  TBC

  TBC

  Sefton

  255

  68

  323

  Sheffield

  700

  434

  1,134

  Shropshire

  256

  279

  535

  Slough UA

  52

  4

  56

  Solihull

  431

  315

  746

  Somerset

  551

  729

  1,280

  South Gloucestershire

  270

  169

  439

  South Tyneside

  89

  196

  285

  Southampton UA

  128

  519

  647

  Southend UA

  125

  129

  254

  Southwark

  683

  330

  1,013

  St. Helens

  64

  0

  64

  Staffordshire

  2,388

  350

  2,738

  Stockport

  283

  220

  503

  Stockton-on-Tees UA

  131

  396

  527

  Stoke-on-Trent

  158

  270

  428

  Suffolk

  696

  348

  1,044

  Sunderland

  388

  360

  748

  Surrey

  1,321

  551

  1,872

  Sutton

  139

  121

  260

  Tameside

  269

  262

  530

  Swindon (Thamesdown)

  215

  500

  715

  Telford and Wrekin UA

  309

  583

  892

  Thurrock UA

  135

  75

  210

  Torbay UA

  196

  143

  339

  Tower Hamlets

  120

  142

  262

  Trafford

  628

  225

  853

  Wakefield

  330

  202

  532

  Walsall

  493

  386

  879

  Waltham Forest

  112

  343

  455

  Wandsworth

  227

  0

  227

  Warrington UA

  447

  454

  901

  Warwickshire

  423

  341

  764

  West Berkshire (Newbury)

  471

  189

  660

  West Sussex

  770

  589

  1,359

  Westminster

  119

  301

  420

  Wigan

  305

  380

  685

  Wiltshire

  832

  783

  1,615

  Windsor and Maidenhead UA

  951

  144

  1,095

  Wirral

  511

  296

  807

  Wokingham UA

  217

  335

  552

  Wolverhampton

  581

  125

  706

  Worcestershire

  1,351

  699

  2,050

  York UA

  690

  389

  1,079

  1End year figures for Gateshead, Gloucestershire and Sandwell are to be confirmed.

  Sex and Relationship Guidance
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects his Department's sex and relationships education guidance to be published. [129976]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment published the sex and relationship education guidance on Friday and sent a copy to each Member of Parliament. It will be a416W
  significant step forward in supporting schools, teachers and governors to deliver effective sex and relationship education. It is underpinned by the Personal, Social and Health Education framework and the National Healthy School Standard. This fulfils a commitment in the Government's Teenage Pregnancy Report to issue new guidance on sex education as part of our drive to tackle teenage pregnancy. Copies are available in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sports and Arts
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if primary schools will be able to apply for funding under the space for sports and arts scheme. [128198]

  Kate Hoey
  Yes; the SSA scheme will make an important contribution to improving sporting facilities in primary schools.

  World Cup (Television Coverage)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Broadcasting Act 1989 with regard to television coverage of the 2002 and 2006 football world cup finals tournaments. [128213]

  Janet Anderson
  In 1998 I extended the list of events protected under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996 to cover all matches in the FIFA World Cup final tournament. Under the terms of that Act, as amended by the Television Broadcasting Regulations 2000, live television coverage of the event must be offered on fair and reasonable terms to broadcasters who meet the qualifying conditions as set out in those regulations and listed in the Independent Television's Code on Listed Events. These broadcasters are currently BBC 1, BBC 2, Channel 3 (ITV) and Channel 4.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he will take to ensure that pensioners aged over 75 years who get free television licences are able to receive terrestrial television channels free of charge. [128215]

  Janet Anderson
  People aged 75 years or over who receive free television licences from 1 November this year will have free access to analogue terrestrial television services and to any free-to-air digital services, in exactly the same way as other viewers.

  Football Facilities
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to increase investment in local football facilities. [128216]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government will shortly announce full details of the Football Foundation, a new partnership body including the Football Association, the FA Premier League and Sport England. All three partners will contribute to the Foundation's income, which will include 5 per cent. of the FA Premier League's next broadcasting contract and substantial Lottery funding.
  417W
  The Foundation will fund community and education initiatives and will continue the stadium safety work of the Football Trust. The greater part of its income, though, will go to funding the sport at the grass roots, including the provision of facilities and coaching.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last discussed physical education in schools with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. [128217]

  Kate Hoey
  I talk regularly to DfEE colleagues about physical education in schools and the Government's strategy for sport. The last time I discussed this with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was on 4 July 2000.

  Lottery
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the criteria taken into consideration in determining awards from national Lottery funds. [128218]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The criteria vary from distributor to distributor and from funding programme to funding programme. They are based on the National Lottery Financial and Policy Directions which I have issued to Lottery distributors, and also on distributors' own policies and strategic plans.

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that funding from the national lottery fund is targeted at the communities with greatest social and economic need to promote participation by young people in performing music. [128221]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The National Foundation for Youth Music, an independent charitable body, was set up by the Department using £30 million in Arts Council Lottery funds to provide and facilitate opportunities for young people to access music making. The Foundation has a key aim to reach young people who are currently deprived of access, improving provision to geographical regions and areas of special need where there are few opportunities for music making.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the criteria for the awarding of funds from the Heritage Lottery Fund. [128214]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Heritage Lottery Fund's criteria for assessing applications under particular schemes are set out in guidance notes in their application pack. The HLF's current Strategic Plan also sets out the four main priorities for allocating grant funding. They are heritage conservation, national heritage, local heritage and heritage education and access.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate he has made of the annual costs to local authorities and other public bodies directly arising from applications to Lottery funding bodies; [129535]
  418W
  (2) what estimate he has made of the annual costs to charities and other voluntary organisations directly arising from applications to lottery funding bodies. [129537]

  Kate Hoey
  None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, however, directed the independent Quality Efficiency and Standards Team (QUEST) to look at the cost to all applicants of making applications for lottery grants, and consider how these costs could be contained without compromising the demands of proper accountability in decisions about how to spend public money. The first phase of QUEST's report, which focuses on applications for lottery grants of up to £100,000, will be published shortly. The second phase, dealing with applications for grants of £100,000 plus, will be published later in the year.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the number of Lottery awards given to(a) the North West, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [128830]

  Kate Hoey
  The following table shows the number of awards in the North West, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since the start of the Lottery, according to my Department's National Lottery awards database.

  Location

  Number of awards

  North West

  3,827

  Scotland

  8,991

  Wales

  5,525

  Northern Ireland

  1,339

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the financial situation of the Millennium Dome. [128219]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) current business plan is based on 6 million revenue-generating visitors. Should visitor numbers fall below this level the business plan will need to be reviewed. Details of the business plan are commercially confidential. NMEC's most recent budget, contained within the business plan, is as follows:

  Project Lifetime Expenditure

  Dome structure and associated infrastructure—£271.2 million

  Set-up costs, staff, accommodation, IT, legal and corporate services—£55.4 million

  Commercial, communications and marketing—£42.7 million

  Exhibits and attractions—£240.2 million

  Operations and running costs in year of operation—£104.6 million

  National Programme: projects (£37.3 million) and programme support (£9.9 million)—£47.2 million

  419W
  Project Lifetime Income

  Millennium Commission Grant—£525 million

  Commercial income—£86 million

  Sponsorship income—£123 million (excludes sponsorship by Ford and BT who have designed, built and funded their zones)

  Legacy: sale of Dome—£30.0 million (as budgeted prior to the Legacy competition commencing. Original 1997 budget provision of £15 million was on the basis that the Dome would remain on-site for one year only)

  Total budget is £758 million plus an additional £3 million granted by the Millennium Commission to enhance marketing of the Millennium Experience.

  Films (Children)
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage the British film industry to make more films aimed at children. [128220]

  Janet Anderson
  The Film Council's Lottery Strategy, published in May, recognises the need to broaden the range of films on offer to the British public. Its £5 million per year script development fund will seek to develop films for the broadest range of audiences, including children. The Council has also announced that it will allocate £1 million of lottery funds to offer children and young people the opportunity to try film-making.

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial assistance is available to amateur sports clubs; and if he will make a statement. [128222]

  Kate Hoey
  Financial assistance is available to amateur sports clubs from a number of sources including: the Lottery Sports Fund; local authorities; governing bodies of sport who distribute income including exchequer funding from Sport England, through their own grant schemes; Sportsmatch; commercial sponsorship; the European Union Social Fund; the Foundation for Sport and the Arts (FSA); and other trusts and foundations with sport-related purposes.

  Football Clubs
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage football supporters to have greater influence in the running of their clubs. [128223]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government believe that groups of supporters can take a responsible role in the running of football clubs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Supporters Direct Initiative in January. In shadow form, this is already providing advice to groups of supporters wishing to form shareholding trusts. The Government will make a detailed announcement concerning the operation of the Supporters Direct Unit shortly.

  Football Coaches
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the activities of the Football Foundation will be directed to expanding the activity of qualified football coaches in primary and secondary schools. [128224]
  420W
  Kate Hoey
  The Government will announce details of the Football Foundation shortly. It will be for the Foundation's Board to decide on funding priorities. However, it is envisaged that the greater part of the Foundation's income will be used to develop the sport at the grass roots. The Government expect that this will involve funding for the provision and improvement of playing facilities, equipment and high quality coaching for local football clubs and schools.

  Libraries (New Books)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the investment in new books made each year by library authorities since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [128199]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In 1997–98 and 1998–99 expenditure by library authorities on books was £1.51 per person. In 1999–2000, the last year for which we have information, the estimated expenditure by library authorities on books was £1.59 per person. This is slightly less than 10 years ago when the figure was £1.73. I have proposed the inclusion of a book expenditure standard in the draft public library standards, which I published in May for wide consultation.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of households which will be able to receive digital television within the next two years. [128209]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Information available from the Independent Television Commission indicates that, with appropriate receivers, most homes in the UK are able to receive digital television now through terrestrial, satellite or cable delivery platforms.

  Free Television Licences (Christchurch)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners in the Christchurch constituency will be eligible to receive free television licences from November. [125967]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 June 2000]: Exact figures on the number of households which will benefit from the concession are not available. However, as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 4 July 2000, Official Report, column 176W, the 1991 Census New Parliamentary Constituency Monitor, published by the Office for National Statistics, 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.

  Free Television Licences (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the number of pensioners in Warrington, North constituency who will be eligible for free television licences. [127315]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: Exact figures on the number of households which will benefit from the concession are not available. However, the 1991 Census New Parliamentary Constituency

  421W
  Monitor, published by the Office for National Statistics, shows the population of the Warrington, North constituency as 94,645, of which 1.8 per cent. were men aged 75 and over and 3.5 per cent. were women aged 75 and over.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to facilitate access for disabled people to new buildings funded by the national lottery. [129310]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: We have encouraged lottery distributors to promote access for all sections of society to the benefits of lottery funding. All lottery distributors take access for disabled people into account when considering grant applications for capital projects.

  World Cup Bid
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the total costs incurred on(a) travel, (b) entertainment and (c) wages, salaries and pensions in connection with the England 2006 World Cup bid; and if he will make a statement. [129709]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: It will be for the Football Association to decide whether to publish details of total expenditure on the 2006 bid. However, Sport England has committed £3.14 million of lottery funding to supporting the bid, and details of the uses to which that money has been put—including the funding of a proportion of the bid team's staff costs—will appear in Sport England's Lottery Annual Report. Travel and entertainment expenditure has not been funded using lottery money as it is specifically excluded from Sport England's funding agreement with the FA.

  Cultural Services
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance he has issued to local authorities on the priority they should attach to cultural services. [128202]

  Janet Anderson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published draft Guidance on Local Cultural Strategies for all local authorities in England in June last year. This Guidance emphasises the importance of cultural services in improving the quality of life for all. A major theme of the Guidance is how cultural services can contribute to wider aims such as tackling social exclusion, encouraging healthier lifestyles and stimulating a commitment to lifelong learning.

  In February we sent all local authorities a mid-term progress report on the experiences of 14 authorities who have been piloting the Guidance. Responses from some 300 local authorities indicated that 85 per cent. of them were developing or had developed a cultural strategy. That represents approximately two-thirds of local authorities in England, which is very good progress.

PRIME MINISTER

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister what were the total costs of the Social Exclusion Unit in 1999. [126797]

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office spent £1,570,000 on the Social Exclusion Unit in the financial year 1999–2000. In addition, the pay and associated costs of a number of staff were borne by other Government Departments to the estimated sum of £214,000; and for parts of the year, some secondee, adviser and research costs have been supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Improvement and Development Agency, National Westminster Bank, the Housing Corporation and Kent County Constabulary.

  Ministerial Residences
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 50W, if those Ministers having the use of grace and favour residences are required to use the additional cost allowance towards the costs incurred within these properties. [126331]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 June 2000]: The costs of maintaining official residences are met by the Government. Ministers occupying official residences are not entitled to claim on London properties the Parliamentary additional cost allowance. Nor are they entitled to the Parliamentary London supplement paid to other Members of Parliament who live in London.

  Crime Summit
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received from(a) the chief constables attending the Crime Summit on 3 July and (b) other chief constables regarding the Government's proposals on spot-fines for anti-social behaviour. [129367]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

  Strategic Communications Unit
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) of 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 455W, regarding the Strategic Communications Unit, for what reasons the number of permanent civil servants has increased from four to nine since January 1998. [129722]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: At the time of its creation in January 1998 the Strategic Communications Unit had six civil servant posts and two special adviser posts, though not all the posts were filled immediately. Since then, three new civil service posts have been created to run the Number 10 website.

  Appointments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the positions to which he is entitled to appoint individuals. [129683]
  423W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: I have listed the appointments that I make as Prime Minister. For some of the bodies listed the appointments are made by the Prime Minister in accordance with statute or by convention. For others, principally the museums and galleries, the appointments are made by the Prime Minister in accordance with the relevant charter or articles of association. In general these are made after consulting the relevant departmental Ministers.

  Trustees—Museums and Galleries

  British Museum

  Imperial War Museum (15 Trustees)

  Museum of London

  National Maritime Museum

  Natural History Museum

  Science Museum including the Chairman

  Victoria and Albert Museum including the Chairman

  Wallace Collection

  National Gallery

  National Portrait Gallery

  Tate Gallery

  Various

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments1

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body

  Chequers Trustee (1)

  Chevening Trustee (1)

  Committee on Standards in Public Life1

  Commissioner for Public Appointments

  Council for Science and Technology

  Doctors' and Dentists' Pay Review Body

  Dorneywood Trustee (1)

  Intrusive Surveillance Commissioners

  Kennedy Memorial Trust

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Nurses, Midwives and other NHS Professions' Pay Review Body

  Official Historians

  Police Arbitration Tribunal Members

  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee

  Schoolteachers' Pay Review Body1

  Security and Intelligence Services Tribunal Members

  Security Commission

  Senior Salaries Pay Review Body

  1Prime Minister has sole responsibility for appointing

  Waiting Lists (Mid-Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 5 July, if he will review the Mid-Essex waiting list figures; and if he will make a statement on trends in Mid-Essex waiting lists since 2 May 1997. [129977]

  The Prime Minister
  I have written to the hon. Member today. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library.

  On-the-spot Fines
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with chief constables in advance of his speech detailing proposals for on-the-spot fines for anti-social behaviour made on 30 June. [129978]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Regional Affairs Committee
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on her plans for the Regional Affairs Committee. [129833]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I hope that the Committee will be established in the near future and will meet before the end of the Session.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Group on Rural Affairs
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many times the Ministerial Group on Rural Affairs has met since it was created; who was in the chair for each meeting; who attended each meeting; and if she will make a statement. [128056]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  It is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. A statement on the Government's policy on rural areas will be made when our Rural White Paper is published.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 11 January 2000,Official Report, column 134W, on secondments, if she will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into her 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. [128241]

  Mr. Stringer
  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.

  The secondees to the Cabinet Office between May 1997 and December 1999 as listed in the answer of 11 January 2000, Official Report, column 134W, worked in a variety of jobs from Cabinet Office Band B2 (broadly equivalent to Higher Executive Officer) to the Senior Civil Service. They worked in a wide range of areas, many of them concerned with the Modernising Government initiative, where we are keen to benefit from best practice from all sections of the economy.

  I am not prepared to identify individual secondees by name or job title. Secondees are employed on the basis that they can contribute valuable expertise and good practice to the Civil Service, and on the basis that no conflict of interest arises. Where appropriate, their names are published in directories such as the Civil Service Year Book, as are those of permanent staff. But they are not separately identified as being on secondment.

  Media Monitoring Unit
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost of the Government Information and Communication Service Media Monitoring Unit was for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [128462]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) operated as a pilot between December 1997 and March 1998. The MMU's set-up and running costs for this period were absorbed by a wide range of Departments. This information is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. In the 1998–99 financial year, the total cost of the unit was £478,878. These costs were recovered from a large number of Departments out of their existing funds.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the PFI contracts entered into by her Department, indicating(a) their dates of commencement, (b) their value, (c) if they have been subject to refinancing and (d) if her Department has a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing. [129055]

  Mr. Stringer
  There are no such contracts.

  Anti-drug Strategy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what was the total amount spent on the Government anti-drug strategy in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and what is the planned expenditure for 2001–02. [128396]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Each year the Government spend in the region of £1.4 billion on anti-drugs activities. For the present strategy, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review settlement provided an additional £217 million of resources for three years, 1998–99 to 2000–01. Spending for the financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04 is being considered as part of the current Spending Review which will be announced shortly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Summit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the(a) agenda and (b) minutes of the crime summit held at 10 Downing street on Monday 3 July; and if he will make a statement. [129294]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: The crime seminar on 3 July brought together senior officers of police and others with expertise in tackling violent crime and disorder. The senior officers of the five Metropolitan forces outlined their plans for using their share of the additional £20 million to tackle robbery, which I announced in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty) on 15 June 2000, Official Report, column 714W.
  426W
  In the general discussion which followed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I underlined our real determination to tackle violence and the culture of disorder. Those present agreed on the need to ensure that the police had sufficient powers to deal effectively with drunken, loutish, anti-social behaviour. The chief officers present were broadly supportive of the idea of fixed penalty fines. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister concluded that the Home Office should work closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others to work up this and other options for tackling disorder in the coming weeks. The Home Office has continuous discussions with Chief Constables about measures to deal with anti-social behaviour.

  Brixton Prison
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to market-test Brixton prison. [130212]

  Mr. Boateng
  Last November, I announced in the wake of serious concern about conditions at Brixton prison, that it must be regarded as a failing institution and that there must be rapid and fundamental improvement. I made it clear that unless big improvements were made quickly, Brixton could be subject to market testing. It is now over eight months since then, and progress at the prison has been kept under close review.

  I am not satisfied with the rate of progress being made, nor that the necessary improvements will be in place within 12 months. In particular, there has not been adequate improvement in compliance with standards, the quality of regime remains poor, there are serious concerns about commitment to equal opportunities within the prison, costs remain high, and there is a lack of commitment to changes to free up resources to improve the regime. This judgment, accepted by the Director General, has been confirmed in a recent visit by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, who found that although certain improvements have been made in many areas, basic conditions, including cleanliness in the health care centre, were still unacceptable.

  I have, therefore, reviewed the position and am clear that I would be failing in my public duty to all those at the prison—staff and prisoners alike—if we did not set a new path for the establishment. The Director General agrees with me that there should be a market test of Brixton prison. The new management team will be responsible for quickening the pace of improvement and for putting together an in-house bid, which will be judged alongside bids which will be invited from private sector operators.

  Police Forces (Expenditure)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the expenditure was(a) in total and (b) per head of population (i) in each police force in Great Britain and (ii) in total in (1) 1979, (2) 1987 and (3) each year since 1992; and what was the real terms change for each year. [126229]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: Tables showing the information for England and Wales have been placed in the Library. Net revenue expenditure figures are in cash terms and are taken from the Chartered

  427W
  Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police Statistics. The percentage changes are in real terms (1998–99:100). Final data for 1999–2000 are not yet available.

  Departmental Fees
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) of 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 229–30W, what assessment he has made of the extent to which the increase in revenues attributable to the subject access under the Data Protection Act 1998 relates to changes in the practice of enforced subject access; if he will introduce legislation to modify section 75(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998 thereby making enforced subject access an offence as soon as the Criminal Record Certificate and Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate are available; and if he will make a statement. [129185]

  Mr. Straw
  It is not possible to say what proportion of subject access requests made to police records are enforced. We have no plans to amend section 75(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998. Criminal Convictions

  Project name

  Date of commencement

  Capital of value (£ million)

  Subject to refinancing?

  Claw-back entitlement?

  Immigration and Detention Caseworking

  Programme (IT programme)

  April 1996

  41

  No

  No

  Medway Secure Training Centre

  3 March 1997

  10

  No

  No

  Rainsbrook (Onley) Secure Training Centre

  3 July 1998

  10

  No

  No

  Hassockfield (Medomsly) Secure Training Centre

  12 November 1998

  10

  Yes

  No

  Park Prison

  4 January 1996

  74

  No

  No

  Fazakerley Prison

  20 December 1995

  88

  Yes

  1No

  Ashfield Prison

  26 June 1998

  30.7

  No

  No

  Forest Bank Prison

  2 July 1998

  38.6

  No

  No

  Ryehill (Onley) Prison

  22 July 1999

  34.7

  No

  No

  Dovegate (Marchington) Prison

  24 September 1999

  48

  No

  No

  Lowdham Grange

  7 November 1996

  32

  No

  No

  Prisons/Energy Tranche 1 Boilerhouses

  1997

  9

  No

  No

  Quantum

  February 2000

  30

  No

  No

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP)

  29 February 2000

  500

  No

  No

  Passport, Data capture and Supply and Personalisation

  July 1997

  30

  No

  No

  1But have negotiated benefits

  Communications Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce an amendment to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill to prohibit the subsequent disclosure of communications data which have legitimately been obtained under the powers granted by the Bill, by virtue of the application of the non-disclosure provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 or by the application of powers in other legislation which could result in statutory demands for communications data; and if he will make a statement. [129210]

  Mr. Straw
  We do not consider it necessary to amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill further as my hon. Friend suggests. The law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies are already subject to restrictions on the degree to which they may share data by the terms 428W
  Certificates also need to be available before enforced subject access can be made an offence. The target date for making those certificates available is July 2002.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times Ministers in his Department have sought the advice of the Permanent Secretary under the circumstances envisaged in Paragraphs 118,121 and 123 of the Ministerial Code; and on which occasions such advice was sought. [129174]

  Mr. Straw
  Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the PFI contracts entered into by his Department, indicating(a) their dates of commencement, (b) their value, (c) if they have been subject to refinancing and (d) if his Department has a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing. [129051]

  Mr. Straw
  The latest information available to us is as follows:

  of the Data Protection Act 1998 or under the statutory restrictions placed on them by the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill substantially enhances the existing safeguards which surround the obtaining of communications data by placing on a statutory basis proper levels of authorisation, considerations of necessity and proportionality and independent oversight by the Interception Commissioner.

  Home Detention Curfews
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners convicted of robbery were released on the Home Detention Curfew scheme on(a) 19, (b) 20, (c) 21, (d) 22 and (e) 23 June; and what was the sentence (i) received and (ii) served in each case. [128920]
  429W
  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: Fourteen prisoners convicted of robbery were placed on the Home Detention Curfew scheme on the dates in question. The breakdown of their release dates, and of the sentence received and served in each case, is given in the table.

  Date released

  Number released

  Sentence received

  (days) Sentence served

  19 June

  6

  1,096

  529

  1,096

  512

  1,096

  490

  915

  401

  455

  192

  275

  81

  20 June

  2

  1,096

  489

  640

  263

  21 June

  4

  1,096

  524

  1,096

  489

  1,096

  489

  731

  307

  22 June

  0

  —

  —

  23 June

  2

  1,280

  581

  366

  170

  Prisons (Visitor Centres)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons have a staffed visitors' centre; and of these how many are funded by the prison. [129199]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1993, when prison establishments were last surveyed, there were 81 visitors' centres. We estimate that about 90 Prison Service establishments now have a visitors' centre. Many of these receive funding from the establishment, although exact figures are not available. We are obtaining more precise information in a further survey as part of a review of visits policy.

  Prison Strip Searches
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors to each prison were strip searched in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000 to date. [129195]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of strip searches carried out on visitors to prisons each year is not recorded. Visitors are strip searched only when there is reasonable cause to suspect that they are carrying a firearm or a controlled drug, and a full rub down search has failed to reveal the item.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many young persons aged under 18 years have been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order; [129264]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of obtaining an anti-social behaviour order. [129241]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on 6 July 2000,Official
  430W
  Report, column 296W, we are aware of at least 27 anti-social behaviour orders made against people under the age of 18.

  The costs quoted in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum for the Crime and Disorder Bill assumed an average additional cost of £600 per anti-social behaviour order. This took account of offsetting savings. We have not assessed the cost of making an order since then.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compatibility of(a) spot-fines for anti-social behaviour and (b) the enforcement mechanism for spot-fines for anti-social behaviour proposed by the Prime Minister in his announcement of 30 June with the European Convention on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement. [129375]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: Any new measures would, of course, have to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the right under Article 6 to a fair trial. Resource implications, the arrangements for handling money and the safety of police officers would also be primary considerations. The Government have no plans to decriminalise anti-social behaviour that currently constitutes an offence in England and Wales.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of training police officers in the use of spot-fines for anti-social behaviour; and if he will make a statement; [129369]

  (2) what plans he has for police forces to retain the funds levied by way of spot-fines for anti-social behaviour; and if he will make a statement; [129374]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the cost to the police of enforcing spot-fines for anti-social behaviour; and if he will make a statement; [129370]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the impact on social exclusion of the imposition of spot-fines for anti-social behaviour; and if he will make a statement; [129373]

  (5) what research his Department has conducted on the increased risk to police officers of (a) violence associated with refusal to pay spot-fines for anti-social behaviour and (b) carrying large amounts of cash obtained from spot-fines for anti-social behaviour; and if he will make a statement; [129366]

  (6) what plans the Government have to make spot-fines for anti-social behaviour (a) criminal and (b) civil penalties; what standard of proof will be employed; if their imposition will be recorded on criminal records; and if he will make a statement; [129371]

  (7) what discussions (a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department had with (i) chief constables and (ii) other police officers regarding spot-fines for anti-social behaviour prior to the Prime Minister's announcement of 30 June; what representations were received; and if he will make a statement; [129364]
  431W
  (8) what plans the Government have for spot-fines for anti-social behaviour to be enforced (a) in addition to and (b) instead of criminal proceedings; and if he will make a statement; [129372]

  (9) what plans the Government have to decriminalise acts of anti-social behaviour that currently constitute criminal offences; and if he will make a statement; [129368]

  (10) what recent research his Department has conducted in relation to introducing powers for the police to impose spot-fines for anti-social behaviour. [129365]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the use of anti-social behaviour orders in Wales. [129836]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is for the police and local authorities concerned, in Wales as in England, to apply to the courts for an anti-social behaviour order if they consider it appropriate in order to protect their local communities. Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) provide an effective weapon to tackle such behaviour. Over 80 ASBOs have been made in the past year in a variety of English local government areas. I very much hope that the new guidance we have recently issued will help to increase their use further still, including in local government areas within England and Wales in which no such orders have as yet been made.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been made to date in Wales. [129837]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave to him on 6 July 2000,Official Report, column 295W.

  Cheryl Hartman
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the means by which the parents of Cheryl Simone Hartman were informed of her death in Holloway prison on 18 June. [129262]

  Mr. Boateng
  I was very sorry to learn of the death of Cheryl Hartman at Holloway prison. Both I and Martin Narey, the Director General for the Prison Service, take deaths in custody very seriously indeed. I would like to pass my condolences on to Ms Hartman's family on behalf of myself and Martin Narey.

  I was disappointed to learn that Ms Hartman's family had been notified of her death by telephone. The Prison Service is aware of the need for sensitivity in notifying the next-of-kin about the death of a loved one in prison custody. Accordingly, such notification should normally be done by a prison governor and the chaplain or, where there are geographical constraints, by the police.

  There may be some exceptional occasions when contact by telephone is the most appropriate method of notification, but I would normally expect a personal call to be made. In this instance, I understand that the Duty Governor took the view that, to ensure that Ms Hartman's
  432W
  mother was notified quickly he should do so by telephone. In addition, he was also under the impression that the police would make personal contact, but in the event they did not.

  I understand that Martin Narey has written to the family to apologise for the Prison Service's handling of this matter. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologise to Ms Hartman's family for the way in which they were treated by the prison authorities.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many lorry drivers were convicted of bringing immigrants into the country in the year before the coming into force of the Carriers' Liability (Clandestine Entrants and Sales of Transporters) Regulations 2000. [129393]

  Mrs. Roche
  During 1999, the number of those convicted of offences committed under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, for knowingly facilitating the entry of either an illegal entrant or an asylum applicant, was 153.

  The number of those convicted who were employed as lorry drivers is not recorded centrally, and data relating to convictions in 2000 are not yet available.

  Emergency Services (Fuel Costs)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each(a) police and (b) fire authority in England and Wales, the amount of their budget for the last financial year that was spent on road fuel for police and fire vehicles. [129391]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 3 July 2000,Official Report, column 69W.

  Detainees (Mental Illness)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that all custody officers(a) ask detainees questions to determine their mental state and (b) receive training in recognising mental illness. [129587]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is not the function of detention custody officers to determine a detainee's mental state. However, it is part of their function to refer any health concerns about a detainee to the medical team located at the Centre. Detainees are offered full medical screening on arrival at a Detention Centre and this includes mental health screening. Qualified medical staff are on duty during the day and an on call system operates at night.

  The level of Health Care at Detention Centres is comparable to that in a local General Practice.

  Detainees are referred for specialist treatment, including psychological counselling, in the same way as any other NHS patient.

  Detention Custody Officers will receive suicide awareness and first aid training as part of their training programme.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many agencies of his Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [129638]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 466W. In addition, most of Her Majesty's prisons and some of the smaller offices of the other agencies of my Department have an "automated attendant" facility. This enables the caller to use the telephone keypad to select the required extension, where direct dialling-in to the extension is not available, or to speak to an operator. No central records of these facilities are kept.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by touch tone telephone steering systems. [129620]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 467W. In addition, some of the smaller offices in my Department have an "automated attendant" facility. This enables the caller to use the telephone keypad to select the required extension, where direct dialling-in to the extension is not available, or to speak to an operator. No central records of these facilities are kept.

  Prison Ships
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison ships are in use in the UK; and how many inmates were held on these ships on 1 July. [129455]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service for England and Wales currently has one floating facility, Weare prison, moored in Portland harbour, Dorset.

  On 1 July, 359 adult males were held by the prison, the certified normal accommodation for which is 400.

  Humberside Police Force
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the additional 5,000 police he recently announced are serving in the Humberside police force. [129609]

  Mr. Straw
  The Crime Fighting Fund will allow police forces in England and Wales to recruit 5,000 officers over and above the number they had otherwise planned to recruit: 3,000 in 2000–01 and 2,000 in 2001–02.

  Humberside have been allocated 74 additional recruits from the Crime Fighting Fund: 47 in 2000–01 and 27 in 2001–02. Nineteen of the Crime Fighting Fund recruits for 2000–01 have been recruited so far and are presently serving in Humberside police.

  Child Detainees
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each institution which has received children under a detention and training order since the introduction of such orders. [129701]
  434W
  Mr. Boateng
  The Detention and Training Order may be served in a number of different types of institution: young offender institutions; secure training centres; and places in local authority secure units. Generally, in the case of boys, those who are aged 15 to 17 will serve their sentence in a young offender institution, and those aged 12 to 14 in secure training centres or local authority secure units, except where individual assessment recommends otherwise. This reflects the Youth Justice Board's placement strategy, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Placements of boys aged 15 to 17 to a young offender institution should be made to those comprising the new distinct estate for boys: Ashfield; Brinsford; Castington; Feltham; Hollesley Bay; Huntercombe; Lancaster Farms; Onley; Portland; Stoke Heath; Thorn Cross; Werrington; and Wetherby. The new estate comprises juvenile-only establishments and juvenile units in young offender institutions.

  The Government have decided that young women aged 15 to 16 should be placed in non-Prison Service accommodation, as should those aged 17 years, as spaces become available. In the interim, 17-year-olds on remand will continue to share facilities with adults due to their small numbers, and those who are sentenced with other young women under 21 in enhanced young offender units in womens' prisons at: Brockhill; Bullwood Hall; Drake Hall; Eastwood Park; Holloway; Low Newton; New Hall and Styal.

  Community Safety Partnerships
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which(a) organisations, (b) individuals and (c) projects have benefited from his Department's expenditure on community safety partnerships in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [129527]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities and police jointly to develop and implement strategies to reduce crime in their area. The main additional source of Home Office funding for partnerships is the Crime Reduction Programme, details of which are contained in the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State, gave on 7 July 2000, Official Report, columns 359–60W. The Home Office also has in place a programme of research, consultancy support, training and seminars to help partnerships achieve real reductions in crime and disorder.

  Grants
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations and individuals received grants and payments in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 for services in support of the work of (i) the Probation Service and (ii) local authority social services departments; and how much money was paid in each such grant. [129521]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: Information relating to organisations and individuals receiving grants and payments in support of the work of the Probation Service is not available for 1999–2000 or 2000–01. I will write to the hon. Member with details of the figures for 1998–99 and place a copy of the

  435W
  information in the Library. The matter of payments to local social services is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy objective of his Department's annual payment to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. [129528]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The Home Office funds the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) in pursuit of Home Office objectives in the prevention of crime, the resettlement of offenders, the prevention of reoffending, the delivery of justice fairly and equally to all and the promotion of the confidence of all communities in the criminal justice system. This includes projects in crime prevention, research and evaluation, offender employment and housing. NACRO also pursues work for the Prison Service in areas of resettlement, race and women's issues.

  Reoffenders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reoffending rates following participation in an accredited programme run by the probation service in England and Wales were in each of the last three years; what were the reoffending rates for those sentenced to a probation order in the same period; and if he will make a statement. [129316]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The Joint Prison Probation Accreditation Panel first met to consider applications in December last year. To date the Panel has granted provisional accreditation to one community-based offender programme. It is likely that a further seven offending behaviour programmes will be considered for accreditation when the Panel next meets in September. There are no reconviction or reoffending rates available from the programme, as it has not been running long enough to provide the necessary data. Arrangements are in place for the evaluation of the programmes.

  The reconviction rates of those offenders sentenced to a probation order in the last three years—available data are: 59 per cent. for 1994, and 60 per cent. for 1995 and 1996.

  The work of the Accreditation Panel will promote the use of evidence-based practice, which the probation service is working towards.

  Voluntary Sector Funding
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations were paid grants in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 (i) to assist work in support of the voluntary sector, (ii) to promote voluntary activity and community development and (iii) to support innovative projects; and how much money was paid in each such grant. [129526]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The information covers grant programmes whose primary purposes are to promote voluntary activity and community development and to assist work, including innovative projects, in support of the voluntary sector. Some
  436W
  organisations receive grants for different purposes and those amounts are shown separately. The tables have been placed in the Library.

  Prisoner Repatriation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign prisoners serving sentences in England and Wales were repatriated in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [129313]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The information requested is given in the table:

  Number

  1997

  17

  1998

  42

  1999

  22

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British nationals who were sentenced abroad were repatriated to serve out their sentences in England and Wales in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [129314]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The information requested is given in the table:

  Number

  1997

  34

  1998

  27

  1999

  11

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were made in each of the past three years for repatriation for foreign prisoners in England and Wales; how many of those applications were(a) refused and (b) discontinued; and if he will make a statement. [129315]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The information requested is given in the table:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Applications

  127

  157

  193

  Refused

  36

  49

  45

  Discontinued

  38

  34

  16

  Applications refused or discontinued may not have been submitted in the year they were determined.

  Rape
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his response is to the report of the Working Party on Rape submitted to the United Kingdom Programme Action Committee of Soroptimist International; and if he will make a statement. [129287]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The report of the Working Party on Rape of the United Kingdom Programme Action Committee of Soroptimist International is an interesting
  437W
  and useful contribution to the discussion on the law on rape and the treatment of rape victims in the United Kingdom. It was submitted to the review that was considering the law of sex offences in England and Wales and contributed to their work.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals(a) have been convicted of a football-related offence and (b) had an international banning order placed upon them; and what reasons the courts have given, under the terms of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, for not imposing banning orders in each case since 26 September 1999. [129779]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Thirty-three individuals have had International Football Banning Orders imposed under the terms of the 1999 Act. I regret that the other information requested is not available, but information on all football-related convictions will be collected by the National Criminal Intelligence Service from the beginning of the next season.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners convicted of grievous bodily harm have been released earlier than their normal parole date in the last 12 months. [129980]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prisoners serving four years and over are eligible for parole at the half way point in sentence under a system of discretionary conditional release. Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 allows for release from prison at any time on compassionate grounds in exceptional circumstances. In the last 12 months, one prisoner serving a sentence for inflicting grievous bodily harm has been released on compassionate grounds prior to his parole eligibility date.

  Prisoners serving under four years are not subject to parole but are released automatically at the halfway point in sentence. The majority of such prisoners are eligible for consideration for the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme which provides for their release up to 60 days before their automatic release date. Full details of those released under the HDC scheme since its introduction in January 1999 are given in the reply by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 3 July 2000, Official Report, columns 58–59W.

  Child Curfew Orders
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child curfew orders have been issued under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [129979]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No applications have been received from local authorities to establish child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Following consultation with local authorities and the police the Government are considering what improvements might be made to the provisions to ensure that they are able to contribute effectively to local partnership efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour.

  Sex Education
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of young offenders' institutions in the United Kingdom offer parenting and sexual health classes; and if he will make a statement. [129255]

  Mr. Boateng
  All Prison Service establishments in England and Wales must offer a social and life skills programme as part of the Prison Service core curriculum. The social and life skills programme includes units on healthy living, parentcraft, family relationships, sexual health and relationships education. Governors of prisons and young offender institutions order a range of units from education contractors. It is not possible to say what percentage of young offender institutions offer parentcraft and sexual health and relationships education as no information is held centrally on the particular units ordered by individual establishments.

  Young offender institutions in Scotland and Northern Ireland are a matter for the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.

  Police Recruits
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take action to reduce variation between police forces in the medical standards which they require of newly recruited officers. [129990]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking action to review recruitment procedures to ensure non-discriminatory practices and to publish national recruitment standards, including medical standards. My officials are working with police representative organisations to meet this deadline.

TREASURY

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce the outcome of Spending Review 2000. [130215]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I will make a statement to the House on Tuesday 18 July.

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the costs of converting to the euro for(a) Government Departments, (b) the private sector and (c) the economy as a whole. [129594]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Should the UK decide to join the euro, the costs of a changeover would depend on the detailed approach taken.

  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which advertising agency has been tasked with the euro preparation work commissioned by his Department; what is the length of the contract; when the work will start and finish; what is the value of the contract; and what plans he has to launch new euro campaigns. [128805]
  439W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury does not have an advertising agency appointed for business euro preparations work.

  Fuel Taxation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce fuel taxation in order to reduce the current average price of fuel to March 2000 levels. [129272]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: I have no plans to do so. Decisions on the appropriate levels of fuel duties are set on a Budget by Budget basis, taking account of the Government's economic and social objectives as well as the UK's environmental commitments.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Christchurch tabled on 8 June about council tax and pensioners (ref. 125925) and 9 June about pensioners in Christchurch (ref. 125976). [129118]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: Both questions have been answered.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the unemployment rate in each of the 20 largest metropolitan boroughs is and what it was in May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [129112]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tim Loughton, dated 10 July 2000:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the unemployment rate in each of the 20 largest metropolitan boroughs.
  The ONS preferred measure of unemployment is the International Labour Organisation (ILO) unemployment rate, derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). However, LFS estimates are not available for single months.
  The ONS also publishes a monthly count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  Claimant count rates by local area on the unadjusted basis can be obtained from the Nomis database at the House of Commons Library.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the population of the 20 largest cities in the UK; and what was the population of the same cities(a) two, (b) five and (c) 10 years earlier. [128867]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  440W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Curry, dated 10 July 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the twenty largest cities in the UK. (128867)
  I have given my reply in the attached table in terms of the twenty largest local authorities in the UK rather than cities as official population estimates are produced for local authority areas, not cities. ONS produces annual mid-year population estimates for the local authorities in England and Wales. The local authorities in England and Wales are the unitary authorities, district, borough councils and London boroughs. The population estimates used for each of the years given in this answer are in terms of the local authorities as their boundaries were defined in 1998. This has been done so that comparisons can be made between years without confusion due to the local government reorganisation that took place between 1996 and 1998.
  The General Register Office for Scotland and the Northern Ireland Statistics Research Agency produces the population estimates for the local authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The mid-98 population estimates from these sources have been used with the estimates from England and Wales in order to identify the twenty largest local authorities in the UK in mid-98.
  The mid-98 population estimates have been used for this answer as these are the most recent population estimates for England and Wales; the mid-99 estimates are due to be published in August 2000.

  Estimated resident population for the 20 largest local authority areas in mid-1998 in the United Kingdom1, 2

  Total population

  Local authority area3

  Mid-1998

  Mid-1996

  Mid-1993

  Mid-1988

  1. Greater London4

  7,187,300

  7,074,300

  6,933,000

  6,770,300

  2. Birmingham

  1,013,400

  1,020,600

  1,012,400

  1,001,900

  3. Leeds

  727,400

  726,900

  724,500

  710,300

  4. Glasgow City

  619,700

  616,400

  624,900

  649,900

  5. Sheffield

  531,100

  530,400

  531,900

  530,700

  6. Bradford

  483,300

  483,400

  480,000

  467,000

  7. Liverpool

  461,500

  468,000

  477,000

  482,300

  8. Edinburgh, City of

  450,200

  448,900

  441,600

  437,500

  9. Manchester

  429,800

  430,800

  432,000

  439,300

  10. Bristol, City of UA

  402,300

  399,600

  397,600

  392,500

  11. Kirklees5

  390,900

  388,800

  385,800

  378,500

  12. Fife5

  348,900

  349,300

  351,200

  346,600

  13. Wirral5

  327,100

  329,200

  334,100

  335,500

  14. North Lanarkshire5

  326,700

  325,900

  326,800

  330,700

  15. Cardiff UA

  320,900

  315,000

  305,200

  292,900

  16. Wakefield

  318,800

  317,300

  317,500

  310,500

  17. East Riding of Yorkshire UA5

  312,800

  308,800

  302,000

  287,900

  18. Dudley

  311,500

  312,200

  311,500

  305,900

  19. Wigan

  310,500

  309,800

  313,200

  306,600

  20. South Lanarkshire5

  306,900

  307,500

  306,100

  303,600

  1In descending order of size

  2Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred persons

  3The local authorities in England and Wales are as their boundaries were defined in 1998 after local government reorganisation

  4Greater London includes all 33 London boroughs

  5Major population centres in these areas are:

  Kirklees—Huddersfield

  Fife—Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy

  Wirral—Birkenhead

  North Lanarkshire—Cumbernauld and Coatbridge

  East Riding of Yorkshire—Beverley and Bridlington

  South Lanarkshire—East Kilbride and Hamilton.Source:

  Office for National Statistics, General Register Office for Scotland

  Mortgages
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent consultations he has had with(a) the Financial Services Authority, (b) the Department of Trade and Industry, (c) the Office of Fair Trading, (d) the European Commission and (e) consumer groups about the definition

  441W
  of a mortgage; and if he will list the (i) consumer groups and (ii) others he is consulting about the definition of a mortgage. [129263]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement made on 27 January 2000,Official Report, columns 262–64W, of the Government's decision on the regulation of mortgages.

  That decision was the outcome of a consultation exercise that gathered a great deal of evidence, including that from borrowers and consumer groups, about what can go wrong with mortgage lending.

  The proposals announced by the Government were designed specifically to address these problems and put the consumer in control.

  Following the announcement of the Government's decision, the Treasury has received helpful views on the definition of a mortgage, and is also drawing on the expertise of the Financial Services Authority and other Government Departments. The Government will consult on any proposed legal definition at the appropriate time.

  Severn Bridges Tolls (VAT)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about EU proposals to impose VAT on tolls for the Severn Bridges. [129269]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are awaiting the judgment of the European Court of Justice, due on 12 September, on whether or not VAT should be levied on toll charges. An appropriate announcement will be made when this judgment has been studied.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the policy since 1989 on writing annually to those of his Department's staff who are paying reduced rates of National Insurance contributions, reminding them of the rules governing the payment of reduced rates, as recommended in the Inland Revenue guidance note on reduced rate National Insurance contributions for married women. [129478]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue Guide to Employers states that employers may consider it worthwhile to have arrangements in place to issue a periodic reminder to married women employees for whom they hold a certificate of election, advising them of the need to tell the employer if their marriage ends by divorce or annulment or that they are no longer entitled to pay reduced rate National Insurance contributions. All of my Departments with such employees follow this advice either by an annual notice in their staff bulletins or in individual letters issued annually.

  IR35
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last revised the expected revenue yield from IR35; and what the revised estimate is. [129733]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to Table A2.1 of this year's Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families he expects to benefit from implementation of the Children's Tax Credit in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom. [129925]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that about five million families in the UK will benefit from the introduction of the Children's Tax Credit, of which about 400,000 are in Scotland.

  Redundancy Pay
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons money received on redundancy as pay in lieu of notice and holiday pay is treated for tax purposes as income for the tax year in which it is paid, in circumstances where it relates to a period of time within the following tax year; and if he will make a statement. [128182]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 July 2000]: The earnings of all employees and directors, including money received on redundancy as pay in lieu of notice and holiday pay, are taxed in the year in which they are received instead of the year for which they were earned. This way of taxing earnings was introduced in the 1989 Budget in order to simplify the method of assessment. There are no current plans to change this treatment.
  Tax treatment of redundancy payments Payments made solely to compensate for an individual being made redundant are taxable above a £30,000 exemption limit.Tax treatment of payments in lieu of notice and holiday pay Payments in lieu of notice are taxable in full if they are provided for in the contract of employment or if the employer customarily pays them. Other payments in lieu of notice are treated in the same way as redundancy payments, i.e. taxable above a £30,000 exemption limit. Holiday pay owed is taxable in full.All of the above payments are taxed in the year in which they are received. Those payments which are taxable in full have been taxed in this way since 1989 and those payments which are taxable above a £30,000 exemption limit—i.e. redundancy payments and some payments in lieu of notice—have been taxed in this way since 1998.

  Exports
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of UK goods exported to(a) Antwerp and (b) Rotterdam were for onward transit outside the EU in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [129673]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave on 9 May 2000, Official Report, column 334W, and on 10 May 2000, Official Report, columns 400–01W, on the same subject.

  Where goods are moved in transit through other EC countries while en route to non-EC countries, exporters are required to state the final country of destination on their customs declarations. Customs produce trade statistics on the basis of the declared final country of destination and do not record transit details.

  However, some goods exported to other EC countries and reported as such may subsequently be exported on to a third country—e.g. by way of a further commercial transaction. The European trade statistics system does not allow for the identification of these movements.

  Public Sector Workers (Home Loans)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 June 2000,Official Report, column 574W, on Public Sector Workers (Home Loans), whether a teacher employed in (a) a county school and (b) an independent school granted a preferential loan for housing by (i) the Department for Education and Employment, (ii) the Exchequer and (iii) the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, would be liable for tax and national insurance contributions on that loan. [129713]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: On the basis that the teacher would not be an employee of a Government Department and the loan was neither guaranteed nor facilitated by the teacher's employer, the teacher would not be liable to income tax or national insurance contributions on the loan.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 June 2000,Official Report, column 574W, on Public Sector Workers (Home Loans), whether a nurse (a) in the NHS and (b) employed in a private sector hospital granted a preferential loan for housing by (i) the Department of Health, (ii) the Exchequer and (iii) the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, would be liable for tax and national insurance contributions on that loan. [129714]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: On the basis that the nurse would not be an employee of a Government Department and the loan was neither guaranteed nor facilitated by the nurse's employer, the nurse would not be liable to income tax or national insurance contributions on the loan.

  Judicial Review
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library copies of the evidence which he has disclosed in the judicial review application of Williams Jeffery Barber on behalf of the National Crime Squad and others. [128922]
  444W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: Although the Chancellor is under no obligation to publish the evidence that is disclosed in a judicial review, a copy of the witness statement prepared by the Treasury for the judicial review will be placed in the Library.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) pensioners and (b) non-pensioner households spend more than 10 per cent. of their total expenditure on council tax. [125925]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 June 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 10 July 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking about spending on council tax. (125925)
  The Family Expenditure Survey shows an estimated 230,000 pensioner households and 500,000 non-pensioner households in Great Britain spent more than 10 per cent. of their total expenditure on council tax in 1998–99, after deducting any discounts or benefits. Total expenditure is all spending on goods and services including mortgage interest, but excluding saving and investment, life assurance and medical insurance payments, and purchase or alteration of dwellings.
  Like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of Working Families Tax Credit payments to families in receipt of child support payments; [128330]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of families in receipt of both child support payments and Working Families Tax Credit. [128331]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A reliable estimate of the number of families in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and which also receive maintenance payments is not yet available. All maintenance received is disregarded for WFTC, and the amount of maintenance received cannot be determined from the information processed for applications for WFTC. Household survey data available for analysis do not yet cover families receiving WFTC.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons: Annual Report
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the most recent annual report from HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, published on 13th June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government welcome the chief inspector's annual report, which they view as a largely positive commentary on the progress made in the Prison Service. Sir David Ramsbotham makes some valid criticisms of the service and of certain individual establishments. I know that the Director General of the Prison Service welcomes those criticisms and has used them to help effect significant improvements, not least at Wormwood Scrubs.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. May I now switch into slightly more specific mode and ask the Minister if he recalls his response to a point I raised on 12th June, when he said:
"training and education … arc central to the … regimes that enable offenders to return to a normal life … That is our intention and our policy objective".—[Official Report, 12/6/00; col. 1369.]
2
Was he not, therefore, dismayed the very next day to read in the chief inspector's report (pages 27 to 32) that the quantity of education "remains poor", its quality marred by lack of needs analysis; that workshop training has actually,
"grown worse over the past year with very few [prisons and young offender institutions] now offering NVQs or other qualifications";
that,
"Few establishments have a careers education guidance policy",
and finally that there is gross inconsistency in relevant resource allocation ranging from £2,357 per inmate per annum down to a miserable £189? Given that the prison population has risen by 50 per cent over the past decade, is it not our best hope, despite failures, to have better rehabilitation through education and training?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw our attention to the importance and value of education. I know that it looms large in his mind in relation to the Prison Service. It is certainly the case that 65 per cent of the prison population have such poor basic skills as to render them ineligible for the vast majority of jobs. We are right in trying to concentrate extra resources on education. For that reason, an extra £28 million was made available in the Comprehensive Spending Review to enhance opportunities for prisoners and enable them to acquire better accredited basic skills and key literacy and numeracy skills. While the inspector is right to draw attention to some of the deficiencies in the programme, we are investing more in education—more hours are spent in education, and more accredited hours. It is our intention to carry on with that improvement. To reveal just one statistic, in 1997 there were 1.117 million teaching hours; there are now 1.326 million teaching hours. That is an impressive improvement, which it is our intention to continue. We see education as the key to reducing the rate of offending in our prison institutions.
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the relevance of education to this problem, how long will Her Majesty's

3
Government continue spending incomparably more money on incarcerating prisoners to educate them after they have become criminals rather than identifying those who are about to become criminals? Is the Minister aware that exclusion from school is the single most accurate and reliable predictor of criminality in young people? Is it not in that area that the money should be spent?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot speak for the Department for Education, but we are investing much more in education; in the Budget, an extra £1 billion was made available. I cannot give chapter and verse as to where all the money goes. The noble Lord is absolutely right to insist that we spend more on education, and this Government have a superb record in doing so. We know that the reoffending rate falls if more is invested in education and training for prisoners; we are right to invest money in that sector too.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is much disquiet among old-time Labour Party penal reformers about the projected increase in the prison population? Will he give an assurance that the chief inspector will be asked to look into all the implications?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the chief inspector is free to comment widely on matters that affect the prison estate. However, if people commit serious offences and the courts take the view that they should be incarcerated, that is right too. Prison is appropriate for people who commit those kinds of offences, and we make no apology for that. If there are issues of overcrowding, the chief inspector will rightly wish to comment on them.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, is the Minister able to give any assurance about the continuation of the post of the chief inspector, as hinted at on page 4 of the report? Is he also aware of the concern shared by many people, including those in the Churches, about the future of the post?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate is aware that the contract of the Chief Inspector of Prisons has been extended for a further year until July 2001. His period of office will come to a close at the same time as that of the Chief Inspector of Probation Services. We have debated this matter in your Lordships' House on several occasions. The Government continue to have confidence in the independence and robustness of the chief inspector's performance and have every confidence in the way that he carries out his duties. His reports are very valuable to the Prison Service and enable the director general to make excellent judgments in the management of that service. Therefore, we continue to have confidence in the work of the Chief Inspector and look forward to a continuing, wide-ranging and robust relationship with him.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in the report the chief inspector refers to three of the most highly critical reports on prisons that have ever been made; namely, those dealing with Wormwood Scrubs, Feltham and Wandsworth. Is the Minister content that the situation in each of those establishments is now satisfactory?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is always room for improvement in any prison. I am sure that we can all think of ways in which a particular prison regime can be improved. However, Sir David is himself not unhappy with the progress made in those three establishments. He has recently looked at them again and commented favourably on the nature of the improved regimes. However, he reminds us where they have come from historically. We are committed to working with the Prison Service. The director general is committed to ensuring that those regimes are effective. We must give management every possible support to ensure that at all times the regimes improve and are effective.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why the Government are constructing two large women's prisons when, surely, we need more small units well distributed throughout the country and, if possible, linked with treatment and rehabilitation centres?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are continuing the expansion of the prison estate. I understand well the point made by the noble Lord. However, flexibility within the prison estate is required, and the larger establishments provide that opportunity. We continue to monitor the situation and we may well need to review the estate as far as concerns women prisoners.

Reproductive Healthcare
2.46 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon asked Her Majesty's Government:
How their aim of universal access to reproductive healthcare is affected by the recent reduction in the proportion of funding which they give to NGO projects in this field.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the reproductive health target embraces all reproductive health services: safe motherhood, the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and access to good quality family planning services, information and commodities. Although funding for all non-governmental organisations under the Civil Society Challenge Fund is on a cost-sharing basis, this constitutes a small proportion of funding that is available to reproductive healthcare NGOs. DfID will continue to play a key role in achieving the aim of universal access to

5
reproductive healthcare but improvements will be possible only where the countries concerned have the political will to ensure this.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, in particular the apparent commitment of the Government to this very important area. While at present NGOs in this field may have reconciled themselves to the level of funding which the Government are to give them over the next few years, will HMG keep under review the effects that these fairly substantial cuts may have on NGOs, in particular the smaller ones that find it very difficult to raise large percentages of their project funds and in general NGOs that over the years have developed considerable skill and expertise in this very important field?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on asking his Question today, bearing in mind that tomorrow is World Population Day. I am sure that the whole House will congratulate him, given that he always manages to table a Question on this subject every year. The noble Viscount asked me specifically whether the Civil Society Challenge Fund would review its funding arrangements for NGOs. I assure him that we intend to review this matter on a continuous basis. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has agreed that in the first three years of the Civil Society Challenge Fund, funding for NGOs working in the area of reproductive health will be 85 per cent, 70 per cent and 50 per cent.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, as the funding is to be reduced over three years, which is an improvement on a reduction in the first year of 50 per cent, can the noble Baroness tell the House where the matching funding is to be found? I believe that in the Minister's response to the noble Viscount she implied that matching funding should he found in the developing countries, which are, as she is well aware, under stress at the moment.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the overall funding in this area will not be reduced. All our figures show a continuing rise in the area of reproductive health. It is only in the area of the Civil Society Challenge Fund that there has always been matched funding under what is called the JFS. However, there was a slightly different arrangement for reproductive health NGOs which had 100 per cent funding. Our funding overall has increased, not decreased. As to matching funding, we expect it to come from, for example, other international institutions such as the UN or foundations.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that continuous funding is necessary in one area of reproductive health; namely, putting an end to female genital mutilation? Fifteen thousand
6
girls are still in danger of mutilation. In parts of the Horn of Africa the mutilation of girls amounts to almost 100 per cent.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, our overall funding is increasing not decreasing.
Female genital mutilation is a basic violation of women's rights. Our multilateral partners—for example, the World Health Organisation, UNFPA and UNICEF—are working to persuade governments to tackle FGM as both a human rights abuse and a public health concern. FGM has been reduced in 28 African countries where it is practised. It has been banned in law by one third. So some improvements are being made.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is there additional and separate funding to deal with the problem of AIDS? The noble Baroness mentioned sexually transmitted diseases. AIDS is the most serious concern world-wide and in particular in Africa.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is not a separate fund for AIDS. Funding is through bilateral and multilateral donors and through the Civil Society Fund. AIDS is one of the areas we are looking at. My noble friend Lady Rendell will ask a Question on the subject tomorrow.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the United Nations joint programme on HIV and AIDS published last week a chilling report predicting that two-thirds of today's 15 year-olds in Botswana will die of AIDS by the age of 50? Do the Government accept the analysis and conclusions of that report, in particular the call for a massive increase in political will—I was pleased that she referred to that earlier—to fight the AIDS epidemic in Southern Africa?
What instructions have been given, in particular in the area of health education, to our representatives who have been sent to the World AIDS Conference— sadly, there are no Ministers—which opened in Durban yesterday?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my department is extremely concerned that the development gains we have made to date, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, are being eroded by the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. I agree with the noble Lord that political will is extremely important. We have seen its importance in countries like Uganda where leadership from the top has been important in taking forward AIDS awareness programmes.
At the Durban conference we have representatives from both the Department of Health and the Department for International Development. Clearly there are scientific, health and development issues which we need to consider across the board.

Police: Recruiting from Universities
2.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the proposal for a university degree course in detection and investigation of crime.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I understand that there have been exploratory discussions between the Police National Training College and two universities about the possibility of accrediting courses in detection and investigation of crime. However, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary awaits firm proposals. Any degree courses would require validation by a degree awarding body. We welcome the partnership between universities and employers in designing vocational degree courses which meet the needs of specific industries.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that while detectives in fiction have not been short of intellectual erudition—for example, Sherlock Holmes, Poirot and Maigret, although Inspector Clouseau must be excluded since the little grey cells were not working for him—the detective's role in police forces is not highly regarded? Unfortunately it does not seem to lead to the higher ranks.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his extensive knowledge of crime fiction. It is difficult for me to comment on the status of different categories of employment in the police force. However, I believe that training is extremely important in the difficult area of investigatory work. The Government are delighted that the National Police College at Bramshill is thinking about extending and developing this training, in particular for serving police officers of senior rank.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while academic excellence in any area is to be welcomed, we also need practical expertise? One recent problem, if I may draw on my experience over many years as a detective, has been the policy of tenure in police forces whereby police officers in the CID, for example, are rotated after a fixed period of three or five years with no account taken of their experience and ability. As a result, the concept of a career detective is destroyed. Does the noble Baroness agree that that is to the disadvantage of crime detection? It leads, for example, to the Metropolitan Police advertising for retired detectives to return on short-term contracts.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, expertise in any area is extremely important. Expertise in an area of this kind is time consuming to develop and build up. Where it has been acquired I share my noble friend's
8
view that it is a pity if people are then moved on to quite different duties where they are unable to use that important expertise.
Lord McNally: My Lords, are the Home Office and individual police forces making enough effort to recruit graduates into the police force? We need a well-educated police force to combat modern crime. In the past, there have been prejudices in individual police forces against the graduate recruit, something which joined-up government should discourage.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. There is now much scope, with larger numbers of young people and mature students going to university, for increasing the recruitment of graduates into the police force. A number of police forces run programmes for serving officers to acquire degrees while they are members of the police force. That again is greatly to be welcomed. A course for a BA in Police Management has been validated by Sheffield University. It is run by Merseyside Police for their serving officers. We greatly welcome more of that joined-up thinking between individual police forces and universities.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, following the question on practical experience from the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, will university degree courses be one of the matters on which the noble Lord, Lord Birt, will advise the Government?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, will advise the Government about all aspects of dealing with crime by young people, including the training of police officers.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does the Minister support the proposals made in the European Voice last week for the establishment of a European police college to help police throughout the European Union combat cross-border crime, terrorism and other problems arising from the establishment of the single European market?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure that that is a matter my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will want to consider.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, the Minister exalts graduation. While it would not be incumbent on me to deplore the value of graduation, which has seen me through a life, does the noble Baroness believe that the practical skills of the policeman on the beat working up through the profession should be given more regard?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the practical skills of the policemen on the beat are invaluable. However, as young policemen are promoted and work their way up through the ranks, there are different needs. While on the beat, they will not have had experience of the investigation of serious crime and will require further training in order to acquire the necessary skills and expertise.

Robert Maxwell Inquiry: Progress
3 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the report of the inspectors into the affairs of the business dealing of the late Robert Maxwell and Mirror Group Newspapers to be published.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the two independent inspectors, Raymond Turner FCA and Sir John Thomas, were appointed on 8th June 1992 to investigate and report on the affairs and membership of the Mirror Group Newspapers plc. The inspectors have not yet submitted their report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. A decision on publication will be taken when the report has been received and fully considered.
Her Majesty's Government are hopeful that the inspectors' inquiry will be completed shortly, but the inspectors are independent of government and are,
"masters of their own procedure".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure whether anyone will be happy with that Answer. Is it not true that after eight years the inquiry has cost £8 million? As one of the inspectors is now a judge, are the Government satisfied that he is able to give the inspection the top priority that is required? Furthermore, as he is now a judge, is there not a danger that the report might breach the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the speed of the inquiry is a matter for Sir John Thomas. There are good reasons which relate to the activities of the Serious Fraud Office and the two cases which have taken place. At no time has the view been held that the amount of work necessary has delayed the inquiry. In fact, it has cost a little less than £8 million; £7.6 million to be precise. When Sir John Thomas was appointed a High Court judge, the then Lord Chancellor was aware of the situation and did not believe that it would make it impossible for Sir John to continue as an inspector.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the Government's resources for considering the report and passing judgment on it are adequate to the task?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure that after all this time adequate resources will be available so that we can consider and publish it as soon as possible.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does not the delay cause another injustice? Is the Minister aware—this is not intended as a rhetorical question—that the personal integrity of a number of Members of both Houses has
10
been a matter of public and private debate for the past eight years? Their only redress—the only way they can defend themselves—lies in the publication of the report. Does the Minister believe that the delay is fair?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it would be naive to think that if the publication of the report were stopped—and that could be the only action which would have an effect—the concerns would go away.
The reasons the report has not been published are, first, the action of the Serious Fraud Office against Kevin Maxwell and others. The first criminal trial began in May 1995 and resulted in acquittals. A second trial was stayed in September 1996. Since then, the inspectors have had difficulty in obtaining evidence from Kevin Maxwell. They certified Kevin Maxwell's refusal to answer one of their questions in October 1998 and court proceedings ensued. At that point, the court decided that Kevin Maxwell had to answer the inspectors' questions, although substantial changes were made in the procedures. Those reasons, and not inaction on the part of the inspectors, have caused the delay.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, it is difficult to understand the reasons. I take the points mentioned by my noble friend today, but is there any need to pursue the matter further? Would it not be as well to publish what has been found so far and then see whether the Government or anyone else have it in mind to do anything about it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I should have thought that publishing the report before the inquiries have been concluded would be the worst conceivable outcome because it would leave all the doubts and questions unanswered. After all this time, the only thing which will remove the uncertainties and suspicions is the completion and publication of the report.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, significant implications arise from the facts behind the report, in particular the need to protect the interests of pensioners. In view of that, can the Minister indicate that, notwithstanding the failure or inability to publish the report for the reasons set out, the legislation now passing through this House takes into account the inspectors' likely recommendations regarding the protection of pensioners' rights?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it would he foolish of me to anticipate what the inspectors may say about that matter. However, concerns about it have been reflected in legislation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, where the Minister believes that the inspectors have been guilty of breaches, cannot he intervene informally?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the situation is clear. As was said by Lord Denning in a famous judgment, in this case,
"the inspectors are masters of their own procedure".

11
There is little opportunity in the legislation for the Minister to intervene, and I believe that that is right.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Minister did not answer my second question. Are the Government satisfied that the report will not fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that question should arise when the report is published. I can see no reason why that should be so. The cases which refer to such activities relate to the use of evidence that has been acquired in an investigation rather than to the procedures of the investigation.

Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 109:
Before Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
("DUTIES OF LOCAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES

Transport Bill

  DUTIES OF LOCAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES
  Each local transport authority shall have a duty—

  (a) to promote sustainable transport, including especially all forms of public passenger transport, and the conveyance of freight by rail or water, and

  (b) to identify and safeguard such land as may be required for the improvement of transport infrastructure, including interchanges between modes.").

  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 109, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 113. Before doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group and an adviser to Adtran.
  The amendments relate to the duties of local transport authorities, first, to promote sustainable transport and, secondly, to identify and safeguard land. The first duty goes back to the 1998 White Paper, which devoted 15 pages to sustainable transport. It referred to health, jobs, the environment, integrated transport, climate change, traffic congestion, local air quality, a more inclusive society and various targets. It was a most impressive document, but I am sad that as yet there is no reference to sustainable transport in this part of the Bill which relates to local transport plans and bus strategies.
  It is also quite surprising to compare the lack of reference to sustainable transport in this section with that in Clause 206, where one of the functions to be exercised by the Strategic Rail Authority is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Therefore, I would argue that if it is all right for rail, it is logical that sustainable transport should be referred to in connection with local transport as well.
  I also believe that the local transport plans should include reference to freight as well as to passengers. The reason why I am taking a little time to explain this is that in two recent publications by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions there seemed to be a certain lack of reference either to freight or to rail freight. I give two examples.
  First, in its guidance on the preparation of local transport plans—as the Committee will know, local authorities must submit them by the end of this month—the department's 150-page book contains one paragraph on rail freight. It recommends that:
  "Authorities should liaise with rail freight companies and their customers".
  It does not tell them how to do that; it does not even provide contacts for information, let alone an address for what is now the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority.
  The second example is the guidance on methodology for multi-modal studies. This goes quite well with the route studies that have taken place with regard to roads. It seems to me that the guidance should refer to all modes of transport—road, rail and water—and should refer to freight, too. However, in the 80-page document only eight lines relate to rail freight. Again, I quote:
  "It is good to know that encouragement of other modes of freight is likely to focus primarily on rail-borne freight".
  That is very interesting but it does not provide much guidance to local authorities and regional agencies which are preparing the multi-modal studies. Therefore, I believe that it is important to have on the face of the Bill a reference in this area to sustainable transport.
  I now turn to paragraph (b) of my amendment, which proposes to,
  "identify and safeguard such land as may be required for the improvement of transport infrastructure, including interchanges between modes".
  I believe that it is important to place a duty on local transport authorities to identify land for infrastructure improvements and interchanges. Later in the Bill, we shall come to the question of Rail Property Board land, so I shall not mention that further at present.
  Traffic by rail or road is set to increase. The forecast percentage increase for rail is between 75 and 100 per cent over the next 10 years. However, it is clear that there is no land on which to expand these facilities: there is nowhere to park one's car when one wants to get on the train and there will be no intermodal terminals, be they for passengers or freight. It is interesting that a similar section is to be found in the Greater London Authority Act, which we debated a year or so ago. The Minister was kind enough to accept that it was important for the Greater London Authority to be able to own and develop land, and perhaps I may refer the Committee to Schedule 11 to that Act. Paragraph 14 sets out the provision for intermodal interchanges, and paragraph 15 allows the Greater London Authority to develop land. Therefore, there is a precedent which I hope will be useful.
  Lastly with regard to land, I believe that we must look at local transport plans as a medium-term planning tool for local transport policy. At the moment, there is no easy way for local authorities to safeguard land for transport. As the Committee will know, the Department of Transport can safeguard alignments for major rail schemes and probably major road schemes. However, I believe that there is also a need for local authorities to be able to safeguard land for those interchanges. They may not have the funds to do so at present and they may not have the permissions. However, at least they can identify the land; otherwise, when they decide that they want to do something or obtain a budget for it, they may find that they cannot develop a park-and-ride scheme or develop an intermodal freight interchange because they do not have the necessary land.
  In conclusion with regard to this amendment, I believe that it is absolutely vital that the question of land and sustainable transport is reflected somewhere at the beginning of Part II. I accept that my drafting may not be perfect and the Minister may say that it is in the wrong place. However, I believe that the principles are very important.
  Before I sit down, I should like to speak briefly about Amendment No. 113 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and others. It is encouraging that in the first of their paragraphs they also note that there need to be policies for improving the movement of freight and people by whatever mode, including walking and cycling. My comments apply also to that proposal. I beg to move Amendment No. 109.
  3.15 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I rise to support the view expressed by my noble friend, who for many years sustained me as my number two in transport matters.
  If the Minister comes to the view that these matters are implied and that the Government support the ideas behind paragraphs (a) and (b) of Amendment No. 109, so be it. However, I believe that it is incumbent upon him to say why those words are not included on the face of the Bill. At the moment, as I understand it, they are not included. Therefore, I ask the simple question: why not? It seems to me that in every respect—it does not matter whether the right words are used—my noble friend who moved the amendment has sustainable transport as the target of his views. Sustainable transport is the aim of the Government and, therefore, I believe that it should be set up. I do not necessarily believe (and neither does he) that the words used contain the epitome of everything that should be said. However, the basis of his remarks is that they promote sustainable transport, and that is dealt with in paragraph (b).
  I do not believe either that the noble Lord opposite will regard his words in Amendment No. 113 as being the last words. I believe that the word "no" should have been expressed more vocally by the noble Lord opposite. But whatever is said, it is clear that a point of view has been expressed which should appear on the face of the Bill. However, I am more inclined to support the view of my noble friend who moved the amendment. I hope that, so far as this matter is concerned, the Minister will be able to reply in a positive way.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: It is a pleasure to find myself running in double harness with the noble Lord, Lard Berkeley. Like him, when I read the Bill I thought that it was deficient. Taking this part of the Bill at face value, one might come to the conclusion that the Government's real concern was buses, buses and buses, to coin a phrase—or to borrow one, perhaps. I am grateful for the support in principle of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I agree that none of us ever regards our phrasing of amendments as the last word on the issue, but we do our best.
  Amendment No. 113 follows on from that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We have deliberately tried to introduce mention of other modes of transport and the issue of intermodal change.
  Cycling and walking are clearly the most environmentally friendly and cheapest forms of transport, but they are not mentioned in the Bill. About one-third of all journeys are less than a mile, which is definitely walkable. About another third are between one and four miles, which is certainly cyclable.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: Not by everybody.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Not by everybody, I agree, but certainly by a large number of people. If we are to encourage children to walk and cycle to school, which

  15
  would greatly ease the morning rush hour, cycle routes and safe routes for walking ought to figure prominently in transport planning. The greatest problem for both categories of people is safety. Almost every morning there is a parental rush to the car somewhat after 8 o'clock because parents are concerned about how their children are to get to school in safety—and that means safety not just from traffic, but, heaven help us, from interference by other people. The car will remain a prominent means of transport, particularly in the less metropolitan areas, but we would support anything that would encourage walking or cycling, so we think that they should be mentioned.
  The other two subsections in Amendment No. 113 were drafted in an attempt to ensure consistency and congruence between local and district strategic transport plans. Planning can influence the need for transport. Good planning can diminish needs to an extent, although its powers as a cure-all can be overrated. The two branches of the planning process should be brought together. We have tried to insert that in the Bill.
  There will always be questions about what should be specified in the Bill. I can see the Minister's mind ticking already, working out how he will answer the question. However, a lot of people will read only what is in the Bill, not all the background literature—which I shall have something to say about subsequently. Of course, the professionals will study the background literature as well, but the bulk of the population will be guided by what we deliberate on here. That will inform what they think—I was going to say what we think—that the Government think. Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I think that what the Government are thinking—or what they are revealing of their thinking in the Bill—is inadequate.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My noble friend Lord Berkeley has raised an important point. Too often, local authorities are interested only in cars and buses, buses, buses, but buses cause congestion, too. If anybody wants to know about that, they ought to visit Oxford, which shows that having a lot of buses does not always solve the traffic problem.
  I am principally concerned about heavy goods vehicles, whose presence in town centres often causes a great deal of congestion. They are allowed into areas where they should not be allowed. Local authorities and the country as a whole must examine the problem thoroughly and work out the role of the goods vehicle.
  I am old enough to remember the time when most goods went by rail, not to the edge of towns, but into the town centre, because that is where the railway stations and marshalling yards were. Many of those yards still exist. There is a case for examining whether local authorities and the Government should begin to push heavy goods vehicles out of town centres and, in particular, out of residential areas adjacent to town centres, through which heavy goods vehicles have to travel, causing a great deal of inconvenience, danger
  16
  and environmental pollution to the people who live along those routes. My noble friend has raised an important issue.
  There is another problem with heavy goods vehicles travelling along our roads—and, indeed, through continents. It has long been the case that goods are only semi—or perhaps quarterly—manufactured on any single site. Absurdly, all sorts of products, such as ladies underwear or men's suits, might start in Bradford and finish up in Finland, for example. That is a journey of hundreds of miles across our congested motorways and roads and through the continent of Europe, almost to the continent of Asia. That needs thorough national and international examination. We are wasting a lot of fuel and causing a great deal of avoidable environmental pollution.
  Those are some reasons why the amendment should be considered. I have one final point about lorries, on which perhaps there should be some national examination. Many lorries make journeys when they are either empty or not full. Those journeys would be unnecessary if there was proper planning of the transportation of freight.
  I thank my noble friend for tabling the amendment and for raising this very important issue. I hope that the Government will take it extremely seriously.
  3.30 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I want to speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 109 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Some of my reasons for wanting to support it may strike terror into the heart of the Minister but let him not become too terrified because I shall comfort him thereafter.
  The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, reminded us of the GLA Bill. It is interesting to start with a general duty of the local authority to do X or Y. It is not the first time that such an idea has come into our recent legislation. The Government may respond by saying that this is not a Bill about the duties of local authorities; it is a Bill about specific items of local authority business. The Minister is nodding his head joyfully as I speak. But it would be of great assistance if some ideas, such as sustainability and the need to promote interchanges—and I can think of others too—which are being put forward in great detail could be written onto the face of the Bill.
  The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, says that his amendment is not perfectly drafted. When do we see an amendment that is? However, a provision of this type could be used to bring in a number of themes which would then be applicable to whatever the local authorities involved do in relation to, for example, Clauses 107 to 112. Those are the basic clauses which deal with local transport plans and bus strategies. That is preferable to repeating the subject every time it seems relevant to subsequent clauses. You could, for the sake of argument, include a provision "to promote sustainable and accessible transport". That removes the need to keep on bringing in the extremely important idea of accessibility, about which many Members of the Committee wish to speak. It is

  17
  possible to use other important words to indicate the kind of duty being imposed on a local authority, not in relation to every single thing they do but in relation to this Bill. That would be extremely helpful.
  I look forward to the Minister's response. There has been a varied collection of speeches in support of the amendments. I ask the noble Lord to think about the matter in the way I have outlined as a way of providing some important guiding principles right at the beginning of the Bill.
  I remember the arguments used during the passage of the GLA Bill. Ministers kept saying, "But it is right there, in Clause 1. It is not needed anywhere else". The same approach could be used here to satisfy some of the legitimate worries which people will be expressing during the course of the day about this part of the Bill.
  I conclude rather frivolously by saying that I was rather appalled that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in talking about parking, referred to parking one's car rather than one's bicycle at the railway station. I am sure that was merely an oversight.
  Lord Swinfen: In Part IV we have a Strategic Rail Authority but I do not see any strategic transport authority to bring the whole lot together. Roads are administered by local authorities. Should there not be a national strategic transport authority?
  Lord Bradshaw: In particular, I support paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 109. As a veteran of structure planning in county councils, I can vouch for the fact that everybody is in favour of extending park-and-ride schemes, of getting more freight onto the railway and of extending station car parks. However, when you try to implement any of those policies, they are always fought tooth and nail at ground level.
  It is important that if we are to have a strategy for encouraging park-and-ride schemes, freight terminals and station car parks, they must find their way into the planning process at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, I welcome in particular paragraph (b) of the amendment.
  Perhaps I may say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that he cannot have been to Oxford very recently because we have solved the problems of bus congestion. More and more people are using the buses. Both air pollution and traffic congestion have virtually been eliminated.
  Lord Whitty: In a sense I am surprised but, nevertheless, grateful that we have had a wide-ranging debate on the first item on the agenda today. I remind the Committee that this amendment is the first under the clause headed "Local transport plans", although some of the issues raised have been somewhat broader. Those plans are designed to bring forward an effective transport system at local level.
  I was slightly surprised by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. In normal circumstances—that is, when we are discussing local government legislation—he is the first to argue that very little should he on the face of the Bill and more left
  18
  to the local authorities. In the transport context, he seems to be saying that local authorities should have everything laid down for them.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister is absolutely right: I am all for leaving matters to local authorities. If that were happening in this instance, I should be content. Sadly, it is not. There is an awful lot of paper betwixt this Bill and the local authority before it can do anything in relation to a transport plan.
  Lord Whitty: It is true that there is guidance in relation to local transport plans with which the noble Lord will be familiar. But the guidance is flexible and leaves a lot of discretion with local authorities. The more we put on the face of the Bill, the less flexibility there is. Therefore, I must say to my noble friend Lord Berkeley and others who have spoken that although I can be reasonably positive up to a point, I believe that the amendments are either unnecessary or, in some circumstances, undesirable. They are dealt with better both by the provisions in the rest of the Bill and by the process of guidance to local authorities over what they should deliver in their transport plans.
  The requirement to set out policies for the movement of freight, for example, which was the burden of the main contribution of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, is provided in Clause 107(1)(a) and (2)(b). Clause 107(1)(a) states:
  "Each local transport authority must … develop policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within their area".
  Subsection (2)(b) defines those services as including,
  "those required for the transportation of freight".
  Therefore, I believe that the freight issue is already dealt with clearly on the face of the Bill. I contend also that that covers the thrust of the proposed new duty in paragraph (a) of the amendment as regards the duty to promote sustainable transport. Current guidance on local transport plans is very specific on that and on the need for liaison and partnership working to improve integration between transport modes. Therefore, there is no need to specify that further on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Will my noble friend admit that the burden of the Government's policy in this respect is "sustainable transport"? Unless I am wildly mistaken, nowhere on the face of the Bill do the words "sustainable transport" appear. Does my noble friend not believe that the words are necessary in relation to the desirability to promote it?
  Lord Whitty: The Committee will be aware, and certainly my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis will be aware, that sustainable passenger and freight transport is already the foundation of our local transport plan. We are not starting from scratch. The guidance specifically sets out that we expect authorities to integrate thinking and action across the policy areas, ensuring that transport policy works with environmental policy, with spatial planning, with

  19
  health policy and so forth. Authorities should aim to provide transport choice for all within that sustainable context.
  With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, the situation is slightly different from that of the GLA Bill in which we set up an entirely new authority with new functions. In this Bill we are talking about a transport policy that already exists, local authorities that already exist and a local transport plan process that already exists. Therefore, this is incremental. We do not need to state first principles again, whether in relation to sustainability or freight.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I hate to interrupt the Minister, but guidance can change. Anyone concerned with planning policy in the 1980s and 1990s will remember that the guidance on out-of-town shopping centres changed, first, one way, then another way and then back to the first way. To have something on the face of the Bill is comforting because, on the whole, governments find it less easy to be pressurised by individual interests into changing the guidance.
  Lord Whitty: The benefit of guidance is that within that guidance local authorities have the ability to fashion their policies according to their local circumstances. Without that flexibility, over-prescription on the face of the Bill will restrict local authorities in that respect.
  On the second point raised by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley in relation to the safeguarding of land, existing planning guidance sets out full and clear advice to local authorities in that area. PPG13, at present in draft form, states that local authorities should identify and, where appropriate, protect sites and routes, both existing and potential, which could be useful in transport infrastructure development. PPG12 makes clear that development plans should include only proposals that are firm and that have a degree of certainty of proceeding. That seems to be a sensible policy, while protecting land in appropriate circumstances. The guidance is also specific that authorities should have regard to planning and development plan strategies when preparing their local transport plans.
  This Bill is on top of a pre-existing process that is familiar to local authorities and within a framework of a transport policy that is familiar to noble Lords. Therefore, I believe that it is unnecessary to prescribe on the face of the Bill some of the issues proposed by the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the amendment in relation to planning tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am much obliged to the Minister for giving way. I do not disagree with the majority of what he has said about transport, nor does my noble friend. However, I believe, particularly in the light of what he has said, that he should take this matter away for consideration. On reflection, it may be that the Government will take the view that he has expressed, but I do not believe that they will and nor
  20
  do I believe that it is right that they should do so. None the less, I believe that it would be right for the Minister to take away the idea put forward by the noble Lord for careful consideration. Sustainable transport goes to the heart of that which the Government have been considering.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, decides what he will do with his amendment, to which mine is attached, I should say—
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps the Minister could be allowed to finish what he has to say.
  Lord Whitty: I was hoping that I had finished actually! In reply to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, clearly we shall consider what has been said in this debate. In general terms, it is not the Government's intention to prescribe more in this clause, which relates specifically to the process of local transport plans and not to the totality of transport policy.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: If I was out of order I apologise. I was trying to prevent the Minister from having to rise twice, three times or possibly even four times. I could not let what he had said pass without pointing out to him that he had singularly succeeded in avoiding any mention of pedestrians or cyclists. They are the forgotten part of the transport equation and, in my view, they require some attention. I wanted to say that before the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made up his mind about what to do with his amendment. He has an interesting dilemma.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I thank them for their support. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for what he has said. I am partly comforted, but not entirely, because my objective was to see the words "sustainable transport" somewhere in this introduction. Those words are included in the duties of the Strategic Rail Authority, so if it is all right for the SRA to have sustainable development why cannot local transport? My noble friend said that it is all contained in the guidance, but, as I sought to point out, the guidance is fairly deficient on some of these matters. I would much prefer to see those words on the face of the Bill. That deals with paragraph (a).
  On paragraph (b), on the issue of land, again I hear what my noble friend has said, but if the Greater London Authority is allowed to own and to develop land for transport, I do not understand why that phrase cannot be in this Bill.
  On the PPG13 draft guidance, my noble friend talked about the firm proposals and certainty of proceeding. That is the difficulty with local authorities; one needs to look many years ahead when dealing with transport plans. Certainty of proceeding requires many things apart from simply having the land. I hope that my noble friend can reconsider that point too. Like other noble Lords, I shall read

  21
  carefully what the Minister has said on this matter, and I may return to the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 107 [Local transport plans]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 110:
  Page 65, line 23, at end insert (", and
  (c) those required for business and commerce operating in the area;").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 110 seeks to add words to subsection (2) of Clause 107, which reads at present:
  "The transport facilities and services mentioned in subsection (1) are—

  (a) those required to meet the needs of persons living or working in the authority's area, or visiting or travelling through that area, and

  (b) those required for the transportation of freight".

  We believe, as stated in Amendment No. 110, that it is appropriate to add:
  "(c) those required for business and commerce operating in the area".
  Of course, business and commerce are intimately involved in the movement of people and freight, but the straightforward, smooth and streamlined system of moving those people and freight may not always be in the best interests of business and commerce. Indeed, business and commerce should properly be taken into account in this matter.
  A simple way of illustrating this point is that for years my local small town prayed for a by-pass and eventually achieved one. Everybody was immensely relieved. It was as though a river that had been pouring down a ravine through the middle of the community had been turned off. One month later the local chamber of trade met to protest that it had lost business, as it had. Some of that huge volume of traffic that passed through the town used to stop.
  I do not need to argue as to who is right and who is wrong. That example makes the point. So business and commerce must have their views taken into account. All businesses need customers. It does not matter whether they are big multinational corporations or the village shop, they depend on customers; they depend on the smooth movement of both people and freight in relation to their business. But that may not be the same as in relation to their community, which is the way in which the Bill is presently biased.
  Amendment No. 111 was tabled almost in surprise that nowhere in the Bill is the question of atmospheric pollution or greenhouse gas emissions mentioned. Considering this is the Transport Bill and the reduction of those emissions, among other things, is what the Bill is about, it is an extraordinary omission, particularly coming from a government who have preached the needs of cleaning up the atmosphere as a nation. I felt therefore that the words in Amendment No. 111 should be added to the Bill.
  There are many different aspects to this problem. There is the strategic planning issue to be considered. But much can be done by local authorities in the
  22
  immediate time-scale. Paradoxically, traffic authorities face a problem in this regard in that there is a huge conflict of interest between them and residents who want traffic in their areas slowed d own to make crossing the street easier. Initially, sleeping policemen are requested at monotonously regular intervals. The residents then find that with cars accelerating or braking and, even worse, lorries driving down those roads, they experience much more noise and atmospheric pollution than before. But the way parking restrictions are laid out on streets can have an effect on the smooth flow of traffic.
  We may find, particularly in some of the metropolitan areas, that the authorities are in a position to help to reduce atmospheric pollution by encouraging people involved in transport to take advantage of new technologies. For instance, if all buses and taxis were fuelled by compressed natural gas, atmospheric pollution in metropolitan areas would be dramatically reduced. I can well imagine, under the powers in the Bill, some authorities wishing to introduce experimental schemes of that nature. They are not barred at the moment, but there is nothing in the Bill to make them specifically consider doing so. The addition of Amendment No. 111 would encourage that. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Lord's intervention on this issue shows exactly the point I identified in relation to the previous group of amendments; namely, that once we start specifying things in the Bill, the list becomes endless. There is little in what the noble Lord said in terms of policy with which I disagree. But it is a question of whether this should be done by stipulation on the face of the Bill or by guidance.
  For those who doubt the efficacy of guidance, it is clear that Clause 111(1) places a legal requirement on authorities to have regard to the guidance. If we are too specific in the Bill and list all those who must be consulted or whose interests must be taken into account, then that list expands, as do the policy objectives.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, almost accepted that, if we were to add the reference to business and commerce, we would in a sense be duplicating what must be subsumed in the Bill—if it is not subsumed, then there is a problem—under Clause 107(2)(a),
  "those required to meet the needs of persons living or working in the authority's area",
  and Clause 107(2)(b),
  "those required for the transportation of freight",
  which clearly cover the commercial and business interests within the area. Amendment No. 111 seeks to add the words,
  "those required to reduce atmospheric pollution and greenhouse gas emissions".
  Again, that is already part of local authorities' existing duties which must be integrated with the local transport plan. Under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, local authorities are required to review and assess their local air quality and to designate air quality management

  23
  areas where there are problems. The right way to draw the local transport policies and air quality processes together and to ensure consistency between them is through guidance, which we have already issued on local transport plans. The transport and air pollution guide which we issued earlier this year under Section 88 of the Environment Act 1995 already emphasises the importance of close co-operation between transport planners and environmental health officers.
  The reality is that those matters are being built into the local transport plan process at local level through that process and other requirements on local authorities. The amendments therefore go beyond what it is sensible to specify on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister's reply ran along the lines I was expecting. But his answer did not add to the clarity of the Bill. None the less, I shall study what he said with great care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 112:
  Page 65, line 25, after ("document") insert ("containing targets").
  The noble Lord said: It is not very often that I find myself in the position of offering assistance to the Deputy Prime Minister, but circumstances prevailed upon me to do so in these amendments.
  In 1997, shortly after the general election, the Deputy Prime Minister stated clearly that he, "would have failed if, in five years, there are not more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car". I should hate for him to fail. That is why these amendments are essential to making local transport plans work. Without these simple amendments it will be impossible to measure the success or failure of policies employed within local transport plans. Without this analysis I fear that it will be difficult to share best practice between local transport executives or for best value to be judged objectively on behalf of the public transport user. Without these amendments how can we guarantee that this otherwise fairly interesting piece of legislation is taken seriously at a regional and local level?
  Let me briefly outline the concerns that lead my party to deem that specific action to encourage challenge setting is necessary—concerns which Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber have expressed both today and previously.
  Cycling and walking are in decline, yet doctors tell us, as we are all well aware, to take more exercise. Children are not allowed out to play because parents are concerned that they may be involved in traffic accidents, and the leading cause of death in the one to 14 age bracket is motor accidents. In relation to climate change, the weather the world is currently experiencing must be at least partly ascribed to climatic changes in our atmosphere brought about by
  24
  pollution. Recent surges in the use of the private motorcar have seen levels of CO2 rise massively. That has led to significant increases in the numbers of asthma sufferers. The pollution levels on the vast majority of streets in Britain now exceed the safe standards agreed by the World Health Organisation, and those safety standards are there to protect human life and well-being.
  Not only that, but the Confederation of British Industry believes that British businesses lose £19 billion a year as a direct result of road congestion. In the past decade, each car journey was subsidised in terms of road building, related costs to the NHS, and environmental degradation to the tune of 5p per kilometre or 9p per mile.
  If we are to meet our national commitment, agreed at Kyoto, to reduce CO2 levels by 2010, we must add transport. It is less of a nettle because nettles are easier to grasp than a thorny rose that rips one's hands. More than 400 Members in the other place have signed a number of Early-Day Motions supporting traffic reduction, and the general public want significant progress. The Deputy Prime Minister promised as much and the Government must deliver. Targets will produce transparent change. Success can be monitored more easily and shared between local transport executives, leading to swifter benefits to our lungs and safety. I beg to move.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: I begin by correcting the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in quoting my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. He gave an indirect quote that has been misused on a number of occasions. To this very day, my right honourable friend has to put people right on it. We have never purposed a target in the sense that the amendments suggest.
  We support the idea of targets and they will appear in local transport plans. We have encouraged local authorities to draw up appropriate targets, but is it right to introduce a statutory duty to that effect? We think not. It is by no means clear what would be achieved by the amendments. A simple duty to include targets is vague. How many targets? In what areas? The duty could be met by a minimalist approach or by a maximalist and excessively prescriptive approach. We do not accept that it would be sensible to be restrictive in this part of the Bill. The nature of targets has to be built in by each local authority.
  We have already set out in current guidance on non-statutory LTPs that plans and strategies should include targets and performance indicators across all areas covered by an LTP, as part of the monitoring process. It should be left to local transport authorities to determine the precise package of performance indicators and targets that best reflects their particular local circumstances. The current guidance on local transport plans also requires authorities to have regard to already established national transport or transport-related targets.
  Amendment No. 116 would place a requirement on an authority to keep its local transport plan under review and to alter it if that were considered

  25
  appropriate. The effect is to remove the power to alter the plan. That seems unduly Stalinist, when the noble Lord is usually flexible in such matters. The amendment would remove also the flexibility to react to changing circumstances. Retaining the power to keep the plan under review and to modify it must be central to making the process work.
  I have to resist the amendments and Amendment No. 116 in particular as it seems undesirable.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Lord decides what to do, perhaps the Minister could say whether the targets include one for road traffic reduction based on a national concept of what that ought to be, given that we are committed to Kyoto.
  Lord Whitty: The climate change programme includes a CO2 target relating to vehicle emissions, which would be achieved through our broad transport and traffic management policies. That national target is not easily translatable into local transport plans. The issue is not total traffic volume—that can mean different things in different parts of the country and on different types of roads—but national and local authority targets relating to CO2 emissions, pollution and congestion rather than volume.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am not entirely sure that I understand the Minister's concluding remarks but I shall study them and his earlier comments. Does the noble Lord agree that his first reply was a classic example of willing the ends but not the means? I stand by my observation that unless one places a duty on local transport authorities, one will not get the results—or the data one wants on the way. It is extremely likely that I shall gather some allies and return to this issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
  Clause 107 agreed to.
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 114:
  After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—

  LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN: ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT FOR DISABLED PEOPLE
  (" .—(1) In addition to containing the proposals and policies required by section 107 above, the local transport plan—

  (a) shall contain the Authority's proposals for the provision of transport which is accessible to disabled people;

  (b) shall specify a timetable for the implementation of the proposals contained in the transport strategy by virtue of paragraph (a) above.

  (2) In preparing or revising the transport strategy the Authority shall consult—

  (a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee; and

  (b) such other persons or bodies which represent the interests of disabled people as it considers appropriate to consult.").

  The noble Lord said: With this, I shall speak to Amendment No. 120, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. No doubt he will speak to those amendments himself.
  Amendment No. 114 requires that transport plans include provisions for disabled people that are drawn up in consultation with organisation of disabled people and include an action plan for improving accessibility. The amendment is based on the provisions in Sections 142(2) and (4) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
  I welcome local transport plans being placed on a statutory footing, and I see the Government's transport strategy as a considerable opportunity for local public transport to be greatly enhanced to the benefit of disabled people. Plans have a vital role to play in providing more coherent and comprehensive solutions, to create a safer street environment for disabled people and the public in general. Each local transport authority must develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within their areas. I note that transport facilities and services include those required to meet the needs of persons living or working in the authority's area or visiting or travelling through it. It should be spelt out that "persons" should include those with disabilities.
  A study by Oxford Brookes University into provisional local transport plans demonstrated a lack of awareness of the issues affecting disabled people. The solution is to address those concerns, and action in the strategy to improve accessibility. This Bill ensures that such plans are kept under review., that they shall last no longer than five years—unless a subsequent amendment from my noble friend on the Front Bench is accepted—and that they shall have regard to any guidance. When local transport plans are under consideration, I hope that the needs of disabled people will be included.
  The Guidance on Provisional Local Plans was very good in requiring consultation when developing plans, as shown in Table 18, Annexe D of the guidance. There is also a proposed requirement to consult on bus strategies. Extending this requirement to consult the whole local transport plan within the Bill is, I believe, sensible. It would promote integrated transport decisions being considered through consultation.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 120 is to require local authorities to have a local walking strategy as part of their local transport plan in order to ensure proper improvements to the street environment. The quality of the pedestrian environment seriously affects disabled people's independent mobility and their ability to reach bus services and, in some instances, train services. Disability organisations consider it vital that a walking strategy is required to ensure access within the pedestrian environment. Requiring a local walking strategy would help ensure the implementation of Encouraging Walking—the Government's strategy to address the decline in

  27
  walking. It would also help families with small children and elderly people who may be rather slow but not disabled. I beg to move.
  Lord Addington: I attached my name to this amendment for the simple reason that it seemed a reasonable provision to have on the face of the Bill and one that could help the Bill to succeed in its aims. The disabled have increasingly been brought into the planning of all services; and quite rightly so. Unless you think about these issues first, you sometimes end up with many more problems. It is infinitely more difficult to remove a set of steps that you are using than to have a ramp put in beside them in the first place.
  Amendment No. 120 proposes a local walking strategy. I believe this would be beneficial. It is also important that the elderly and those with movement problems should be brought into consideration. The same safeguards apply in this respect. If we have a strategy for the disabled that has little breaks in it, we might as well not have a such a strategy at all. It means that there could be two types of public transport by which people think they can get around but then they hit something that is in the way; indeed, steps are a classic example. There is also the situation where people are moving along very crowded pavements that may have broken surfaces. Unless we bring all these considerations together, everyone will suffer. I hope that the Government will consider these amendments sincerely because they address one basic fact: if we do not consider all these issues as a whole and take into account all the people who will use the pedestrian environment, we shall not achieve very much.
  Baroness Wilkins: I should like briefly to express my support for the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and for the other amendments in the group. Accessible transport is the single most important issue to ensure the integration of disabled people and in order to change attitudes towards them. Without this, disabled people are truly trapped in their homes; they are invisible. They then become dependent on services that they could otherwise provide for themselves.
  Accessible transport is the most dominant issue in any meeting of local disabled people. It is an issue that seems to overwhelm any such meeting. Unless local authorities are actually required to provide accessible transport and it is spelt out in the Bill, they will not do so. I beg the Committee to support these amendments.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: It goes without saying that I support the amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, my own amendments, Amendments Nos. 156 and 157, have been included in this grouping. Again, I believe that my amendments are fairly self-explanatory. They make sense and would provide a perfectly adequate addition to the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister telling me that he is totally in favour of what my amendments would achieve but that he does not think that this is the way to achieve it.
  28
  The Minister may also say that there is no need to add to this already long Bill by inserting such provisions that will, by some mysterious process, happen in any event without being placed in the legislation. We are all in favour of integration strategies; indeed, as I understand it, that is one of the purposes of the Bill. I very much look forward to listening to the way that the noble Lord will choose to reject my amendments.
  Lord Berkeley: I should like briefly to support Amendment No. 120. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, mentioned the size of the Bill, but I should point out that this Bill is smaller than the GLA Act. Section 141(1) of that Act requires the mayor to develop and implement policies,
  "for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities",
  which include walking and services for pedestrians. I hope that that is helpful to our debate.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: Perhaps I could put forward in a slightly more sophisticated way the argument in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, pre-empted me. When we are legislating, we do not repeat legislation that is provided elsewhere in the Bill or in other legislation. The issues that have been raised in this debate, especially those relating to the disabled, are well taken by the Government. We broadly agree with them. This Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that all members of society should have the opportunity for independent travel and mobility.
  Clause 111(2) makes it absolutely clear that in preparing their local transport plan authorities,
  "must have regard to the transport needs of persons who are elderly or have mobility problems".
  Therefore, that provision is already clear. It is also not appropriate in legislation to provide for the detailed prescription that is better dealt with in guidance. Our guidance to local authorities is equally clear: local authorities and transport operators will have to consider the needs of disabled people from the start to the finish of their journeys.
  Moreover, there are already statutory requirements in separate legislation to be observed in respect of accessible transport. New transport vehicles will need to meet detailed technical specifications set out in the regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act. That legislation will also require those involved in the provision of goods, facilities and services to the public to make their services accessible to disabled people. From October 1999, such providers have been required to make reasonable adjustments to their policies that exclude disabled people and provide auxiliary aids and services to facilitate access. From 2004, where there is still a physical barrier to service, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or avoid it.
  All those requirements apply to local authorities and transport operators. They therefore apply in relation to local transport plans. We do not need a

  29
  further prescriptive provision in this legislation. However, that is not to deny that we have total sympathy with the points made by noble Lords in this debate. Such issues are already covered both here and elsewhere in legislation; and, indeed, in separate guidance.
  I turn now to the issue of integration, which is the focus of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Integration is central to the whole process of the local transport plan. It is not just integration between modes of transport in terms of interchangeability but in terms of the whole approach. We do not require a further provision on the face of the Bill to ensure that local transport plans deal with such issues in an integrated way.
  Similarly, that applies to Amendment No. 120, which relates to walking strategies. A strategy for pedestrians, which, after all, is a pretty common mode of transport, needs to be covered. Indeed, there is a reference to pedestrians under Clause 107(2), which already makes it clear that transport facilities and services to be covered by local transport plans must include services and facilities for pedestrians. We do not, however, require a separate measure spelt out on the face of the Bill for all the different elements of the strategy which local transport plans need to provide.
  However, the Bill requires the inclusion of a bus strategy within a local transport plan. The reason the bus strategy is given particular prominence in the Bill is that we need to alter an existing regulatory framework and provide the basic framework for the exercise of the new bus powers. But the bus strategy would be only one of a number of different strategies, some of which require legislative change; most of which do not. Local transport plans will, for example, include cycling as well as walking. They will include measures on street design, which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned. They will include parking strategies, and strategies on mobility, transport information, road maintenance and bridge strengthening.
  Statutory provisions already exist; we do not need to repeat them in the Bill. That is why we have the power to issue guidance to pull all those measures together. However, we do not need any additional powers. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the length of the Bill. I do not think it sensible to agree to additional powers or additional prescription in this section of the Bill.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have some sympathy—at least, I think that I do—with the noble Lord when he says that there is already sufficient provision elsewhere in the law to cover the needs of disabled people. However, if one accepts that, surely the noble Lord must accept that there is some onus on the department and on the Government to explain why the law is not better enforced. If the young, fit and able start to clamber about on buses, they are quite likely to suffer a mishap; and for the old and the disabled, buses present considerable difficulties.
  I believe that the noble Lord said that something needed to be done about buses in this regard because they comprise an existing regulatory framework. That
  30
  is awful language; I hope that the noble Lord will talk in rather more "human" language. However, I make the serious point that I hope that the constantly reiterated complaints made by and on behalf of disabled people—that they are treated miserably in terms of their local transport needs—will not obtain the response that the law already makes adequate provision in that regard. There probably is such provision, but what is miserably inadequate is the enforcement of that law.
  This world is crammed full, like cans of sardines, with good intentions but, too often, they get absolutely nowhere. I hope that the noble Lord will stir up his department and the new authorities not merely into making plans—anyone can make plans—but into ensuring that those plans contain the appropriate provisions and are enforced. It is no good simply saying, "We have already done that", because it is not working.
  Lord Whitty: I largely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said with regard to the disabled. I am not saying that we do not need any provisions for the disabled in the Bill; we have such provisions. There is a clear requirement on local authorities in drawing up their plans to have regard to the needs of the disabled. As regards existing legislation, the Disability Discrimination Act was enacted fairly recently and is being phased in. Therefore, its full effects have not yet been felt. However, it has resulted in changes to facilities such as vehicles, bus stops and access to the Underground, and to information to accommodate the disabled. Those provisions already exist. We want local authorities to introduce those changes more rapidly, if possible, to the benefit of the disabled. However, as I say, we do not need more powers or more prescription on the face of the Bill.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am rather intrigued by the wording in this Bill and by that in the Greater London Authority Act. I take on board what the noble Lord said earlier, but I think that I am right in saying that the requirement on the mayor to provide transport which is accessible to persons with mobility problems was included in the GLA Act as a result of pressure that was brought to bear in Parliament. Rather than endlessly arguing about this matter and then pressing it to a Division, it may be less time consuming to admit now that the needs of people with mobility problems may be mentioned in guidance but that they are not included on the face of the Bill. We may have to return constantly to these important matters because of that omission. I believe that if we included the words "accessible transport", we may be able to satisfy the legitimate demands and worries of people with mobility problems. A measure that is included on the face of the Bill is permanent as opposed to impermanent or temporary.
  Lord Whitty: I hope that I may correct one point that the noble Baroness made. The equivalent requirement to the GLA Act requirement on the mayor in this regard—the noble Baroness rightly said

  31
  that that measure arose as a result of pressure that was brought to bear in Parliament—is included in Clause 111(2), which states that,
  "a local transport authority must have regard to the transport needs of persons who are elderly or have mobility problems".
  Therefore, there is no difference in that regard between this Bill and the GLA Act.
  Lord Howie of Troon: We have every sympathy with the disabled but we must be realistic. I am not disabled in the ordinary sense of the word, apart from having a second-class mind.
  Noble Lords: Oh no!
  Lord Howie of Troon: I have a second-class mind on a good day! Also, I do not see terribly well. I see the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, relatively clearly, but I see my old friend Lord Peyton less clearly. I see the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in a blur, although he looks well! However, I say seriously that when I travel as a passenger on motorways, map reading for my "chauffeuse", Lady Howie, I find it extremely difficult to read road signs. The other day on the way to Oxford we passed Junction 8A as it was not marked on my map and I could not see the sign. We had to take the long way round which created a certain amount of domestic disharmony! However, we got over that.
  I also find that, at my age and with my sight, going down stairs is difficult, especially in such places as Westminster Underground station. I realise that that is a fact of life and that I am obliged to cope with that within my limited ability. I do not expect the relevant body to make road signs all over the country large enough for me to be able to see them, although that would be a great help and would certainly please my wife; nor do I expect steps everywhere to be constructed so as to enable me to use them without difficulty. The problems of those who are more seriously disabled should of course be taken into account, but there is little point in asking for the moon. Even if the moon is made of green cheese, we cannot possibly get it.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Swinfen: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for his compliment. I also wear glasses; I need bifocals when I am working in the Chamber so that I can read my notes and see the reaction of Ministers on the Front Bench on the other side of the Chamber.
  Lord Howie of Troon: Can you see me?
  Lord Swinfen: I can indeed when I am wearing my glasses. But if I took them off the noble Lord would, like me, be better looking—because he would be blurred.
  In his original response the Minister mentioned guidance. The Bill was considered in another place for a long time before it even reached this House. Will the noble Lord be kind enough to send me a copy of the
  32
  draft guidance before the next stage of the Bill? I notice that the noble Lord is nodding his head. I am very grateful for that.
  This has been a useful debate. I need to read carefully what the Minister said in his response. I am not sure at the moment whether he has been able to satisfy me; I think there should be something on the face of the Bill. However, I shall read very carefully what he said and I shall check up on the other pieces of legislation that he mentioned to make certain that I and my advisers are satisfied. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 108 [Further provision about plans]:
  [Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 117:
  Page 65, line 36, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").
  The noble Lord said: It is perhaps slightly unfortunate that the requirement to wear seat safety belts is not yet obligatory in this Chamber. I say that because I was inspired to table this amendment by no less a person than the Deputy Prime Minister.
  I noticed that the Deputy Prime Minister had asked the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, in his capacity as Minister of Transport, to produce a 10-year plan for modernising and developing the transport system. That is a very laudable objective and it seemed to me that there was merit in the period of 10 years. Indeed, if one reads today's edition of The Times—and, I suspect, other newspapers, but I have not had time to read them all today—one sees a great announcement about a 10-year investment plan. Since we do not know what will be the final outcome of the Government's spending review, I hope that there was a clear agreement between the DETR and the Treasury before that announcement appeared in the press. All too often in the past we have seen announcements of this kind confounded by subsequent experience.
  The Times reports what appears to be a huge 10-year investment programme—indeed, it is—but then one finds that the Government hope to get half of it from the private sector, which reduces it by a half; one then divides the sum by 10 and it comes back down to rather more than we are spending now but about what the previous government were spending on average year on year. So it is perhaps not quite the wonderful thing it is made out to be.
  To come back to the point of the amendment, subsection (1) of Clause 108 imposes a duty to review transport plans—something we all find unexceptionable—and subsection (2) sets out the replacement time-scale, which is five years. One could perhaps accept a prejudice on the part of governments that they are infinitely wise and competent and can plan for 10 years with reasonable confidence and certainty as to what will happen over that time—except, of course, if we stop to think about it, we can have considerable confidence only that what we now think will happen over the next 10 years will be blown by the winds of time and the out-turn will be different.
  The Government may feel, of course, that that can be taken into the planning. They may also feel that local authorities, being lesser mortals, can plan for only five years. I find that slightly hurtful to local authorities. There was a time when even local authorities were honoured with a 10-year planning time-scale. When the social services departments were originally set up, local authorities were invited to establish 10-year development plans for them. We know in the light of bitter experience that all too often those plans were blown adrift. It might be more honest of the Government to make the task of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, easier by inviting him to consider plans for a five-year period. They would then have a much greater degree of certainty. In any event, it seems to me that there should be a congruence between the two parts of the planning system.
  When I tabled the amendment I had another, rather sneaky, thought in the hack of my mind—that is, that the Government have said that a 10-year period is the time-scale during which the hypothecation of revenues from charging for congestion or levying for licences would last. This 10-year period is being constantly mentioned and it seems to me that it could be appropriately applied to local transport plans as well. I think I have advocated sufficient reasons why we should agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Swinfen: My Amendment No. 118 is grouped with this amendment. I am not sure why. However, for the convenience of the Committee, I should like to speak also to my Amendment No. 149, which deals with the same subject as Amendment No. 118. It will save the Committee time in the long run.
  The purpose of both amendments is to ensure that, in their consultations over local plans, local authorities include and make the consultations accessible to the range of disabled people—those who are blind, deaf or with learning difficulties—for whom ordinary printed material will not be effective.
  Under Clause 108(4) an authority must publish the plan or the plan as altered in such a manner as it sees fit. Under subsection (4)(c) it must supply a copy of it (or any part of it) to any person on request, either free of charge or at a charge representing no more than the cost of providing the copy. We would also expect that the provision of the information would be in the preferred format of the individual requesting it, thus ensuring that service providers meet their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
  Disability organisations are concerned that blind, deafblind, partially sighted people and those with learning difficulties are excluded by the requirement to consult on proposed bus strategies, quality partnership and contract schemes through publishing a note in newspapers only. That is in Clause 135. This excludes people for whom print is inaccessible. Adding a "talking newspaper" would at least ensure that blind and partially sighted people have the opportunity to be involved.
  Lord Addington: My name appears on the two amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has spoken. He is right; the amendments should be taken together.
  If one is trying to convey information it makes sense to ensure that everyone can understand that information. If the Government do not do that, they will be failing in their own objectives. Merely making sure that the information is available in formats other than print should not be beyond the wit of man in today's technological age.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before speaking to the amendment, perhaps I may comment on the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has left his place. It was only minutes ago that he was referring—I thought with pleasure—to the fact that he could see my noble friend on the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Swinfen who sits behind me and even myself. I am concerned lest the experience was too much for him and has caused him to withdraw. I can only hope that if he is unwell he will quickly recover.
  As to my noble friend's amendment, I believe that it verges on the unkind to tempt a local authority into allowing a plan which will be imperfect from its very beginning to remain in existence and open to the public gaze for five years. In a very fast moving world, I should think that any plan of this kind would need to be given a decent burial after a minimum of five years, and probably less. Therefore, I would find it extremely difficult to go along with my noble friend.
  Baroness Hamwee: The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which we support, draws attention to the importance of making all government, local and national, accessible. It raises some interesting points, not just for those who may have difficulty in reading print. All spheres of government need to think hard about how to present plans on which they want to consult. The world is changing. The use of modern technology, as well as old methods, needs to be kept under constant review. The language that we all use also needs to be kept under review. Those of us who spend too long in this Chamber trying to find the right format far "parliamentary-speak" and those in areas of government outside tend to lose sight of the fact that the language we use is not very accessible.
  I turn to the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Brabazon of Tara. In proposing a period—it is a short period at that—within which local authorities must replace, not merely review, their plans, the Government are suggesting a backward step. We are now in the area of best value, rolling plans and performance plans. To propose that authorities might publish a plan, put it on the shelf and then take it down and dust it off five years later, or indeed 10 years later, is to overlook the way in which the Government would like to see local authorities conduct their business. I am sure the Minister will say to me, "That is not really what we mean. We do mean a rolling review". If that is the case, should we not say so? Should we not also

  35
  remember that in requiring replacement—"replace" is the word used in Clause 108(2)—as distinct from review, we are requiring local authorities to undertake a prescriptive and probably very expensive exercise?
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 117 seeks to alter the requirement for a local transport authority to produce a five-year local transport plan to a requirement to produce a 10-year plan. Amendment No. 118–I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for explaining it—seeks to place a requirement on an authority, when asked to supply a copy of its local transport plan, to do so in the format of choice of those seeking a copy. I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge that the amendment could be read as being the format of choice of the authority, but I am glad to know he does not actually mean that. However, I would advise the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, not to pray in aid the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the amendment. The noble Lord would do well to wait until the Government actually announce the 10-year transport plan later this month rather than rely on the latest piece of press speculation. There have been many items of press speculation. They conflict with each other. Some of them, or indeed all of them, may conflict with what actually happens.
  Local transport plans are a move away from the previous annual bidding round under the transport policies and programmes—I am reminded of my time in local government—which meant that central government was often faced with making decisions on very small schemes. That wasted time and resources and meant such decisions were taken in isolation, often on purely financial grounds, rather than on the contribution such measures would make to a wider strategy. The intention is that local transport plans will change that. The system is built around five-year integrated transport programmes, devised at the local level in partnership with the community. That will provide local authorities with both more discretion and greater certainty than under the previous system.
  The guidance to authorities on local transport plans makes it clear that the plans need to contain objectives; an analysis of problems and opportunities; a long-term strategy to tackle the problems and deliver the plan's objectives; a costed and affordable five-year investment programme; and a set of targets and indicators to measure performance. In setting their objectives authorities need to provide a mix of both short and long-term objectives, with short-term objectives for the five-year plans set in the context of a longer term strategy looking 15 or 20 years ahead. In that sense I suppose one could say that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is modest in its horizon in comparison with what the Government are planning. It must be, and it is, the detailed investment programme which is limited to five years.
  In order to help with resource planning the Government aim to provide each authority with a firm allocation for the first year of the plan and indicative
  36
  allocations for each of the subsequent years of the five-year plan. Actual allocations are dependent on the amount of resources available at the time and the performance of individual authorities in achieving their objectives and targets. However, if we moved towards 10-year plans, the level of certainty we could provide in terms of future allocations would very much diminish. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that, even perhaps in a shorter period than five years, one could only speculate about what might happen. I think that is particularly true of years six to 10. For that reason we cannot accept the amendment.
  I turn to Amendment No. 118. I am sure that in drafting his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, meant that a local transport authority, when asked to provide a copy of its local transport plan, should do so in the format requested by those seeking the copy. That would ensure that the needs of those requiring copies in alternative formats such as Braille or large type were catered for. The noble Lord made that explicit in his speech. Local authorities, like other service providers, are already subject to the duties placed on them by the requirements of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. Since October last year, service providers have been under a duty to take reasonable steps to provide auxiliary aids or services to disabled people which make it possible, or easier, for them to access the service. Advice for service providers on this and the other duties under Part III are covered in a code of practice published last year by the National Disability Council. The code explains that the range of auxiliary aids or services which it might be reasonable to provide to visually impaired people could include documents in Braille or large print, on computer diskette or on audio tape. The noble Lord's amendment would duplicate the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.
  The sentiment behind the amendment is admirable but we need to strike a balance. Already, under Clause 107(4)(c) we place a requirement on local authorities to supply copies of the local transport plan, either free of charge or at a charge representing no more than the cost of providing the copy. Crucially, authorities also have to discharge their general duties under the Disability Discrimination Act to provide information in alternative formats.
  Lord Swinfen: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to ask a question about the cost. Will a cost be imposed on disabled people who require special formats over and above the costs incurred by those who do not require those arrangements? The noble Lord may need to write to me.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I may have to write to the noble Lord, but I can assure him that provision will be made in accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act on which the noble Lord is a much greater expert than I. My understanding is that the intention of the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act is that no extra costs should be incurred by disabled people for any additional services

  37
  they need and with which they would be provided under the Act. If I am wrong about that, I shall of course write to the noble Lord.
  Fundamentally, for the reason that the amendment would duplicate the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will not press it.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Of course I accept the chastisement administered by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who is in his place on the Bench behind me. He is perhaps appropriately placed to do so by reminding me—although I needed no reminder—that all too often local authority plans are blown away in the winds of time.
  I cannot do anything about the Bill and the provisions that cover planning, but if it should blow away the plans made by local authorities in five years it is even more likely to blow away in the winds of time the plans of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. We may have a little difficulty in this area.
  I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the question of planning. The noble Baroness pointed out that local government is moving more and more towards a system of rolling planning. The procedures in the Bill will therefore prove to be somewhat rigid.
  I should like to welcome back, with a little surprise, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to the Government Front Bench. I was not aware that he would be addressing us on this Bill. I am delighted to hear that his voice is now fully recovered. It is a pleasure to see him at the Dispatch Box.
  I should tell the noble Lord that I would not plead in support of my case today's article in The Times from a planning point of view. My ability to plan ahead when I put down the amendment had absolutely nothing to do with that article. Although possibly able to foresee what might happen in the coming day or so, I certainly could not have foreseen the fortunate coincidence of the article appearing today.
  The noble Lord spoke of costed and affordable objectives, and five-year local programmes with certainty of funding. However, he said also that the first year's allocation will be made available as the plans are set up. After that, allocations will be on an annual basis. I wonder what that means? I accept that the Government do their best to look ahead five years in their financial planning—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that the words I used were that the first year's allocation would be a firm allocation and that the following years' allocations would be indicative.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Indicative allocations are just that; namely, should the Treasury change its mind, indicative allocations become a different figure. That is the bitter experience over many years of everyone who has ever been involved in local government.
  38
  We have had an interesting debate. It has revealed a number of strengths and weaknesses in the Government's position in this area. I shall study carefully what has been said, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 119:
  Page 66, line 14, at end insert—
  ("() In preparing and altering their plan, each local transport authority must ask people living or working in their area about their transport needs.").
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to add a new paragraph to Clause 108(4) requiring a local authority to consult on the making of its transport plan. I suspect that Amendment No. 123, which is grouped with my amendment, seeks to do the same but by slightly different and perhaps more economical means. However, I shall leave the noble Lord concerned to explain that amendment.
  It is a curious fact that although, under Clause 110, consultation is required when a local authority formulates its bus strategy, no such requirement is imposed on the making of the local transport plan. The amendment attempts to correct that. I am sure that the noble Lord will tell the Committee that a great deal of consultation is already written into the guidance on this matter. However, I wish to point out that the requirement has not been written on the face of the Bill, and perhaps to a certain extent this is therefore a probing amendment.
  However, the amendment is different from amendments we are tabling in a similar vein—calling for consultation—in other parts of the Bill because it addresses the issue of consulting with local people about their transport needs. When an authority is constructing its transport plan—I speak as one who has chaired the construction of a five-year review of such a plan—it is most useful to know about the needs of local people. The authority does not need to be told what is already being provided, but it needs to gather information on what people would like to see being done or what they feel they need. Various ways can be employed to accomplish such consultation. Polling is one method, but many others can be used. Indeed, I hope that my noble friend Baroness Scott of Needharn Market—I am glad to have said her name correctly; for the first five years after I came to this House, people got my name wrong—will tell us more about those methods of consultation.
  The objective of the new paragraph is quite clear. I beg to move.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am most excited about the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. It conjures up a splendid picture of those working in local government preparing a draft of a transport plan and, in so doing, talking to local people. The noble Baroness is to be warmly congratulated on breaking

  39
  such novel ground. I take great pleasure in saluting her for that. I hope that she will continue with such noble work for a long time to come.
  However, I cannot resist the temptation provided by the amendment to refer to possible answers that officials might receive when talking to ordinary people about their journeys and the dispatch of their goods. Ordinary people embark on journeys, hoping to arrive at their destinations with reasonable expedition. They dispatch goods in the hope that they, too, might reach their destinations. However, what usually happens? Along the way, those people meet with interminable delays caused by the slowness of road repairs in their own areas. I wonder whether ordinary people might not in fact be shocked into silence when such questions are put to them by their own local authorities. If they answer at all, their authorities will be told to get on with their work and thus not impede people's journeys as much as they do so frequently at the moment. They may say that they are altogether fed up with the experience of roads being dug up frequently and over long periods by utility companies, which ought long ago to have learnt better and which would do well to study just the rudiments of good manners and consideration for other people.
  I have long been envious. One of the great fashions of our time is the frequent leaking of letters. Never in my life had I been the recipient of a leaked letter until the other day, when someone kindly sent me a copy of a letter written by a representative of the utilities to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. I have no idea what the noble Lord's department will do with it. It expressed the hope that he or one of his minions—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, perhaps—would take no notice of "this awful Bill" that I have launched. I have done so because the patience of ordinary people has become exhausted as a result of the dilatory tactics of utilities and highway authorities: with repairs being slowly undertaken and holes frequently left unattended over long periods of time, then forgotten about and not even filled in. I had a case the other day when those at Transco were reminded of the existence of a hole. "Oh, we haven't got one", they said. But eventually, after searching through their archaeological records, they were able to detect that they did, after all, have a hole! They said, "We're so sorry; we'd forgotten about it. We'll go and fill it in"—and surprise, surprise, they did. I merely want to place on record my deep gratification at receiving a letter for my study which was not intended for me at all. I very much hope that when Members of the Committee receive a copy of the letter they will take no notice of it and will burn it. I hope that not only will they bless my Bill during its remaining stages here, but that they will also see that it receives the blessing of another place.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: There is no difficulty in finding out what people want and need and in trusting them to be able to tell the difference between the two. Over a period of time, local neighbourhood associations have grown up all over the country which
  40
  are absolutely capable of obtaining local responses in a way that would not have been the case 20 or 30 years ago. I suspect that much of this is due to the rise of community politics as sponsored by the Liberal Democrat Party. It is certainly helped by Liberal- run councils, such as that in Richmond-upon-Thames, which treat as a serious business finding out what people want and need.
  I have put my name to this amendment and to half a dozen others like it throughout the Bill. I shall not weary Members of the Committee or extend the Committee's work by rising to speak to every one of them. I merely register my belief, and that of my party, that consultation on local needs is vital.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 123, grouped with this one. The intention of that amendment is exactly the same, although one might have to think about it in order to see that.
  Clause 110 opens with the words,
  "In complying with section 109".
  Clause 109 simply deals with bus planning; Clauses 107 and 108 refer to transport planning; and Clause 110 deals with consultation. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, it is a matter of preference for the wording. Amendment No. 123 would be a tidier way of ensuring that the consultation process is applied to the whole of the transport planning process, not merely to buses. It seems to me that the case has been well made and I do not want to take up the Committee's time further on this matter.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: We on these Benches would have no problem in agreeing to that amendment. It is the issue of consultation that is important, rather than the exact wording.
  I feel that over the past year or so I have been consulted to within an inch of my life on all manner of things. The problem is that the approach of all kinds of public bodies, and indeed the private sector, to consultation is bringing the process into disrepute. That is mainly because they say that they are "consulting" when they are "informing". People become irritated. They feel that even if they take the time and trouble to tick boxes and send back forms, no one will listen to what they have said, and it will make no difference anyway. Genuine consultation is quite different. We seek the Government's thoughts on how local authorities should be consulting.
  At present, there is good practice in local authorities, but it is rather sparse and extremely patchy. For example, as part of the local transport planning process in my authority, we have created local action plans for all communities of over 3,000 people. These have created genuine and meaningful action plans to which people can relate, and they feel that this makes a difference to their lives. We have learnt a great deal from talking to people. It is easy to assume that we know best.
  It is important to understand that local authorities are particularly well placed in this regard, through the work that they do as local education authorities or as

  41
  providers of social services, and through their links with health services. Therefore, we seek a requirement for consultation on local transport plans on the face of the Bill, so that this is not merely a subject for guidance.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My hopes were raised for a moment by the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. He said that there is no difficulty nowadays in discovering what people want and need, and in being able to tell the difference. I thought that that was a plug for my trade of survey research, which has certainly shown over many years that it is possible, by suitably probing research, not merely number-crunching, to give people realistic options and alternatives, and to allow them to add to those and to respond to them in a way that corresponds to the sensible points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Alas, the noble Lord then seemed to return to a plug for Liberal Democrat local forums; and I am much less secure about those as a method for discovering what people want and need.
  Clearly, local authorities should have regard to the transport needs of people working or living in their area. Effective participation is a theme not just for transport but for the whole of the Government's policy for modern local government. The White Papers, Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People in relation to England, and Local voices—Modernising Local Government in Wales, require local authorities to make consultation part of their culture. The best value regime introduces a customer focus for the provision of local services, requiring authorities to consult and then respond to the results. But we believe that the requirements for consultation and participation in local transport plans are best dealt with by guidance rather than on the face of the Bill.
  Perhaps I should explain our approach to the issue of consultation and participation in the preparation, development and implementation of local transport plans. I believe all noble Lords agree that local transport planning needs to be an inclusive process. Authorities should actively involve local people, business, transport operators, users, health and education providers and environmental organisations in drawing up their local transport plans. Full and effective public consultation and participation is an integral part of their duties under best value. We attach a high priority to effective public involvement in local transport policy, and it will be a key factor in our consideration of local transport plans.
  The need for authorities to achieve effective participation is made very clear in the existing guidance on non-statutory plans. It sets out the importance of public participation in establishing a genuinely inclusive approach which is vital if authorities are to achieve the support necessary to deliver change. It recognises that local people have the knowledge and insight into existing problems and ideas for their resolution. The Commission for Integrated Transport, of which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is a member—he was the only one of the
  42
  signatories to this amendment who did not speak to it—said in its report on the guidance on provisional local transport plans:
  "The [Commission for Integrated Transport] considers that the guidance on public participation is helpful and thorough, while leaving local authorities sufficient freedom to choose the best methods".
  I could not have put it better myself. The commission wanted to see revised guidance to reflect the need for authorities to demonstrate public involvement during the development of the strategy within LTPs, and the onus on local authorities to demonstrate that they had successfully reached all key sections of the population and how proposals had been amended in the light of public comment. The latest guidance to local authorities in England reflects those views. The Good Practice Guide on the Development of Local Transport Plans which accompanied this guidance also includes examples of effective participation, establishing partnerships and possible tools for consultation.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am becoming slightly confused. Clause 110 deals specifically with consultation on Clause 109 which is concerned with bus plans. They are also included in the guidance and are part of the transport plan. The noble Lord said that. if the requirement for consultation was in the document there was no need for it to be on the face of the Bill. My question to the Minister is: at the next stage will he accept an amendment to remove Clause 110 altogether to make it consistent with transport planning?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I make two observations in response to the noble Lord: first, he should wait until I come to Amendment No. 123, to which I have not begun to respond; secondly, when the noble Lord reads my response and his version of it he will discover considerable differences.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: As I understood it, we were discussing consultation, not one particular amendment vis à vis another.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I like to respond to amendments in the Marshalled List. I believe that that is a courtesy owed by government to those who have devised the amendments. If noble Lords want to broaden the subject matter into a general discussion of streetworks and roadworks, that is fine with me. However, it is my duty to respond to the amendments that are before the Committee. We consider that the requirements for consultation and participation are best dealt with by guidance rather than on the face of the Bill.
  I turn next to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The requirements of Clause 110 relate specifically to the development of bus strategies rather than local transport plans as a whole. They are quite practical and ensure that other local authorities, bus operators and organisations that appear to represent users are consulted on the strategy. However, for local transport plans—this is where

  43
  guidance comes in—we want to see wider consultation. The effect of Amendment No. 123, taken together with the other amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite to remove the requirement for local authorities to have regard to guidance, would be to restrict the extra consultation on plans.
  We recognise the need for effective consultation and participation. I am more than happy to make the commitment that future statutory guidance issued under Clause 111 will be equally clear. We intend to have effective participation in local transport plans and provide a commitment to statutory guidance to cover the issue. I suggest that that is preferable to the options offered by these two amendments.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We have had a very full answer from the noble Lord. I look forward to reading the complete flavour of the noble Lord's response in Hansard. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 108 agreed to.
  5.15 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 121:
  After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—

  LOCAL SPEED LIMIT ORDERS: GUIDANCE
  (" . The Secretary of State shall, within 5 years of the coming into effect of this Act, publish revised guidance for the making of local speed limit orders in the context of a speed management strategy forming part of a local transport plan.").
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 121 is a new departure compared with the amendments that the Committee has been considering. The amendment seeks to add to the Bill a mechanism whereby the Government can carry out a major plank of their road safety strategy when they are ready to do so, or at any rate within five years from the date of implementation of the Act.
  The Government's road safety strategy clearly indicates that they believe it necessary and desirable for local authorities to be able to classify the roads in their districts and apply different speed limits to them, preferably on the basis of particular areas rather than one road, or part of a road, at a time. The Government made clear in their strategy that a legislative framework was required to enable them to give guidance to local authorities as to how to apply various speed limits in different ways. Obviously, speed is closely connected to safety and what might be called a better way of life. Speed is also a frightening element of traffic movement for pedestrians and cyclists. I believe that in the country horse-riders are one of the most vulnerable groups. This amendment is part of an attempt to enable local authorities to provide safer roads within their areas by considering
  44
  strategic, long-distance routes and those suitable for heavy traffic in a different way from minor roads in villages or small towns.
  I am grateful to the department for the assistance provided to me in framing the amendment. I hope that I have done it correctly. No doubt what is good about it stems from the department's advice and what is bad about it stems from my failure to understand the exact way in which to insert an amendment into a Bill. I hope that the amendment will find favour with the Minister. I beg to move.
  Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment, bearing in mind the danger to horses and riders. Some rural roads, in particular minor roads, are narrow, bending and with high hedges over which neither drivers nor riders can see. In areas where there may be a lot of riding, it would be advisable to have some speed limits on roads outside the built-up areas.
  Lord Berkeley: I support the amendment. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, had some drafting help. The amendment refers to a period of five years. Therefore, nothing will happen very quickly.
  I draw the Committee's attention to the White Paper which is now two years old. Page 61 contains almost identical words to those used by the noble Baroness. It refers to 20 miles per hour speed limit zones; and to the fact that the frequency of accidents has been reduced by about 60 per cent, with those to children being reduced by 67 per cent. Something needs to be done. The amendment is in line with the transport strategy. I hope that it can be accepted by the Government who might consider reducing the period of five years to three years.
  Lord Whitty: As the Minister responsible for the Road Safety Strategy, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness's desire to smooth its path in respect of speed limits. I am not entirely clear that a requirement to issue guidance is the key point although there is a need for guidance in that respect. The current guidance is helpful in technical detail so far as it goes, but the speed review we conducted last year in parallel with the Road Safety Strategy indicates a need to ensure greater clarity, greater consistency and more of the area approach to which the noble Baroness referred.
  The speed review recommended using the DETR's New Approach to Traffic Appraisal as a basis for developing an assessment framework for setting speed limits. The safety strategy indicated some moves and broad objectives in relation to residential areas, and villages in particular. We are completing this new advice which will be issued to local authorities. It is complex and cannot be issued instantly. I would expect the next advice to be issued on that basis within the next three years and, therefore, well within the noble Baroness's time-scale.
  I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment now. We shall consider whether the appropriate formulation would require new guidance. If it relates only to guidance, it may be unnecessary.

  45
  On the other hand, were there to be regulatory provisions we need to see whether the present powers of the Secretary of State are sufficient. While understanding the objective of the amendment, I should like to consider the issue further. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for that reply. I knew that I would make some major error. I shall consider his reply. Before Report stage, perhaps we can consider whether there is a need for legislative provision. This aspect of the Road Safety Strategy was clearly ticked off in the "legislation required" column. If the provision needs to be phrased differently, we have time between now and Report stage to get it right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 109 [Bus strategies]:
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 121A:
  Page 07, line 3, at end insert—
  ("() In developing their bus strategy, a local passenger transport authority, including Passenger Transport Executives, must have regard to the pay and conditions of their employees and best employment practice.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I first declare that I am a member of the Unison Parliamentary Group.
  This part of the Bill aims to improve local transport services by facilitating quality partnerships and quality contracts designed to improve the standards of bus services throughout England and Wales. Everyone supports the need for better bus services and the need to encourage more people back on to public transport in an effort to reduce congestion and environmental pollution. However, there is concern that in its present form the Bill fails to make explicit provision for the needs of employees, within the context of both local bus strategies and quality contract schemes.
  Paragraph 11.17, on page 40 of the Government's daughter document to the transport White Paper, From Workhorse to Thoroughbred, states:
  "A well trained and well motivated workforce, with decent pay and conditions is essential if we are to realise the full potential of the industry in meeting passengers' needs".
  However, at no point in this Bill is it acknowledged that employee terms and conditions are a fundamental component of quality services. The Bill fails to ensure that employee terms and conditions are a material factor when drawing up local bus strategies and hence when entering into quality partnerships and quality contracts. As such, I and others, including Unison and other trade unions, are concerned that contracts and partnerships will be entered into on the basis of cost and frequency alone, without regard to the important and crucial needs of staff who are, as acknowledged in the consultation document, key to successful partnerships and better services. Happy and contented staff make for good and punctual services, and civility attracts passengers. Discontented staff make for surly service and drive away passengers—the reverse of what the Bill seeks to do.
  Problems are also likely to occur in the tendering for quality contracts. The consultation document also acknowledges that there are disadvantages to the quality contract schemes. These include the fact that, as stated in the Government's own document,
  "Experience suggests that contracting can become a competition between operators for the lowest cost wages and conditions for staff'.
  That is unacceptable.
  Local authority owned bus companies, trading at arms' length, may find that they lose contracts because they are obliged to observe pay and conditions standards that exceed those found in many private bus companies. The lack of a level playing field in this area may, in the worst case scenario, not only lead to loss of jobs and low staff morale, it would also have a negative impact on services.
  Despite the Government acknowledging the problem in the consultation document, the Bill fails to make any arrangements to help to counteract the practice by making sure that bus strategies, quality contracts and quality partnerships consider the terms and conditions of employees. Without employees, one will have no bus services. If employees are badly paid, there will be bad bus services. Greater value would be added to quality partnerships and to quality contracts if all companies were required to present high standards of pay and conditions similar to other competitors in the field.
  The amendment would ensure that in drawing up local bus strategies, local transport authorities must have regard to best employment practice. This would help to ensure that such conditions were a factor when entering into quality partnership schemes and quality contracts. By amending Clause 109, a clear and positive statement would be sent out to employees and employers alike that best value means best employment practice.
  Why have the Government failed to include in this part of the Bill provisions for employees' terms and conditions? Furthermore, will the Government assure the Committee that local transport authorities and bus operators will be obliged to incorporate best employment practice within their bus strategies? Best employment practice should include the protection of core terms and conditions and mirror image pension rights from equal opportunities policies, health and safety commitments, trade union recognition and training opportunities. I feel sure that my noble friend will agree with those aspects and will want to incorporate them.
  In conclusion, in order for best value to be a success, it is essential that best employment practices are encouraged and facilitated in relevant legislation. In my view, the Government have not taken sufficient measures to demonstrate to staff that best value is a positive step forward. Moreover, it is time that staff were seen to be the solution to poor and unattractive services and not the culprits. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: I support the amendment. It is difficult to put into words what my noble friend is trying to achieve but he has made a good attempt at it. Unless the quality of service on buses is improved in many places, we shall not achieve the wholesale diversion of passengers which everyone wants.
  I understand that in many parts of the country there is a shortage of drivers. There is a shortage of train drivers and there will soon be a shortage of lorry drivers. They cover surface transport. If we cannot recruit such drivers, properly train them and persuade them to stay in the industry, we shall not achieve the quality of service, frequency and reliability that is essential.
  As many Members of the Committee have said, sadly, one has to be something of an acrobat to stay on a bus! If one suffers from a disability, it is even more difficult. I live in Oxford where, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, we have special buses with a floor that can be lowered so that passengers can climb on. But if they are not sitting down by the time the driver moves off they will probably be more disabled than when they started the ride! That is not the way to attract more people onto the buses.
  Only yesterday, when I was standing at a bus stop, a lady complained that the bus went by without stopping. She said, "I had my hand out but the driver took no notice". The bus was not full but he was probably in a hurry. We must do something about such incidents. I am not sure what the answer is, but I commend my noble friend for raising the issue and for tabling the amendment.
  Lord Whitty: I appreciate much of what was said by my noble friends Lord Stoddart and Lord Berkeley. It is true that if the morale and commitment of the staff are not right we shall not be able to deliver effective improvements in service to the public. However, the Bill is primarily about delivery of service to the public; it is not about industrial relations and the terms and conditions of those who are employed.
  Clearly, the transport authorities can take into account issues relating to terms and conditions if the effect of those terms and conditions is to undermine the performance of the service. It is open to local authorities to specify, for example, training standards for bus staff as part of the quality partnership standards. However, the broader question of how to deal with the staff of the local authorities, including those of passenger transport executives, is perhaps better addressed in a local government Bill rather than in a transport Bill.
  My noble friend's amendment addresses,
  "the pay and conditions of their employees";
  that is, local passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives. An additional problem with the drafting of the amendment is that the passenger transport authorities, not the executives, have responsibility for the strategy. However, by and
  48
  large, the employees of the operators might be affected and not those of the local authorities or the passenger transport executives.
  Clearly, we would wish for a good and positive best employment practice within all areas, particularly those of local authorities, but I do not believe that the Bill is the place to prescribe that. If anything, it should be in a local government Bill. As regards the employees of the transport authorities, as my noble friend's amendment does not address the employees of the operators it does not achieve what he intends. In any event, I do not believe that the provision would be appropriate here.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank my noble friend for his helpful reply and I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his intervention in support of my amendment. It was difficult to frame and it is appreciated that there may be other means of achieving the ends.
  I want to ensure that in the PTEs and the PTAs there is a realisation that transport services will succeed only provided the employees are satisfied, well remunerated and like their jobs. I speak as a former chairman of the Reading Corporation transport undertaking, so I know a little about negotiating procedures. It is necessary to have a well paid staff who are motivated to serve the public. People who are not satisfied and are frustrated will start their buses off sharply and will not consider the passengers who are standing in the rain at the bus stop. They should instead realise that the passengers are their livelihood and because they are properly considered they will give them good service.
  I want to consider what my noble friend said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
  Clause 109 agreed to.
  Clause 110 [Consultation and publicity about bus strategies]:
  [Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 124:
  Page 67, line 11, at end insert—
  ("() the traffic commissioner for each traffic area covering the whole or part of the area to which it relates").

  The noble Lord said: Before speaking to the amendment and to others standing in my name, I must declare an interest. I am a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred, and a member of the British Railways Board. I make it clear that the amendments are my personal work and that I have received no advice or guidance from anyone connected with either of those two bodies.
  I propose the amendments, with the support of my noble friends, because I believe that they will improve the Bill and make a useful contribution to the implementation of the policies contained in the Government's integrated transport White Paper, with which I am almost totally in agreement.
  I want, first, to talk about the traffic commissioners. This is the first of a number of mentions in the Bill of the traffic commissioners and of the duties attaching to them. When we discussed Part I, which relates to NATS. a great deal was said about safety. A commitment was expressed on all sides of the Committee to safety. The Government's road safety strategy makes it clear that road safety is a key aim of the six traffic commissioners who license bus, coach and heavy goods vehicle operators.
  One of my concerns is that traffic commissioners are under-resourced. I believe that they are also under-utilised. However, we must not be complacent about safety in the whole area of road transport. I mention the fact that in the last year for which records are available 576 people lost their lives as a result of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. In the context of our discussion on NATS last week, that represents two air crashes. Tremendous horror was expressed in the Chamber at the prospect of air transport safety being in any way compromised. However, we compromise safety in road transport every day, every week and every year.
  The traffic commissioners are one of the principal groups of people whose duty it is to promote safety, and they work with the Vehicle Inspectorate. We must remind ourselves that on average 20 per cent of vehicles over 3.5 tonnes fail their test by the Vehicle Inspectorate and 12 per cent do so the second time that they are tested. Passenger service vehicles do not do a great deal better: 15 per cent fail the test and 9.1 per cent do so on a repeat test.
  Therefore, in moving the amendment, I want to ask the Government whether they intend to review the resources available to traffic commissioners in order to enable them to carry out all their duties properly. What we propose and what the Bill says is that traffic commissioners are to have additional duties—referred to on pages 70, 71 and 74 of the Bill—particularly in regard to quality bus partnerships.
  In my view, it is axiomatic that if a traffic commissioner is to play a part in the administration of a quality bus partnership, he should be a consultee of the bus strategy of a local authority. Either the traffic commissioners are important people in whose judgment the Government place trust or they are not. If they are important and if they are to be involved, they should be consultees at the beginning of the development of a bus strategy. As the Bill is written and as we continue with the subject of quality partnerships, there comes a point when the traffic commissioner must be part of the enforcement process of that quality partnership further down the line. Therefore, the amendment makes the traffic commissioner a consultee at the beginning of the process.
  However, in order to play his full part in the administration of quality partnerships, in the whole realm of safety and in the proper regulation of road transport, I readily accept that the traffic commissioner must have adequate resources at his disposal.
  Before we move on from the question of resources, all operators—freight and road passenger operators—have always said that they would be prepared to pay a little more for their operator's licence if that money was spent on the enforcement resource available to the traffic commissioner. Again, it is a principle of fair competition that people should obey the rules: they should not overload; they should not allow their drivers to work excessive hours; and they should maintain their vehicles properly. The effect of not enforcing the rules is to move one of those principal pillars away from fair competition.
  Amendment No. 125 deals with the issue of users. However, I shall stop at this point and ask whether we may have a response to Amendment No. 124. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I am to respond properly to this amendment—I believe that I am responding only to Amendment No. 124—I must say quite a lot about traffic commissioners as well as something about the bus strategy. Perhaps I may explain the main responsibilities of the traffic commissioners and the powers that they are given under the Bill. I shall then refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, with regard to the resources available to them.
  The main responsibility of traffic commissioners is to ensure that bus services meet the necessary statutory operating requirements and comply with their registered details. The Bill provides for traffic commissioners' involvement, but at the level of the detailed schemes which local authorities bring forward under the Bill rather than the bus strategy. They will be consulted on quality partnership schemes, quality contract schemes, ticketing schemes and information. That is referred to in Clauses 114, 124, 135 and 138.
  Of course, the commissioners will he kept informed of the outcome of the matters on which they have been consulted. That is because they will have enforcement functions in the event of contravention by a bus operator. Failure to comply on the part of the bus operator will leave him open to action by the commissioners for breach of his registration conditions, except in respect of a quality contract operator, who will be answerable to the contracting authority. That is provided for in paragraphs 10 and 22 of Schedule 11.
  Therefore, we believe that we have made appropriate provision for the traffic commissioners in the matters with which they are concerned. They have important powers, which they are well qualified to exercise, to oversee entry to the bus industry in terms of financial standing and professional competence and to monitor bus services to ensure compliance with their registered details. We are widening that activity under Part II of the Bill to include enforcement of quality partnership schemes, ticketing schemes and passenger information. Those will all be similarly enforced under the existing registration system.

  51
  The mechanism to which I referred is set out in paragraphs 10 and 22 of Schedule 11, which provide that operating in breach of the provisions will attract the sanctions available under Sections 26 and 111 of the Transport Act 1985. They include the power to levy a financial penalty on the operator, currently in the form of a requirement to repay 20 per cent of the fuel duty rebate received for the previous three months. That can be a sizeable sum, and in the past the traffic commissioners have shown themselves ready to impose those penalties on under-performing operators.
  Clauses 154 and 157 of the Bill provide for greater flexibility, both in the circumstances in which penalties can be paid and in the size of those penalties. That ensures that the financial penalty available is effective and flexible and the traffic commissioner can vary it up to specified limits to suit the circumstances of a particular case.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the issue of traffic commissioner resources. He wanted an assurance that we recognise the need for resources. We do, indeed, recognise that it is important for the commissioners to have adequate resources to carry out the enforcement role that I described. That is why last year we made additional resources available to cover the cost of using Vehicle Inspectorate staff to undertake monitoring of bus services. I am pleased to say that we have recently agreed that that arrangement should become permanent. We have made available £0.5 million annually in order to enhance the monitoring role.
  I have gone into some detail about the work of the traffic commissioners because that is the context in which I say, with some regret, that we cannot accept the amendment. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to require the traffic commissioners to be involved in the bus strategies. By definition, they are strategic policy documents designed to set out in broad terms how the local authority intends to exercise its bus functions. We do not consider those to be matters on which it is appropriate to trouble the traffic commissioners. They do not have responsibilities as regards overall judgments about the local bus network, whereas user representatives, who are referred to in Clause 110, may well be expected to have a view on those matters. Nor do the commissioners have wider interests of the kind that justify other local authorities and bus operators being consulted on bus strategies.
  I hope that by setting out the difference between the two roles I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, not to press the amendment.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his reply. Bus quality partnerships may become quite complex documents in time. It may be difficult for the traffic commissioners to carry out their duty of enforcing them when it comes to excluding non-compliant operators from use of the facilities. There may be difficulties ahead for the Government.
  52
  I hope that the Minister will reflect on that, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 125:
  Page 67, line 15, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
  ("(d) users and potential users of such services or organisations appearing to the authority to be their representatives.").

  The noble Baroness said: I have also tabled a series of similar amendments that have been grouped with this.
  The amendments would make a slight change to the wording of the clauses that refer to the consultation process for bus strategies, quality partnership schemes, quality contracts and bus ticketing schemes. The Bill says that the local transport authority must consult,
  "organisations appearing to the authority to be representative of users of such services".
  The amendment would require the authority to speak to users of the services as well.
  The difference may not seem profound, but it is important for bus travel. Bus travel is not as well represented by user organisations as rail travel. There is a structure of rail user organisations that works fairly satisfactorily at a regional level and even at a lower level than that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, may have accused me by implication of being näve, but it is important to try to find out what bus users feel about new services. After all, good ideas often come from the users. That is as true for a service as it is for a tool or instrument. The people who use the service know how it affects them day to day. The amendments do not need any further explanation. I beg to move.
  Lord Swinfen: I have several amendments in this group. However, before I speak to them, I should explain that I have notified the Government and those who have put their name to it that my Amendment No. 134 has been degrouped. I shall speak to it with Amendment No. 131, because that makes more sense. I spoke to my Amendment No. 149 when we were dealing with Amendment No. 117.
  I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, because they are better drafted than mine and would achieve the same end. Many people have little faith in the local democratic process, particularly when it comes to safeguarding the interests of disabled people. Disabled people are in a minority and their needs are not necessarily well known to the non-disabled majority. Consequently, the demands of the non-disabled majority generally overwhelm the needs of disabled people. Local democracy understandably generally favours majority interests, because that is where votes are.
  I should like local transport authorities to be specifically required to consult disabled people and their organisations, regardless of whether they are bus

  53
  users. Accessible buses are coming and must be in service by the end of 2017. With accessible buses will come far more potential users. They should be consulted, together with existing users, on the services that they would like. If not, their needs may well not be met.
  Lord Bradshaw: I should like to add to what my noble friend Lady Thomas has said about bus users. As £500,000 was confirmed as going to the traffic commissioners on the previous amendment, I shall have another go.
  Until recently, I was the chairman of the bus appeals body. That task has now been taken over by the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, who is not in his place, but will be here later. It became apparent to me that bus users are different from rail users. Rail users are generally articulate and well able to complain. They do so at length—usually, I imagine, with somebody typing their letter for them.
  The bus appeals body received complaints from bus users who were dissatisfied with the treatment that they had received from bus companies. Often, the letters that came were not well written and had obviously been produced with great trouble on very poor notepaper. Such people find it difficult to make their views known.
  The National Federation of Bus Users is a largely voluntary organisation that is gradually expanding its activities. It seeks to bring together the complaints of users and to present them in a way that forces bus companies to face up to the shortcomings in their services. It has very little funding. It receives some money from the Confederation of Passenger Transport, hut, like all user bodies, it is uneasy about being dependent on the provider for its funds.
  I have raised with the Minister in another place on a number of occasions the possibility of finding some means of making a modest sum of public funds available to help the federation to make its presence known to a wider audience and to formulate complaints so that they can be addressed. Mr Hill has said that he is looking for a way of providing some assistance. Can the Minister say whether some means has been found of providing modest assistance to the National Federation of Bus Users? If he is not able to say anything today, I should be glad if he could write to me. We have to try to do something for bus users, whose welfare is not being well catered for. They include the disabled people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred. This is a modest measure that would not involve large sums of money, but it would do a great deal to help a disadvantaged group of transport users.
  Baroness Wilkins: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I should like to emphasise in particular the importance of consultation with potential users of services. The Royal National Institute for the Blind's recent report entitled Rights of Way said that 40 per cent of blind and partially sighted people never used public transport, because it was too difficult or too inaccessible. Unless potential users,
  54
  those who are not already using the services, are consulted also, the services will never reach a standard at which they can use them. For that reason and the other reasons already expressed, I support the amendment.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Addington: I support the aim of the amendments. We must bring in potential users and those who have traditionally found it difficult in order to ensure that they are considered in the process.
  Lord Whitty: The amendments which relate to a requirement to consult are unnecessary because there is already provision in the Bill to ensure that there is consultation with user groups, organisations representing the disabled and others involved in the community when drawing up the local transport plans.
  Some of the specifications are quite difficult to achieve; for example, the reference to potential bus users. I am not entirely sure which organisations represent potential bus users except in so far as t hey are already designated by, for example, organisations for the disabled and others. Clearly, there are organisations representing the deaf and partially sighted. Those people have difficulty hearing announcements or reading the printed word, to which my noble friend Lady Wilkins referred.
  The Bill already acknowledges the needs of such disabled people by requiring authorities to have particular regard to their needs in the local transport plan set out in Clause 111. In general, we require local authorities to be inclusive in their consultation and policy-making processes with clear public involvement, participation of relevant organisations and so on. To some extent, we must allow local authorities to draw up their own lists of particular organisations which they should consult as guided by the Bill and the further guidance under this Bill and earlier Bills.
  Therefore, it is not sensible to engage in listing all the groups of users that should be consulted. By definition, one interest group is bound to be omitted and the more organisations that are listed, the more likely it is that a body will be excluded whereas the general provisions will cover the requirement to include.
  The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, spoke to amendments relating to passenger information for those with particular needs. He raises a very valid point in that regard and I hope that I can give him some reasonable reassurance. Clearly, our objective must be that information should be accessible to all—disabled and non-disabled and potential users alike. We are making a start on that by honouring our commitment to the provision of public transport information over the telephone from a single national number covering all modes. That will be known as "Traveline". It is being developed across the country through collaboration between operators and local authorities and will be in place nationally later this year. That will provide a one-stop shop.
  I am pleased to say that from the outset, the "Traveline" service will include, for example, a minicom facility for deaf people. That is only a start.

  55
  We intend to enhance the initial service once it is in place. We are continuing discussions with DPTAC, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. Additional requirements can be built in to address the particular requirements for those who suffer from a disability.
  As to local bus information, Clause 138 requires authorities to determine what information should be available and the way in which it should be provided. Again, in the consultation process which precedes that, local authorities are required to be, and will be, inclusive in their consultation process. Some time ago, DPTAC produced guidelines on the legibility of timetable information, for example, and it has been working with local authority officers to produce new guidance.
  Amendment No. 141 is slightly different. It requires that quality contract applications to the national authority should show evidence of support from users. Again, that is already covered in that the consultation, which is to assess the degree of support, will be reported to the national authority. On the other side of the argument, under Clause 125(3) there is provision for written representations to be made to the national authority when it is considering a quality contract application and before determining that application. The national authority will obviously be expected to take such representations into account.
  Therefore, the provision for consultation already exists. In some ways, the specification of user groups may make matters worse rather than better. With a general provision on inclusiveness of consultation and the provision of information, we are meeting the main points raised in the debate.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In my efforts to be brief, I may have been difficult to understand. I do not propose any additional clauses except that proposed in Amendment No. 141. My main objective is to ensure that when consultation is mentioned in Clause 110 on bus strategies, in Clause 114 on quality partnership schemes, in Clause 124 on quality contracts and in Clause 135 dealing with bus ticketing schemes, that consultation should not just be with organisations of bus users which, as we have said, are rather thin on the ground, but with bus users and their organisations. That is all that I suggest.
  However, I shall read with care what the Minister said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
  Clause 110 agreed to.
  Clause 111 [Plans and strategies: supplementary]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 127:
  Page 67, line 30, leave out subsection (1).
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 128. They are separate amendments. I can understand why they are grouped together because they both deal with the same
  56
  subject, but they are separate in the sense that the first seeks to remove absolutely the Government's power to issue guidance in this matter and the second seeks to limit the contents of the guidance.
  I recognise that these amendments are, in a sense, an attempt to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted because the guidance was issued in March. However, we need to think extremely carefully what we are about because Clause 111 says that in drawing up transport plans, local transport authorities "must have regard to" the guidance. My view—and it may be a narrow view—is that that makes the guidance statutory guidance. This Bill has 342 pages, 265 clauses and 30 schedules. As if that is not enough, in effect, those words which I have quoted from Clause 111 add another 150 pages to the Bill.
  It was because I could not see quite how to debate that guidance that I tabled these amendments. I hope that Members of the Committee will tell me that I am not abusing the process by doing so when they have heard what I have to say.
  The guidance is a very significant document. I simply begin with the introduction: "What is an LTP?" It states:
  "LTPs have replaced the Transport Policies and Programme (TPP) system of bidding for capital resources, which was no longer delivering efficiently".
  When I asked under which legislative authority the transport policies and programme system is derived, which has distributed money for highways purposes to local authorities for so many years, I did not receive an answer. I went to the Local Government Association, to my own local authority and to the Library. The best answer I found came from the Library, "Because this is the distribution of funds the Treasury can just do it". Therefore, they can change the system. I assume that in this instance we are concerned with a deal that has been struck between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Treasury. I hope that there is complete agreement between the two departments on this matter. I hope, when the Minister replies, that he will give me an absolute assurance that there is complete agreement and understanding as to what is taking place.
  It is interesting that we are able to change completely a system of financial allocation without reference to statute at all, which as a local authority man—I am sorry to mention my local authority background—I find quite fascinating. Nobody in any local authority has been able to do anything without statutory backing, until now. In recent legislation we have begun to put in aspects of a general power and a general competence. However, that is as it may be.
  The document also states:
  "Under TPP, authorities were allocated funding for individual schemes. This meant the Government took decisions on very small schemes, often costing as little as a few thousand pounds. It wasted time and resources and meant decisions were taken in isolation, often on purely financial grounds"—
  and so on.
  What does this wonderful document achieve? We may have thought we were heading for an easier, simpler system. On the next page, there is a section

  57
  headed, "What will LTPs deliver?" The contrast between local transport plans and the transport policies and programme are set out at the top of the page. We find that a local transport plan,
  "does not require detailed list of schemes, but rather indications of where the main problems are and how they will be tackled … Plans will be assessed on the quality of the strategies they contain"—
  and so on. We are dealing with a bidding programme. As one reads on, one finds that another line reads:
  "Ministers will be looking for evidence that a local transport plan is of a high standard across the board, as assessed against the criteria in Annex D".
  Annexe D is wonderful; it is a mine in which one can dig for ideas for a long time. Annexe D includes a whole series of identified problems and talks about objective settings, about the minimum requirements of a plan and about the characteristics of a good local transport plan, which, in principle, as we have heard, should not be detailed and need not go into individual schemes and the reasons for them.
  I turn to "Strategy development". It is tempting to read out the whole document. Of course, if I were rash enough to do so, it would be seen to be a patent Filibuster. What is required under "Strategy development" is,
  "Clear evidence of a fundamental review of existing strategy … a robust analytical or evidence based approach … Alternative solution(s) tested, in particular alternatives to major schemes … a clear link between objectives, strategy and the specific measures in the LTP … Identifies cross-boundary issues … Steps being taken to ensure consistency with the local authority development plan and the national and regional planning guidance … Programme of public participation reported, with indication of how this has influenced strategy … consideration of links with other relevant local strategies (e.g. Health Improvement Programme, education policies)"—
  and so on. Those are only "Minimum requirements". Then we find "Characteristics of a Good LTP". They are,
  "Full range of potential solutions tested and appraised … topic based … and local area-based strategies pulled together in a coherent way in over-arching strategy … Strategy incorporates measures to tackle cross-boundary issues in partnership with neighbouring authorities … Clear evidence of close integration with other relevant local strategies … Principles of good participation have been followed in developing the strategy, in particular, evidence that public fully involved in consideration of alternatives".
  Under "Implementation Programme"—I shall be a little briefer this time—it states:
  "Clearly identifies the level of resources bid for … Identifies the cost and timing of all major schemes (£5 million) proposed … realistic about the level of available resources".
  We have already heard about the reliability of available resources. That may or may not be all right. It continues:
  "Indicates effectively the scope for modifying the implementation".
  In other words, what do you do if you do not receive the money?
  The document refers to,
  "Clear indication of priorities … Identifies contribution of the private sector … commitment of partners clear … Identifies clearly any significant statutory or other consents that may be required … includes details of planned revenue expenditure".
  58
  Again, that is a minimum requirement. A good LTP will also contain,
  "contingency plans in case statutory or other consents are not forthcoming … Maximises contribution of the private sector, both as a source of funds and as a provider of services … Groups small scale projects into appropriate programmes".
  If you believe the preamble, small projects are not supposed to be considered at all.
  The document states:
  "Clearly explains what part of the programme is supported by revenue resources … explains how this relates to the proposed capital programme".
  and so on. I have not counted the sectors, but there are about 16 or 20 of them, all of which set out what is to be in a good local transport plan.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. There are 27 paragraphs like that and he has read out only two. Perhaps I have made the point!
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I did not want to bore the House with these wretched things. However, this is exceedingly important because local authorities are obliged to comply with all—I stress "all"—these matters in intimate detail.
  The result is that Hampshire has a plan that has to be submitted some time this month—I do not remember the precise date and that is not relevant to the point that I seek to make. It is 800 pages long and cost over £300,000 to produce. This is supposed to be a simplified, straightforward, non-detailed system of planning highways expenditure allocation, among other things. Of course, the programme is more than that, but this procedure would not be necessary if it were not for the fact that this is also a bid process for financial allocation. The reason that it becomes so intrinsically detailed and appallingly hard work is because, as it is a competitive bid programme, every local transport authority must perforce ensure that its plan has the characteristics of a good local transport plan, as defined. Therefore, each has to produce all the detail.
  Another result is that Kent, which wanted to purchase 20 reflective jackets for those manning road crossings on dark, winter nights, felt that it had to include that in the plan. Otherwise, simply putting 20 more people on its crossings did not make sense; they had to have reflective jackets for the winter; and if the council wanted a good plan, it had to fill in all the detail.
  There are 150 pages of such details. They receive no supervision from Parliament at all. That produces a serious constitutional issue; that is, the question of the status of statutory guidance and. Parliament's supervision of it. Unfortunately, technically, we have no means of looking at that. That is my excuse for tabling these amendments.
  Amendment No. 127 simply seeks to remove the power to make that guidance. I recognise that the stable door has been opened and the horse bolted, so

  59
  there is not much point in that amendment. Amendment No. 128 seeks to limit the power. I raise this issue not in the sense of the detail, but in the constitutional sense; that is, that we need to think carefully what we are about. It is my view that this Bill is not 342 pages long; it is 492 pages long, and 150 pages contain no supervisory powers whatever. That must be wrong. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): If the Committee agrees to Amendment No. 127, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 128.
  Lord Whitty: I suppose I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for not reading out all 150 pages. Nevertheless, he rather misled the Committee in his description of the use of the guidance.
  In this guidance the Government are attempting to provide a steer to local authorities as to how they should construct their plans and we will assess bids, which were previously assessed on a one-off basis, against their holistic approach to transport within their areas. It is something which sensible local authorities will be doing in any case and something which needs now to lock into the process which the Government are requiring. But it is not a straitjacket. It is not legislatively forcing local authorities to do something which it is not in their interests to do. They must have regard to the guidance. The bids—if we continue to call them "bids"—will be judged against their total approach to planning. But they will not be constrained, in the way that direct legislation may constrain them, to meet all the objectives of the guidance document.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seems to be suggesting that we should delete all requirements to "have regard to". He also seemed to be suggesting that, in so far as the Government were to go down this line, all of it should be on the face of the Bill. That is entirely the wrong approach and a totally different argument from that put forward when we discussed local government legislation; namely, that local authorities should be given as much flexibility as possible. There should certainly be guidance and a general indication of what national policy is; but it should not be prescriptive in the way that both primary and secondary legislation are.
  Guidance is the right approach. It is not intended to be unduly prescriptive. It seeks to guide local authorities on specific issues. The requirement that local authorities should "have regard" to guidance means that a local authority must not disregard it; but neither does it have to follow it slavishly. That is the purpose of guidance and the balanced approach of its effect. One of the amendments would delete that constructive relationship and the other would seriously constrain what could be put into guidance. Neither would be healthy for the relationship between the national and local transport policies.
  60
  One can argue as to the bits and pieces in guidance. But in that sense it is not binding. There will always be differences of emphasis. But the approach we have taken in the Bill is the most appropriate. Any other approach would be more prescriptive and less able to convey the relationship between national and local government decisions. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not pursue either amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister misunderstood my motives in tabling these amendments. It was certainly not to put 150 more pages on the face of the Bill. It was to debate the issue of parliamentary supervision of statutory guidance. I am sorry that others chose not to take part in this debate. An issue arises in this regard which, on a day when we regulate and legislate in increasing detail across the broad spectrum of society, is wider than this Bill.
  The Minister said that local authorities will continue to tender their bids because it is in their interests so to do. He is perfectly correct. If they do not tender their bids, they will not receive any money. But he who pays the piper also calls the tune. The Minister said that the Government, in considering the allocations, would consider the total plans. I have set out in these amendments a limited number of the things that the total plans must contain. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out that I described only two sections, and there are, in fact, 27. Every local transport authority in the land will sweat through those 27 because of the fear that, if they do not, they will not receive the money they require.
  But it is worse than that. A local authority with independence of mind may disagree with the Government on certain policy issues and wish to treat the whole matter in a different way. It would be reassuring to know that a local authority that was sufficiently bold to hold its own opinions would still receive the money. But the way that governments have worked in the past does not give me confidence that that would be the case.
  I listened to the Minister with a great deal of interest and there is a wide gap between us. I shall consider what he said. On the whole, at this stage, I feel that I should leave the matter of the guidance being on the face of the Bill. But I feel that I ought to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 128, which deals with the issue of the content of the guidance. For my part, the Minister has not given a satisfactory response to that issue which is much wider than the question of placing the guidance on the face of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon Smith Lord Dixon Smith moved Amendment No. 128:
  Page 67, line 38, at end insert—
  ("() Guidance issued under this section shall be confined to that necessary to ensure consistency of information and presentation within plans, and consistency between plans and with national policy.").

  6.29 p.m.
  On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 128) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents 130.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Attlee, E.

  Lawson of Blaby, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Blackwell, L.

  Luke, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Boardman, L.

  McConnell, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Byford, B.

  Moynihan, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Colwyn, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Craigavon, V.

  Palmer, L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Crathorne, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Denham, L.

  Plumb, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Rees, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Elton, L.

  Ryder of Wensum, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Fookes, B.

  Seccombe, B.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Selkirk of Douglas, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Garel-Jones, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Swinfen, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Haslam, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Henley, L.[Teller]

  Waddington, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Wakeham, L.

  Howe, E.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  David, B.

  Addington, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Amos, B.

  Desai, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Bach, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Elder, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L

  Blease, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Bragg, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Brett, L.

  Gale, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Gavron, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Grabiner, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Grenfell, L.

  62

  Hamwee, B.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Scott of Needham Market. B.

  Sewel, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Simon. V.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Steel of Aikwood, L.

  Judd, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Laird, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Tordoff, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Uddin, B.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate,

  Warner, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Weatherill, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Wilkins, B.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Molloy, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.39 p.m.
  Clause 111 agreed to.
  Clause 112 agreed to.
  Clause 113 [Quality partnership schemes]:
  Lord MacKenzie of Culkein Lord MacKenzie of Culkein moved Amendment No. 128A:
  Page 68, line 15, after ("authority.") insert ("Passenger Transport Authority and Passenger Transport Executive,").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 137A, 153A to 153C, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Perhaps I may declare interest at this stage, as I am a member of UNISON.
  This part of the Transport Bill aims to improve local transport facilities through the implementation of best value and the further establishment of quality bus partnerships and quality contracts within local authorities. The purpose of these amendments is to seek further clarity as to whether passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives fall within the best value remit of the legislation.
  Over the years, the six PTAs and PTEs, which, between them employ over 5,000 workers, have been extremely successful in fostering the development of integrated public transport involving bus and train and, where appropriate, ferry and air services. Indeed, they provide much of the infrastructure such as bus stops and bus stations. Moreover, in the case of Tyne and Wear, they own and operate the Metro system. In Manchester and South Yorkshire they were instrumental in the planning and operation of the new light rail services in both Manchester and Sheffield. They also play a major role in securing the provision of socially needed bus and train services by way of the subsidised tender system, including rural services and special community transport services. Elsewhere, some of those responsibilities are undertaken by local county councils.
  PTAs and PTEs have, therefore, a great deal of responsibility in relation to the provision of integrated transport services in their particular areas. It is important that they should be obliged to abide by the same standards of high service as other local government transport authorities. However, as I understand it, they are not currently subject to the same best value legislation as local government transport authorities. In its current form, the Transport Bill does not appear to provide for any measures that will make their position clearer and thus provide the necessary safeguards.
  The proposed amendment to Clause 113 and to Clauses 123 and 140 would ensure that both PTAs and PTEs are subject to the same legislative provision as local transport authorities, especially when entering into quality bus partnerships, quality contracts and subsidised tendered services. This also applies to the new national passenger information service. Without such direction on the face of the Bill, I have concerns that PTEs will not feel it necessary to follow best value principles and procedures in setting up contracts, partnerships and when procuring tendered services. Therefore, it would be most helpful to hear from my noble friend the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that both PTAs and PTEs will abide by the same legislative rules as their local authority counterparts. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I should point out to my noble friend that there is a distinction between PTAs and PTEs in this context. This amendment seeks to add references to both of them alongside the current references to local transport authorities. As regards PTAs, I can assure my noble friend that such reference is unnecessary, as these authorities are already included within the definition of a -local transport authority" in Clause 107.
  As for PTEs, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to give them identical powers to the PTAs. That would lead to some overlap and confusion. In any event, the two bodies have different powers and functions: essentially, the PTE is the executive arm of the PTA. Therefore, the Bill rightly gives to PTAs the same powers as other local
  64
  transport authorities—county councils and unitary authorities—to develop and implement schemes for quality partnerships and quality contracts and arrangements for passenger information.
  At points, the Bill recognises the particular role of the PTEs by providing in Clause 109(4), for example, for their advice to be taken into account by the PTAs in connection with the bus strategy. But it is the PTA that remains the body with the principal powers and duties. That is already covered in the same way as applies to other transport authorities. In the light of my remarks, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
  Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reassurance about PTAs. I note what he said about PTEs; namely, that. in his view, this amendment is not appropriate for them. I shall certainly read his response in Hansard to consider what was said in that respect. However, having been reassured on the position of PTAs, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 129:
  Page 68, line 30, after ("congestion.") insert ("road accidents.").
  The noble Lord said: As drafted, the Bill requires those who initiate quality bus partnerships, among other things, to consider the question of reducing traffic congestion, noise or air pollution. This is a very small amendment, which seeks simply to include "road accidents" among those matters that should be considered for reduction. I believe this to be an unexceptionable issue. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will consider this to be a helpful amendment, as it was intended to be. It has been grouped with Amendment No. 175, which makes precisely the same point regarding a different part of the Bill. Nevertheless, it is relevant. I beg to move.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: I should normally be very responsive to the noble Lord's call to register road safety in various parts of the Bill, but I do not think that it is appropriate here. There is a direct relationship between the level of bus take-up and the provision of bus services with congestion, pollution and air quality, which means that such issues can be built into the quality partnership or contract. However, the relationship with road accidents is less clear.
  In one sense the increase in bus take-up provides a safer mode of transport because travelling on a bus is statistically safer, for example, than travelling by car. But the total effect may not he so direct because a smoother bus journey and less congestion may actually lead to faster speeds and, therefore, the possibility of further accidents. Indeed, when considering road safety, one has to take the whole journey into account, such as walking to the bus stop before the journey and away from it afterwards.

  65
  It is therefore within the total transport plan that the issue of road safety has to be addressed, rather than in the particular instrument of quality partnerships or quality contracts. The link between better bus provision and fewer road accidents does not seem to us clear, unlike the link between better bus provision and a reduction in congestion and pollution, which is already included in the Bill.
  The link with the payment of bus subsidy in Clause 151—which Amendment No. 175 seeks to amend—is even more tenuous in our view. The primary purpose of subsidy is to ensure an adequate bus network, plugging gaps in what is offered commercially by providing non-remunerative services. Subsidy may also be paid to enhance services, perhaps with a view to promoting public transport use—hence the relevance to congestion and pollution in Clause 151(2). However, to link the payment of bus subsidy with the prevention of road accidents does not seem appropriate. The important issue is the total approach to preventing road accidents rather than giving a subsidy to a particular form of transport. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment, although I accept that it is well intended.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the Minister's comments and for his sympathy with the objective behind the amendment, even if he does not think that it is appropriate. I shall study his comments with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 130:
  Page 68, line 38, leave out from ("facilities") to end of line 40.
  The noble Lord said: Clause 113(5)(b) addresses quality partnership schemes and states that the facilities which may be specified in a scheme,
  "may not he facilities which are required to be provided as a result of section 138 or 139",
  which refer to the provision of information about services to the public.
  I do not know how one can provide a quality service if one is not required to provide information about that service to the public. I am a little puzzled at that exclusion. I hope that the Minister will comment on the Government's thinking on that matter. I do not believe that a service will be of a high quality unless the public are fully informed about it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In our estimation the proposal seems sensible.
  Lord Whitty: I reassure the Committee that there is nothing sinister about the proposals. It is certainly possible for a quality partnership scheme to include requirements as to bus information to passengers, and many will do so, as is the case at present, although practice varies throughout the country. Subsection (5)(b) is simply aimed at avoiding duplication of powers. Thus any facilities which relate to information and are required to be provided under the separate
  66
  powers on passenger information under Clauses 138 and 139 may not also be covered within a quality partnership scheme. It is not intended that in other circumstances they should not be included. I hope the Committee will accept that reassurance.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister is reassuring. I shall study his comments and, as always, do my homework. However, on the strength of his comments, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 131:
  Page 68, line 43, leave out from ("meet") to end of line 45.
  The noble Lord said: Clause 113(6)(b) addresses the requirements of a quality partnership scheme. It states that the standard of services which may be specified in a scheme,
  "do not include requirements as to frequency or timing of the services".
  That seems rather an odd requirement to exclude from a quality contract. I believe that such a scheme should refer to the frequency and timing of services. I accept that, given the vagaries of traffic, the British weather and the accidents of life, these are hazardous matters to try to predict in a contract with any precision. Nevertheless, it seems to me completely wrong that they should be excluded. I beg to move.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Amendment No. 132, which stands in my name, is grouped with Amendment No. 131 and tries to achieve much the same result but by slightly different means. Clause 113(6) determines the standards that can be specified in a quality partnership scheme. Clause 113(6)(b) excludes local transport authorities from adding frequency and timing of services to those standards. Amendment No. 132 states not that they must do so, but that they may do so. I hope that that will meet the "flexibility test" as it is not a demand.
  However, these standards can be specified in a quality contract. We understood that the Government consider that, as regards the provision of bus services, quality contracts may be, as it were, younger sisters or less important members of the clan. However, if one can obtain these standards only by going down the quality contract route, that is what these authorities may be tempted to do, bearing in mind that the two matters that passengers most frequently cite as being important are precisely timing and frequency of services.
  Lord Swinfen: My name is attached to Amendment No. 131. As I mentioned when we discussed Amendment No. 125, I degrouped from it Amendment No. 134 and said that I would address that amendment with Amendment No. 131.
  As I see it, the purpose of Amendment No. 131 is to allow quality partnerships to specify details of timing and frequency of services. Amendment No. 134 would require local transport authorities to consult

  67
  organisations of disabled people before introducing quality partnership schemes, whether or not they are users.
  Timing and frequency of services are key factors that stop disabled and elderly people from being able to go out independently. Timing has a bearing on when to shop, when to visit friends and places of entertainment, and on how disabled people get to work. If an authority or authorities propose to make a quality partnership scheme, they must give notice of the proposed scheme and, inter alia, consult such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of users of local services as they think fit.
  For reasons that I stated earlier this evening, I should like to see local transport authorities specifically required to consult disabled and elderly people and their organisations, whether or not they are current users. It is extremely important that both elderly people and disabled people without their own private transport know the frequency and the timings of public transport.
  7 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): In responding to these amendments I am very conscious that this is an issue relating to Part II of the Bill which is of concern to several noble Lords. I respect their views, but I should like to argue that there is another point of view, which I shall try to set out for the Committee.
  I begin by looking at some matters of legal principle. We have two quite separate concepts in the Bill: quality partnerships give local authorities new powers to set overall standards for bus services as a condition for the use of facilities that the local authorities provide; quality contracts give local authorities powers to determine all the details of bus services in a particular area, including the specific details of timetables.
  There are different procedures for the two concepts. Quality partnerships are a matter for a local authority's own discretion, subject to various consultation requirements; quality contracts require the consent of the relevant national authority, which seems only right for such a significant and substantial departure from the present arrangements under which bus operators have quite a margin of commercial discretion.
  These amendments would seriously blur the distinction between quality partnerships and quality contracts. They would give local authorities a very significant degree of control over the details of the bus operators' timetables and frequencies in the circumstances of a quality partnership. The result would be that the quality partnership would take on some of the crucial characteristics of a quality contract and other important aspects of quality contracts would be side-stepped; in particular, there would be no need for the consent of the national authority to such a quality partnership.
  68
  So we would have legislation with two blurred and overlapping concepts; we would have something which looked very much like a quality contract but achievable by the quality partnership procedures—achievable by the back door, some might say. I cannot think that it would be right to put such provisions on to the statute book.
  Perhaps some noble Lords may seek to argue that I am relying on technical legal arguments. I would therefore seek to underline my point by looking not at the legal issues but at the practical ones. As the Bill stands, quality partnership provisions in Clauses 113 to 122 give local authorities the power to set mandatory standards for bus services as a condition for the use of the facilities which the local authority has provided. A typical example of a facility might be a new bus lane; an example of standards set by a local authority might be that all buses must be less than three years old.
  A key feature of these standards is that they apply to all bus operators even-handedly; the local authority does not need to negotiate separately with individual bus operators. The standards are set and publicised and all bus operators therefore know where they stand; they either meet the standard or they cannot use the bus lane. Enforcement is for the traffic commissioner. So if a new operator wants to come in, he does not need to seek any approval from the local authority; he merely registers his service with the traffic commissioner in the usual way. In making that registration, he will confirm to the traffic commissioner that he meets the published standard for the use of the bus lane.
  However, if the local authority had the power to set standards in respect of timetables or frequencies, we would find ourselves in an entirely different world. No longer would we have the even-handed approach as between different operators; instead, the local authority would have to take a view not only on each individual bus operator but on each individual bus service. So every operator would need to go to the local authority and negotiate over the timings of each service before they could be allowed to run.
  We can see, therefore, what the inevitable result of these amendments would be. Even if we look only at frequencies rather than at detailed timetables, it is clear that different frequencies will be appropriate for different services. The frequency that is right for a service to an outlying rural village will be quite different from that required to link a city centre to a railway station or for a busy commuter route. So one frequency fitting all simply will not work. The local authority will have to take a detailed view, case by case. The same will be all the more true if the local authority is looking not at overall frequencies but at full timetables. So the local authority will be taking detailed control over services run by operators.
  I hope that I have made it clear that this amendment is much more significant than it might at first sight appear. It would upset the balance that underlies the idea of quality partnership—the balance between the local authority (which should be given new powers, as

  69
  we firmly believe) on the one hand, and the bus operator (who should be allowed a measure of commercial discretion) on the other.
  Certainly, the present position is not perfect. That is why we are giving local authorities the important new quality partnership powers in the Bill. For the first time, these will allow local authorities to require bus operators to meet certain standards. That is a significant step forward.
  The Bill retains the principles of balance and of quality partnership, with local authorities and bus operators working together. Local authorities will use their skills in traffic management and provide facilities, and they will be able to impose legal conditions on the use of those facilities. Bus operators have their own skills, too, and they will be able to contribute their operational judgments on timings and frequencies.
  The Committee can find the definition of "quality partnerships" in Clause 113(2), where that idea is reflected on the face of the Bill. The Committee might then look at the definition of "quality contract" in Clause 123(4) to see the clear difference between the two.
  Let us not forget that we already have a range of success stories up and down the country with voluntary quality partnerships, which have already produced examples of significant increases in bus patronage without detailed local authority powers over timings and frequencies. We believe that it is right to strengthen local authority powers, as I have indicated. That way, both local authorities and bus operators can invest with confidence, knowing that low quality bus operators will not be able to make free use of facilities and undermine the quality standard.
  Given those success stories, I am not persuaded that detailed powers of local authority control over timetables are appropriate. I should stress, as the Committee will know, that it remains open to local authorities and bus operators to reach voluntary agreements on matters of timing and frequencies. That has been done successfully in the past; it can be done in future—in ways, incidentally, that keep the Office of Fair Trading happy. I suggest that it is the appropriate way ahead, offering the prospect of successful partnerships rather than a relationship based on control.
  It has been suggested that this is all very well but that we are now working under a new Competition Act regime, and concern has been expressed about the attitude of the Office of Fair Trading to such voluntary agreements. It is not for me to speak for the OFT, but I believe that these fears are unfounded. I see no reason to think that voluntary agreements between operators and local authorities on frequencies and timings—even if they are caught by the Competition Act—will inevitably be outlawed by the OFT. Of course the OFT is concerned for the travelling public—as are we all—and it wants to be sure that operators are not making cosy deals under the guise of a voluntary quality partnership. But the OFT will also be concerned with the public interest; the important point is to discuss the
  70
  issues with it openly and to show how the public will benefit. If there is doubt, the OFT can always be approached informally for its view.
  I recognise that many in local government and the bus industry are keen to see guidance from the OFT on its approach to both voluntary and statutory quality partnerships. Frankly, I share that view and I shall make representations to the Director-General of Fair Trading accordingly. I very much take the points made by noble Lords over time in that respect.
  I have deliberately spoken at length because I know that this is an important issue and I felt that the Committee was entitled to a full explanation of the Government's view.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 134, which seeks to add organisations representing disabled people to the consultation process. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said earlier, the Bill already acknowledges the needs of disabled people in Clause 111, which requires authorities to have particular regard to their needs in the context of the local transport plan and bus strategy. We shall be encouraging local authorities to be inclusive in their consultation and policy making. I am concerned that if we were more prescriptive than that by seeking to put such organisations on the face of the Bill, it would be more likely than not that we would probably omit one particular interest group or another. I would argue to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that we can safely leave it to the authorities to decide how best to meet the spirit of what is required by way of consultation in the light of the guidance on local transport plans which has been issued.
  I submit that the provisions in the Bill on quality partnerships already give local authorities significant and valuable extra powers which, on all the evidence, will provide the basis for successful partnerships in future. The Bill already lays a firm foundation for such future success. These amendments would entail a significantly different approach. Therefore, I cannot recommend them to the Committee.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that very full explanation. Viewed from the point of view of a local authority, when a quality partnership is set up facilities previously enjoyed by people are often taken away. For example, streets are closed to motorists or carparking charges are substantially increased. People then feel forced into using the public transport provided. If a facility which people have heretofore enjoyed is taken away from them, they need some reassurance that what is to be put in its place is suitable. Setting aside fares, in judging the suitability of any transport service, frequency and reliability are consistently at the top of people's lists of requirements. When designing an integrated transport policy one would wish to ensure that buses actually meet trains at the station. That involves timing. Buses should start and finish at certain times of the day. When spending several million pounds on a park-and-ride scheme, a sufficient frequency of buses should run in order to make the scheme convenient to users. It should not be a matter of helping the bus operator to fill every bus regardless of how long people have to wait.

  71
  By providing a park-and-ride system and taking away the ability to park in the centre of a town, people are to some extent being forced to use the bus service.
  What my noble friends propose is not that frequencies and timings should be a compulsory part of a quality partnership. They cannot be so because by its nature it is a voluntary agreement. Towards the end his speech the Minister offered some comfort. He said that there is no harm in these matters being covered in a voluntary quality partnership; they can be part of a voluntary quality partnership. I should like to be sure on that point. If one had to go out and sell to the electorate a scheme which involved them giving up their previous method of travel and adopting a new method, in a democratic process, some reassurance would need to be given that what they would receive was at least as good as, and one would hope better than, that which they had previously enjoyed. Taking away road space to create bus lanes inevitably means that the facility for people to park in front of their house or in front of shops is denied to them. It is a bargaining process between the local authority and the electorate and between the local authority and the bus companies.
  What we are seeking is that nothing should be ruled out of the discussion. Using the word "may" in our amendment is intended to make it clear that a quality partnership does not allow a local authority to specify in detail the timings and frequency of services but rather requires it to give a broad specification of the kind of service which people can expect.
  I am also concerned, as is the Minister, about the influence of the Office of Fair Trading. We can probably return to that issue at a later stage. I shall leave my remarks there, save to say that many voluntary quality partnerships are extremely successful and many of them include reference to timing and frequency.
  Lord Berkeley: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will consider something a little less prescriptive than what he has proposed. My noble friend the Minister gave a very clear exposition of what is expected from the partnerships. If a local authority is introducing bus lanes, or whatever, obviously the local authority will want to see something in return. Some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, were probably more relevant to quality contracts, but perhaps not.
  At the moment we seem to have the standard of service being confined to special types of bus and so on. I wonder whether it is possible to introduce a minimum level of service without specifying timetables. That would get over the concerns raised by my noble friend the Minister and make the provision a little less prescriptive. It would mean that at least some services operated rather than none.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I am happy to reconfirm what I said earlier. It remains open to local authorities and bus operators to reach voluntary agreements on
  72
  matters of timing and frequency. Just as it has been done in the past, so it can be done in the future. In reply to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I would simply say that we can leave the matter to the creativity and the self-interest of the parties involved to ensure that they develop new levels of service.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for an extremely comprehensive reply which ranged over the field rather more widely than the specific amendments. The fact that he had the full attention of the Committee shows that it was recognised as a significant response.
  I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for what she said about her amendment. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for supporting the argument. However, in his response the Minister certainly gave us serious cause for thought. We shall need to study with care what he has said, but I do not think that we shall find it necessary to return to the subject, which will be of intense relief to the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
  Clause 113 agreed to.
  Clause 114 [Notice and consultation requirements]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): If Amendment No. 133 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 134.
  [Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
  Clause 114 agreed to.
  Clause 115 agreed to.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 135:
  After Clause 115, insert the following new clause—

  INVESTIGATION BY COMPETITION COMMISSION
  (" . The Competition Commission may at any time investigate whether the appropriate authority has acted in the interests of the public in connection with a scheme and issue a report setting out any changes to a scheme which it regards as necessary to protect the interests of the public.").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 135 seeks to give the Competition Commission an opportunity to look at what is done under quality partnerships. There are a number of arguments in favour of that. However, it appears unnecessary to go over those arguments in view of what the Minister said in his previous response. I do not at this stage wish to take up the time of the Committee on the amendment. I shall need to look carefully at what the Minister had to say in his previous reply. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I submit that the Bill already contains sufficient provisions to promote the public interest. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I tried to get out of pressing my amendment! I apologise; I tend to muddle the procedures a little every now and then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 116 agreed to.
  Clause 117 [Effect of scheme]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 136:
  Page 71, line 35, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
  The noble Lord said: If I have read it correctly, this part of the Bill seeks to bar other operators from using the facilities provided in a quality scheme. We do not think that that is right. If the new quality partnership schemes are to deliver good services, they should be open to all those who wish to become involved.
  However, once again, I understand that the Minister may well have covered this area in his previous reply. However, I look forward to receiving an assurance that that is the case. If it is, then I shall be clear about my next action. For the rime being, however, I beg to move.
  Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 137. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already responded to this point, but for the sake of clarity I should like to cover it briefly. This clause covers the question of enforcement by the traffic commissioners of a quality partnership. Our amendment seeks to establish how those undertakings, which form a part of the quality partnership, will be enforced.
  If I have understood correctly what has already been said, the traffic commissioners will have knowledge of the quality partnership in all respects. An operator seeking to register a new service within that quality partnership will need to give an undertaking to the traffic commissioners that the service complies with the quality partnership. The service will then be registered and will be able to run.
  However, I am concerned about what will happen if it is found that the service being provided by the new entrant operator does not comply with the details of the quality partnership? Who will bring that to the attention of the traffic commissioners and what action should the commissioners take? Would they deregister the service concerned; namely, take away the licence? Furthermore, does a public hearing need to be held to process this, or would a fine be imposed under the arrangements described later in the Bill which are to replace the withholding of 20 per cent of fuel duty rebate?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Both of these amendments relate to the enforcement of quality partnership schemes. The first amendment, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and his noble friends, seeks to omit subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 117. Those subsections prohibit a bus operator from using quality partnership scheme facilities unless he has given a written undertaking to the traffic
  74
  commissioners that he will provide services to the necessary standard, and will do so when using the scheme facilities.
  These provisions go to the heart of a statutory quality partnership scheme. They are what crucially distinguishes it from existing voluntary arrangements. Schemes under Clause 113 represent a partnership in which both operators and local authorities agree to enter into commitments. As I said earlier, the authority will undertake to provide certain facilities such as bus lanes or other bus-related infrastructure. In return for using those facilities, the operator will agree to provide services to certain standards which may, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, involve the bus itself. However, other aspects such as driver training and customer care may also form parts of those services. Once the scheme has been made, those commitments will be binding.
  Under the clause, authorities are under a duty to provide and maintain the facilities, while operators must meet the standards if they are to enjoy the use of the facilities. Omitting subsections (4) and (5) would, I believe, negate the whole object of Clause 113.I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, anticipated that I would not commend that course to noble Lords. It would critically weaken a central plank in the Bill.
  The second amendment, tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would extend the regulation-making powers in Clause 121 to include regulations with respect to the means of enforcing such undertakings and enforcement with regard to,
  "operators … excluded from the partnership".
  I think this may arise from a misunderstanding of the Bill. It may therefore be helpful—the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, invited me to do this—if I take a moment to explain exactly how the enforcement mechanism is intended to work. I hope that that will persuade noble Lords opposite that no further provision is needed.
  The position is as follows. As I have said, there is a balanced partnership in which both local authorities and bus operators must bring something to the benefit of the travelling public. Once a quality partnership scheme has gone through the consultation process and has been agreed, it is duly made and brought into force under Clause 115. Bus operators can choose to opt in or out of the scheme. If they opt out, they may continue to run bus services in the area, subject to the normal registration process, but they will be denied access to the special facilities provided by the local authority in connection with the scheme. They could not, for example, make use of a new bus lane to avoid traffic congestion on the route, or perhaps they could not use the new quality bus shelters provided with real time information displays about when the next bus is due. If they do, they will be operating in breach of Clause 117(4). That in turn means that they will be open to action by the traffic commissioners. One can imagine that other bus operators, as well as the local authority, would be keen to report any breaches of the prohibition. It would otherwise be a case of one bus operator, who had not invested, trying to steal a march on another who had.

  75
  On the other hand, operators choosing to opt in to the quality partnership scheme must give a written undertaking to the traffic commissioners under subsection (4) that they will provide bus services to the necessary standards while using the scheme facilities. If they fail to do so, except in the circumstances set out in subsection (5), they also risk sanction from the traffic commissioners.
  Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the range of sanctions open to the traffic commissioners for breach of a quality partnership scheme is the same as currently applies to breach of the bus registration system. As paragraph 95 of the Explanatory Notes explains, this is secured by virtue of Schedule 11, paragraphs 10 and 22. Those paragraphs apply the relevant powers from the Transport Act 1985. They include the power to levy a financial penalty on the operator, currently in the form of a requirement to repay 20 per cent of the fuel duty rebate received for the preceding three months.
  As I explained, in the past the traffic commissioners have shown themselves ready to impose such penalties on under-performing operators. Additionally, Clauses 154 and 157 of the Bill provide for greater flexibility both in the circumstances in which penalties can be paid and in the size of those penalties. They will ensure that the financial penalty available is effective and flexible, and thus capable of being varied to suit the circumstances of a particular case. Beyond that, the traffic commissioners can impose conditions on the operator's "O" licence, limiting the number of vehicles he may operate or, in extreme cases, prohibiting the bus operator from running any local services for a specified period of time or until other appropriate remedial action has been taken.
  I hope that that satisfies noble Lords that a wide range of penalties has been provided. In our view, further provision by way of regulations on enforcement are not needed. With those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Once again I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He has filled in a great deal of background detail which helps my understanding of the circumstances. I shall need to study the reply with care, but it seems most helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 117 agreed to.
  Clauses 118 to 120 agreed to.
  Clause 121 [Regulations about schemes]:
  [Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
  Clause 121 agreed to.
  Clause 122 agreed to.
  Lord Bach: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee (on Re-commitment) to adjourn during pleasure. I suggest that the proceedings begin again at precisely 8.30 p.m.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 7.30 to 8.30 p.m.]
  Clause 123 [Quality contracts schemes]:
  [Amendment No. 137A not moved.]
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 137B:
  Page 74, line 40, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

  ("(3A) Other local services may be provided in the area described in a quality contracts scheme if they have been in operation for at least twelve months before the quality contract scheme comes into operation.

  (3B) The operators of these services must submit an annual review of the quality of the services provided and a plan to achieve the levels of service that are set out in the quality contracts scheme.").

  The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 138A and 144. The amendments deal with quality contracts as opposed to quality agreements; therefore the issue is different from that in earlier debates. However, reading into what was said previously, I believe that I shall receive the same kind of response to this group of amendments. The amendments seek to preserve the rights of people who already provide a service on a particular route if a local transport authority decides that it should be subject to a quality contract.
  This is a necessary step. Here we are dealing with a mechanism which, subject to ministerial approval, could be seriously anti-competitive. One could envisage circumstances in which some local authorities—which, to my great regret, do not always behave in the most responsible and proper way— might come to an agreement with a particular service provider to provide a service to the exclusion of all others. If someone is already providing the service and it is already in a competitive position, we do not think that that is quite right. The rights of the competing organisations to provide a service, in a situation where they have already provided that service for some considerable time, should be preserved.
  This is a fairly straightforward issue. I have heard the Minister's replies to earlier debates in respect of quality agreements as opposed to quality contracts. However, it is still worth considering this point. The right to deprive someone of his living by contract is a dangerous thing—but that is in effect what the Bill permits. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: There is a clash of principle here. The noble Lord is arguing that operators who previously offered services in an area should continue to be allowed to operate them once a quality contract is agreed. The Government believe that that seriously undermines the whole principle of quality contracts. The contracts will signify an arrangement under which a local authority determines the bus network frequency and fares and lets a contract to a single operator or to a consortium of operators.
  The presumption in those circumstances must surely be that the local authority decides what bus service is needed and secures that by means of a contract with the operator. If it were open to other bus operators, whatever their history, to have the freedom to continue to operate within a quality contracts area, they might

  77
  well compete directly with the contracted service, probably concentrating in a cherry-picking way on the more profitable of various routes. That would be an odd situation, given that a quality contracts scheme is designed to be all-embracing and is an arrangement to cover the whole area. Frankly, it is not possible to run a quality contracts system in parallel with a partially deregulated regime for buses.
  I understand the concern for the pre-existing operator. But that operator will have had the opportunity of bidding for the quality contract and his organisation will have lost the bid. That is a natural feature of commercial life. In this situation it means that the operator will no longer have the right to run those routes. That is the logic. I do not believe that the noble Lord's logic, anxious as he is to protect the previous operator, is sensible. It would undermine the whole concept.
  I believe also that the noble Lord's amendments are technically defective; however, I do not expect that he wants me to go into that at this time of night. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I hear the Minister's explanation, and it does not surprise me. I had anticipated his response. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The mechanism of quality partnership is likely to be a very satisfactory one. The mechanism of quality contract may be satisfactory, if it is used in a very limited way. But if a service is in effect being run by two competing companies, both of which are contributing to and operating a service that is satisfactory to the public, and in that situation the local authority decided that it preferred a "quality contract", one or other of the two operators currently making a living out of that route would be deprived of that living.
  I accept that this provision is subject to ministerial sanction and, because the provision of moneys through grant is involved, that is a significant fact. However, I am not sure I am completely satisfied with the Minister's answer. I shall consider what he has said, and then consider what I wish to do about it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 138 and 138A not moved.]
  Clause 123 agreed to.
  Clause 124 [Notice and consultation requirements]:
  [Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.]
  Clause 124 agreed to.
  Clause 125 [Approval of proposed scheme]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 140A:
  Page 76, line 10, after ("scheme") insert ("indicating the target for passenger miles in the scheme and what number of passenger miles travelled will be regarded as "scheme failure" under which the scheme shall cease").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to include in the principle of quality contracts some definition of use and benefit to the public; and, if those criteria are subsequently not met, the recognition that
  78
  the quality contract scheme is failing and should therefore be regarded as a failure, and that the scheme will then cease.
  I accept that in such a situation there are all kinds of difficulties. But people's public transport needs evolve, as so many things do in life. When one begins a subsidised service one cannot tell with certainty, however optimistic one may be, exactly what will happen to it two or three years down the road. My amendment provides a mechanism to deal with failure so that public money, which comes out of the pockets of taxpayers up and down the country, does not continue to be paid to the operator of a bus service that no one wishes to use. I would have thought that that was a simple and reasonably acceptable principle. The wording of the amendment may not be perfect but I hope that the principle is. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: As the noble Lord has explained, the amendment requires a local transport authority which approaches the Secretary of State for approval of a scheme to submit specific information about targets for bus passenger mileage. If those targets are not met, effectively the scheme is abandoned. That is a little too prescriptive. The Bill already lays down a test for making and approving a quality contract scheme in the first place. It includes the requirement in Clause 123 that the authority must be satisfied that it is the only practicable way to implement its bus policy so that it meets the best value test of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The appropriate national authority—the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales—must additionally satisfy himself or it self that the whole scheme is in the public interest.
  Once the scheme is up and running it is for the local authority to ensure that the arrangements achieve what is intended. It would not be appropriate to take one aspect of the scheme—namely, the level of patronage in terms of passenger miles—to define when a contract should be ended. Other local authority objectives which relate to congestion, pollution or accessibility may not necessarily be subsumed within the passenger mileage index. It does not seem sensible, therefore, to define a single criterion whereby the system, not the local authority, cuts off the quality contract and decides that the scheme has failed. The Bill already contains suitable powers to revoke or vary schemes in circumstances where there is a problem. I do not believe that an automatic trigger for such a move is appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister's reply is fascinating. I cannot conceive how pollution is reduced if an empty bus runs around the countryside. Apparently, if a particular bus operation is subject to a quality contract it is an environmentally good thing to do, if I slightly misinterpret the reply of the noble Lord. Equally, that same empty bus does nothing to help anyone gain access to anything. This is a serious issue. It may well be that I must think up another amendment. In the light of the Minister's response, it appears that the only quality contract that can

  79
  reasonably be arrived at is one that is subject to a rolling review. There must be some mechanism to prevent the waste of public money on the provision of useless bus services in the countryside. In my somewhat limited experience, local authorities, with the best of intentions, make decisions the results of which subsequently prove to be unfortunate. There must he some mechanism to recognise those circumstances and to deal with them, which means bringing the contract to an end.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Before the noble Lord delivers his verdict in this case. I believe that he makes a very serious point. I am sorry that I did not intervene earlier. I hope that if at this stage the noble Lord withdraws his amendment he will return with something else at a later stage.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord almost takes the words out of my mouth. I must look very carefully both at the response of the Minister and the wording of my amendment to see how it can be improved. The noble Lord will be relieved to hear that at least at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
  Clause 125 agreed to.
  8.45 p.m.
  Clause 126 [Making of scheme]:
  [Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 142A:
  Page 76, line 34, after ("area") insert ("or route or routes").
  The noble Lord said: This is really a probing amendment. At present the Bill provides that a quality contract scheme must specify the area to which it relates. However, bus services are organised on a route basis and many different routes can cross the same area. It is also possible that more than one operator will provide services in any particular area. In its current form, therefore, the Bill fails to recognise the complexity of the present bus routes and appears to restrict the scope of quality contracts to a defined geographical area. That may not work.
  I believe that a quality contract could and should be considered for one or more routes, not just one particular area. The amendment would allow scope for greater flexibility and innovation. I hope that my noble friend is able either to accept the amendment or reassure me that it is unnecessary. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: If my noble friend's objective is to achieve flexibility and room for manoeuvre, the clause provides more than would be the case if it was amended in the way he suggests. The clause currently requires the tenderer not only to specify the area but to provide an outline of the local services to be provided. If we went further and required a specification as to
  80
  routes, the room for innovation would be limited in terms of the tendering. The detailed routes may not be settled at the point of tender. We have deliberately framed the provision in a way which allows a degree of latitude to meet the transport needs of the particular area. If we simply specified pre-existing routes, or those routes plus a few desirable routes, it would place the process into a straitjacket whereas tenderers, particularly in a competitive situation, might well come forward with alternative ways to meet the transport requirements.
  I believe that there is a respectable argument for keeping the provision in its present form and allowing the details of particular routes to be left to the tendering process. However, the process already requires a comprehensive outline of the routes to be provided. We believe that the local authority should have freedom of manoeuvre. The tendering process is itself a bit of an iterative process. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend is content to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. The noble Lord will understand that we need to think about the matter. We may want to return to the issue at a future stage, but I doubt it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Mackenzie of Culkein Lord Mackenzie of Culkein moved Amendment No. 142B:
  Page 76, line 36, leave out ("21") and insert ("12").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the issue of time-scale. Clause 126(2)(b) provides for a 21-month delay in the introduction of a quality contract scheme once approval has been secured. I am not convinced that such a lengthy delay is necessary given that all the parties—they will include the existing operators—will have been consulted during preparatory stages and will appear, therefore, to have had ample time to plan ahead for the introduction of the scheme. I believe that a 12-month period is sufficient unto the day. However, it is a probing amendment. I ask the Minister why such a lengthy delay has been specified in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: Amendment No. 143, which stands in my name, is linked with Amendment No. 142B. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that compensation is paid to bus operators who lose business—no doubt in some cases their entire business—as the direct result of the imposition of a quality contract.
  The lack of a clause allowing for the payment of statutory compensation raises a number of issues: moral issues; employment issues; and issues of future investment. On moral grounds, it cannot be right for a business or a part of a business to be taken away as a direct result of a change in the law without some form of compensation being paid. I assume that the reasoning behind the Government's decision was that

  81
  the 21-month lead-in period prior to a quality contract would be sufficient time for operators to adjust. I am afraid I find that difficult to accept.
  Indeed, in the case of smaller operators who cover only a single area and who lose out as a result of exclusion from an exclusive contract, there will be nowhere else for them to go and it is very likely that liquidation, with resultant job losses, will be the only option.
  That brings me to my second point concerning employment issues. In the case of larger operators, it is unlikely that all the bus workers could be found jobs in other parts of the country even if they wished to move. The issue of pension rights is one that would need careful consideration; and, at a time when the bus industry is working hard to retain staff through improved conditions of employment for workers, the loss of job security would be a serious blow.
  Lastly, I turn to investment. While I am sure that the larger bus operators in the United Kingdom would be able to bear the loss of a certain amount of their business, there will still be an adverse effect on their ability to invest in better passenger services. The Government have a duty to ensure that bus passengers are not penalised as a result of this policy. I hope that my noble friend will clarify the Government's position and give me some assurances.
  Lord Bradshaw: I support the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld. There may be two fairly large bus companies in a town or city both of which have bought the companies, the ownership having passed on since the original days of privatisation. In the event of a quality contract being awarded, one of them could find that a large part of its business disappeared. It has purchased the goodwill of a business as well as the fixed assets such as the buses. It has taken over the labour, often under TUPE regulations. It seems only fair and, as the noble Lord said, natural justice that, provided the people who are dispossessed have been behaving normally, they should receive some compensation.
  Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangement conforms with other law? Is the noble Lord satisfied that it is not open to challenge either here or in courts in other places?
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 145, which stands in my name, is grouped with these amendments. It is a fortunate grouping. It sets out to achieve the same purpose as the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld. If we were to flip a coin to see which amendment we preferred we might need a two-sided coin. His amendment may be better than mine. However, the principle is the same.
  We are discussing the integrity of the process under which quality contracts as opposed to quality partnerships are made and awarded. If a quality contract is made only in those circumstances where nothing else will provide a service, there may not be a problem. The difficulty is that the Bill does not seek to
  82
  define the circumstances under which a quality contract is appropriate as opposed to a quality partnership.
  For perverse reasons, a local transport authority could fall out with someone who is providing bus services. It may decide that the solution is to provide a quality contract scheme and thereby deprive an otherwise reputable company or business of its livelihood. That would not be correct or proper. In that situation, the issue of compensation is entirely appropriate. We are not talking only of compensation for the business. There are questions of redundancy, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, said. There is the issue of redundant investment, and all those other factors.
  If the Minister replies that the appropriate relevant authority approves a quality contract scheme in a situation where there were competitive services, we have no difficulty. But, if he cannot give that assurance, I suspect that we may need to think again. I am happy to support what has been said on the matter.
  Lord Whitty: Despite the multi-party approach, I find the basic concepts of noble Lords misplaced. We are talking here about a contract from a public authority. It has changed the nature of the contract; nevertheless there is an open contract procedure. One company may not gain that contract; another company will do so. It is not normal for the public authority in such circumstances to compensate the loser for failing to get that contract. I do not envisage the situation as any different from any other public sector contract in that respect. All bus operators who already operate, or desire to operate, within that area will have been given a chance to bid. They will have had a fair chance. They will have received the invitation to tender; and they will have been able to put in a tender. It will be fair competition at that point. But, as with many other public services, at the point where the contract is awarded that contract becomes exclusive for the period in question.
  We recognise that there could be a serious transitional problem in moving from one operator or partial operator to a single operator. There are staff, capital and operational implications. That is why we have provided for a period of 21 months to elapse and why we could not accept a narrowing of that period to 12 months. Clearly, in many circumstances we would need to deal with a transitional period for the transfer of staff, of routes and, in some cases, of buses.
  The two issues which have been raised are complementary but in the opposite way to that in which they have been raised. As regards employees, raised specifically by my noble friend Lord Hogg, nothing in the Bill affects the normal application of TUPE regulations. Their broad purpose is to ensure the ordered transfer of employees. Where a quality contract scheme involves any transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the regulations, as in most cases it would, the protections afforded by TUPE will have direct effect. The situation is more

  83
  complicated in relation to pensions, but the TUPE arrangements which exist in normal circumstances may in future apply in these circumstances, too.
  I therefore believe that Members of the Committee are barking up the wrong tree. The principle of a quality contract is that it becomes an exclusive contract and that compensation is not appropriate.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Bradshaw: The situation which the Minister described is credible in London where route tendering takes place and somebody loses a route or two as there is a swings-and-roundabout situation within the city. Some people have to move jobs not without disruption to their lives. However, within cities such as Manchester, it is possible that the Government will be taking away whole livelihoods. The opportunity of redeploying is less likely to arise in, say, Manchester than in relation to routes in London.
  If quality contracts are let to a consortium of operators, that will not necessarily apply. However, I believe that in some cases a city-wide or PTE-wide quality contract could lead to someone having stranded assets. That would not apply in relation to the letting of contracts in London or to refuse disposal contracts.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister did not pick up the point which I thought I had made plain as regards the circumstances in which the Government might agree to a quality contract scheme. I have every sympathy with a quality contract when there is only one operator or, as in some rural areas, none at all. There, the only way of running a service, for which one would pray there was a level of demand, would be through such a scheme. There is a clear distinction between that situation, which would warrant a quality contract scheme, and the one outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. He pointed out that under the legislation it is conceivable that a passenger transport authority for a metropolitan area might seek to make a single quality contract scheme and thereby deprive a number of people, who are providing a good service and a living for many people, of the ability to make that living. Therefore, there is a distinction.
  I wish that the Minister had answered my point but perhaps in the flow of his eloquence he simply forgot.
  Lord Whitty: I did not forget it, but the answer is more complex than the noble Lord was looking for. The Secretary of State, when approving a quality contract, will take into consideration everything which surrounds it; for instance, the content and the way in which it has been drawn up. Certain aspects would undoubtedly be possible disruption, the non-optimum use of existing assets and so forth. All those issues could be taken into account in deciding whether to approve.
  As regards the noble Lord's second remark, quality contracts come into play when the local authority is satisfied that it cannot reach its transport objectives
  84
  without going down that road. Therefore, there will have been a failure in the previous system. Whatever the operator was providing or potentially could provide, the local authority will already have judged that it would be better provided on a single arrangement with a single operator or consortium of operators with statutory backing. That judgment will have been made by the local authority before it goes down the quality contract road.
  There is a closer analogy with the situation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, relating to refuse collection. In most circumstances in which the contractor changes, the majority of staff, and the majority of trucks, are taken on by the new contractor. I suspect that we would see a similar situation were a major local authority such as Manchester to move to a single and new contractor under a quality contract. Therefore, I believe that the degree of disruption has been exaggerated during discussion of the amendment.
  Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: I recognise the difficulties and complexities to which my noble friend referred. I shall want to reflect on whether I with others have been barking up the wrong tree, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
  Clause 126 agreed to.
  Clause 127 agreed to.
  Clause 128 [Effect of scheme]:
  [Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]
  Clause 128 agreed to.
  Clause 129 [Tendering for quality contracts]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 146:
  Page 78, line 38, at end insert—
  ("() An invitation to tender under this section may not include conditions with respect to the terms and conditions of employment of persons to be employed in providing any service to which the invitation to tender relates.").

  The noble Lord said: I have been trying to decide whether this is the reciprocal of Amendment No. 121A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, or whether it is the reverse. But I am afraid that in the end I had to conclude that it was the opposite! However, that gives me cause for hope because, if it is the opposite of that particular amendment, presumably it should support the position that the Minister took in rejecting that amendment. Indeed, I believe that the Minister made the case for this amendment when he rejected that one. I must confess that I had some difficulty in understanding why the two amendments were not grouped together in order that we might have this rather interesting debate at the same time.
  However, in response the Minister said that the Bill was about service to the public and not about terms and conditions of employment. He said that one could not legislate in this Bill for the employees of bus companies. In a sense, that makes my case. The history books show that on occasion in the past local

  85
  authorities—I do not wish to point a finger in any particular direction—were not unknown for slipping clauses into contracts which related to the conditions of service of employees of contracting companies. I felt that that was improper then and I believe that it would be improper now.
  I support what the Minister had to say earlier and I hope, therefore, that he might support me in this amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tempts me, but I fear that he misinterprets me. My previous position in relation to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stoddart was that we should not on the face of the Bill require local authorities to be constrained to observe the terms and conditions of the pre-existing contractor. That remains my position. However, the Government would wish to change the situation where effectively there was a blanket ban on local authorities being able to do so, should they wish to and should they regard that as part of the way in which they can achieve better value.
  Contrary to the noble Lord's view, we believe that it is perfectly proper for local authorities to do that if they wish to exercise that degree of influence. It may well be, for example, that training provisions and the level of experience of workers is important to the delivery of value for money and performance standards. Local authorities should be able to take such matters into account.
  However, to complicate matters further, that is not the position at present. The Government intend to modify the current situation by means of an order under the Local Government Act which would allow local authorities to observe employment terms and conditions on a voluntary basis. I am opposed to that being done, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart argued, on a mandatory basis, but I would allow local authorities to do so. In the meantime, and until I move that order, the noble Lord's amendment is redundant because the current position is that local authorities are banned from so doing. Therefore, I believe that we should have the substantive discussion on an order under local government legislation in a few weeks' time.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not wish to enter a debate about when we shall break for the summer. However, it is interesting, to say the least, to see how the ground has shifted between debate on Amendment No. 120 and that on Amendment No. 140, if I may express it in those simplistic terms.
  I am quite pleased to hear that my amendment is redundant, although that will lead me to certain conclusions. At the moment I am somewhat disturbed to hear that the matter can be settled in another way under different legislation in a few weeks' time, even if none of us is here. However, I suspect that we shall have to be here in order for that to happen. Clearly, there will be something to say at that point.
  86
  I believe that this is an interesting issue. I shall need to consider both what the Minister said and what he considers to be appropriate courses for future action. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 146A:
  Page 79, line 24, at end insert—
  (" () If no acceptable tender is received or if there are no tenders for a service, after consultation, the terms of the contract shall be revised and the tender procedure re-started.").

  The noble Lord said: This small amendment is intended simply to deal with the situation in which no acceptable tender for a quality contract is received. People may say that that cannot happen because one will never arrive at a quality contract if one does not negotiate it. However, in an open tender process it is conceivable that no satisfactory tender—or no tender at all—will be received. There should be provision to deal with that situation. I should prefer the terms of the contract to be looked at and the tender procedure to be gone through again in full. The alternative appears to be for the authority to come to a negotiated conclusion with someone who had previously not tendered satisfactorily.
  Local authorities must have proper tendering processes. An element of negotiation may help to make some complex contracts more satisfactory, particularly for construction projects, but we are not dealing with a situation of that complexity. For the sake of everybody's peace of mind, the Bill should contain a mechanism such as that outlined in the amendment. I beg to move.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: The Bill already recognises the possibility of there being no acceptable tenders and makes provision for regulations under Clause 130(2)(a) in those circumstances. It is not sensible to prescribe in detail in the Bill what should happen. Local authorities will have a number of options open to them. They might include short-term action, such as the use of emergency powers—which is covered by the same clause—to maintain continuity of service. There might be a retendering exercise, with or without modification to the proposed contracts. A local authority could even fundamentally review the need for a quality contract scheme.
  It is not helpful to box local authorities into a single course of action in those circumstances. They should be free to take whatever action is appropriate, subject to any regulations that may be made. We should leave local authorities with that flexibility, given that the Bill already recognises that eventuality.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: At least I should be grateful that there is a possibility of regulations rather than guidance. I shall need to consider carefully what the

  87
  Minister has said. We are discussing people's livelihoods, so the issues involved are important. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 129 agreed to.
  Clauses 130 to 133 agreed to.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 147:
  After Clause 133, insert the following new clause—

  QUALITY CONTRACT SCHEMES: GUIDANCE
  (" .—(1) The appropriate national authority may issue guidance concerning the carrying out by local transport authorities and metropolitan district councils of their functions in this Part in relation to quality contract schemes.

  (2) Those authorities and councils must have regard to any such guidance.").

  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 151 and 154. The amendments would make the same provisions in different places in the Bill, making it possible for the appropriate national authority to issue guidance in relation to quality contract schemes, ticketing schemes and the provision of information.
  The amendments are linked to a previous set of amendments that I spoke to on the consultation processes. As those previous amendments have fallen, it may be best to treat these as probing amendments. We want to be sure that we understand the Government's intentions on guidance in those three areas.
  If our previous amendments on consultation had been accepted, the way in which it was carried out would have been a major part of any guidance that the appropriate national authorities put forward. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have any idea of using best practice as a way of informing guidance.
  So I really have two questions in relation to these amendments: first, whether there is already or is going to be guidance on those particular items—and I repeat they are quality contract schemes, ticketing schemes and the provision of information; and secondly, if so, whether part of that guidance will propose the use of best practice in areas where it may not be very widely used at present. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These amendments would empower the appropriate national authority—the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales—to issue guidance with respect to quality contract schemes, ticketing schemes and passenger information, and would require local transport authorities and metropolitan district councils to have regard to that guidance.
  Of course we already have equivalent provisions in the Bill for local transport plans and bus strategies. That is because central government have particular policy objectives that they wish to have taken into account in those contexts; and because we are making statutory what is currently a non-statutory process.
  88
  We have also made an exception in the case of quality partnership schemes. To some extent, those build on experience with existing voluntary quality partnership arrangements on which the department is already preparing a good practice guide. I shall return in a few moments to the issue of good practice. Under those circumstances, we felt that it might be helpful to develop that in the context of the move to statutory quality partnerships. We have taken the power to issue guidance in Clause 122.
  But the focus of much of Part II of the Bill is on the delivery of local solutions to local problems. These are primarily matters for local authorities to decide in the light of local needs. We have no particular wish to burden authorities with central guidance on every issue.
  It could be said that our existing guidance on non-statutory local transport plans is already too long. We do not agree. We are responding to requests from authorities to be clear and to address issues in some detail. But we do not see the same need for general guidance on schemes for ticketing or passenger information, for example. These are not areas where we think it is necessary to be prescriptive from the centre. Decisions are really down to local authorities, and then only where there has been a failure to secure satisfactory arrangements with operators without recourse to statutory powers. Clause 134(7) requires local transport authorities to co-operate with one another in relation to ticketing schemes. The Bill makes similar provision in connection with quality contracts and bus information.
  So we do not accept the need to add these additional provisions on guidance to the Bill. There is always scope for informal guidance on any relevant matter. There is always scope for the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to collect together and to publicise examples of good practice. It may well be that the Secretary of State will want to do that in the light of early experience of the powers in the Bill.
  But we should avoid giving any impression that local authorities cannot get on with implementing their new powers without waiting for further guidance from Whitehall. In fact, I am slightly surprised that the Liberal Democrat party should be seeking to turn a Labour Government into control freaks. We are certainly not control freaks and we have no intention of either being type-cast in that way or being dragged into giving guidance to which local authorities must have regard. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: When the Minister said that he was not interested in sending out too much guidance, my noble friend on my left said, "I hadn't noticed"! We can return the compliment or the tease with good measure!
  I listened carefully to the Minister's clear response and, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 134 agreed to.
  Clause 135 [Notice and consultation requirements]:
  [Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 not moved.]
  Clause 135 agreed to.
  Clause 136 [Making of scheme]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 150:
  Page 83. line 26, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 27.
  The noble Lord said: This is another amendment designed with the good reputation of the Government in mind. It is designed to help them. Page 83, line 26 of the Bill deals with ticketing arrangements under which authorities may vary or revoke a scheme. Under Clause 135 a ticketing scheme is subject to certain notice and consultation requirements. Subsection (6) of Clause 136 states:
  "The authority or authorities may vary or revoke the scheme; and the variation or revocation is subject to the same procedure as the making of the scheme"—
  which seems to be entirely reasonable. If one has taken fully into account the views of the public, it seems perfectly appropriate to follow that procedure if one wants to vary or revoke the scheme. If there had been a full stop there, I would have been content; but the sentence continues:
  "except to the extent that the procedure is modified by regulations made by the appropriate national authority".
  Should the regulations ever be promulgated, we shall have an opportunity to discuss them. I hope that the Minister will take the course of greater discretion and accept my amendment which would prevent him having the embarrassment of standing up at some point in the future and explaining to the House why it was that the legislation passed so recently—you can bet your bottom dollar it will not be that far away—requires modification.
  I do not believe that it is reasonable for that little escape clause to be in the Bill. What is written on the face of the Bill is not unreasonable. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that the boot is on the other fool. If I were to accept the amendment, I believe that someone would have to return to the Dispatch Box to say, "Sorry, chaps, we did not think about the implications that varying or revoking a ticketing scheme may have, and we may now need to introduce regulations for making a modification". We are getting into pretty recherché stuff now. We are talking not about making a ticketing scheme, but about revoking or varying such a scheme, which would relate to a small minority of cases anyway.
  I can assure the Committee that there is nothing sinister in subsection (6). We include the regulation-making power to ensure flexibility. Over a period of time—the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, may be right to say that it may be a short period of time—the normal procedures for making a ticketing scheme would benefit from some modification in the event of a scheme being varied or revoked. It is difficult to predict precisely what would be needed. But it is also possible that ticketing schemes will need to be varied over time to bring in operators or modes, for example.
  90
  In Grand Committee we introduced government amendments that recognised the fact that there are through-ticketing schemes between buses and trains or trams. For instance, if we had suggested 15 years ago including trams in the Bill, everybody would have thought we were talking about Blackpool and not about the considerable number of cities which are now introducing trams. We would not have anticipated that. There may be an OFT investigation of the ticketing schemes which makes it necessary for us to issue regulations. All we are looking for is a degree of flexibility to respond to future developments. If we made regulations, they would of course be the subject of prior consultation with the relevant interests. There is nothing sinister in that.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not suggest it is sinister; I suggest it is misguided. It shows a remarkable lack of confidence in the legislative process in which we are engaged if the Government have to keep writing in escape clauses to cover something different happening in the future.
  The Minister gave an interesting reply, but not a satisfactory answer. He said that legislation should be a legislator's charter. If we pass a law, we should pass in that law the right to pass more laws. I do not approve of that. I have always felt that we already have far too much law on the statute book. When we add regulation to law and guidance to regulation, heaven help us, but that is what we are doing in this Bill.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, decides what to do, I should point out that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee made no objection to this regulatory power.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am aware of that, but that does not prevent me having an opinion on the matter. However, I shall study with care what the Minister said, though I believe I shall disagree with him. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 136 agreed to.
  Clause 137 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 151 not moved.]:
  Clause 138 [Information about bus services]:
  [Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 not moved.]
  Clause 138 agreed to.
  Clause 139 agreed to.
  Clause 140 [Bus information: supplementary]:
  [Amendments Nos. 153A to 153C not moved.]
  Clause 140 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
  Clause 141 agreed to.
  Clause 142 [Power to obtain information about local services]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 155:
  Page 85, line 40. at end insert—
  ("(7) If information is disclosed in contravention of subsection (4), the local transport authority which required its provision shall be liable to compensate the operator which provided it for any loss suffered by that operator as a result of its disclosure.").

  The noble Lord said: Clause 142 deals with the collection of information on services. It gives local authorities, of necessity, the power to collect information which may be commercially sensitive.
  That of itself is not a problem. If we go through the Bill, we find that under certain circumstances it permits the disclosure of that information. But there is nothing in the Bill which compensates a commercial organisation if it is financially disadvantaged as a result of either the improper or inadvertent disclosure of information which it had been required to provide. There is an important principle of commercial justice behind the words such as "inadequate though they may be" that local authorities are used to acknowledging—in general very well and with the greatest propriety. There have been occasions when the usual high standards have slipped. Where that happens, the operator who is disadvantaged as a result should be entitled to compensation.
  Such occurrences may be rare but when dealing with legislation one has to anticipate difficult situations. One hopes that they will never occur, but they might. So it is necessary to incorporate the right of redress. The amendment has that intention. Even if the wording is not appropriate, I hope that the Minister will at least consider the principle. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: Clause 142(6) already makes the unlawful disclosure of information obtained by an authority a criminal offence. Moreover, a statute does not change existing common law unless it expresses an intention to do so. The Bill expresses no such intention. There is a well-established right of action at common law in cases where information known to be confidential comes into the possession of a person who unlawfully discloses it to a third party in breach of his duty of confidence. Incidentally, the third party is himself placed under a duty of confidence in such circumstances. He may also be sued and cannot simply plead that the information was in the public domain.
  Information obtained under statutory powers is subject to such a duty of confidentiality. It would be open to an operator in such circumstances to take action in the courts to restrain wrongful disclosure by means of an injunction—a remedy not mentioned in the amendment—or to obtain compensation. Then it would be for the courts to decide whether to grant an injunction or order that compensation should be paid.
  However, it is not the case that any disclosure of that information would always be unlawful or actionable. In some instances the court may consider that it was in the public interest for the information to be disclosed. The court is able to exercise its discretion in the matter. The amendment would appear to make all cases of
  92
  disclosure actionable—except in so far as they were consented to or allowed under subsection (4). That cannot be right. The general common law rules are preferable and should continue to apply. A provision of the kind proposed is not needed when a civil right of action already exists. I hope that the noble Lord agrees and will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister says that I have got it wrong, that existing legislation has got it right and that the principle behind the amendment is covered. I am sure that the situation that the noble Lord describes is correct, because we can rely on what he says. None the less, I am sufficiently sceptical of everything that I am told to check. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 142 agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 not moved.]
  Clause 143 [Civil penalties for bus lane contraventions]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 157A:
  Page 85, line 43, leave out ("approved").
  The noble Baroness said: I shall try to be quick and straightforward in moving this amendment and speaking also to Amendments Nos. 157B and 159A. These amendments all refer to the new clause which provides civil penalties for bus lane contraventions, which we welcome, and specifies which local authorities may operate the scheme. The clause was introduced by the Government in Grand Committee. At that time, I questioned what criteria would be required for a local authority to be "approved" for the purposes of this clause. The Minister replied that such "approved" authorities would be those which have a "decriminalised parking regime". He said that the provision for approval is there,
  "primarily to ensure that schemes can be checked to ascertain whether appropriate regimes are in place to ensure that the schemes are operated fairly".
  He then added that the provision,
  "might also allow a degree of flexibility in relation to decriminalised parking regimes as far as the national authorities are concerned".—[Official Report, 27/6/00; col. CWH 34.]
  I have tabled these amendments not only to make the point again that I should like to see every local authority able to deal with bus lane contraventions, but also to question the Minister about the "degree of flexibility" that he mentioned. I take the point that schemes should be fair, though whether it is necessary for central government to judge whether or not they are fair is another matter. But if they are also to be flexible, I wonder how that equates with fairness. Perhaps the Minister could spend a few minutes on the description of the criteria for approval and tell us how the system will operate. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I believe that I may have slightly exaggerated the degree of flexibility in these arrangements. Although the provisions in the Bill imply a degree of flexibility, in the present circumstances the intention is to ensure that only local

  93
  authorities with decriminalised parking enforcement powers may be approved under the system. There are a number of reasons involved. First, we must ensure that those powers will only be exercised by authorities that have the means to do this properly; in other words, they will already have in place an administrative system on the basis of the decriminalised parking regime.
  Secondly, we must avoid the anomaly that local authorities without decriminalised parking enforcement powers would be able to enforce moving offences in bus lanes but not at the same time be able to enforce parking offences in bus lanes, which would be the case in those circumstances. Thirdly, there is the question of the appeals system. The existence of a decriminalised parking regime would allow motorists who dispute penalty notices to make use of the National Parking Adjudication Service, membership of which is limited to authorities that have taken on decriminalised parking enforcement powers.
  Therefore, although it is conceivable on the first criterion that an equivalent regime could be established, there would still be problems as regards the second and third. In practice, we are limiting it to those local authorities that are, or will be, operating a decriminalised parking regime. Authorities outside London that have not taken on decriminalised parking enforcement powers would need to establish their own separate adjudication system which would simply not be practical.
  In Grand Committee I said that the vast majority of local transport authorities within England are now moving towards decriminalised parking enforcement powers. Therefore there would be a relatively small number, certainly in the urban areas, which would fall outside this provision once all those authorities come through the pipeline. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
  9.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: Before I do not press the amendment, I hope that I may ask a further question for clarification. Clause 143(2) provides that a local transport authority is an approved authority if it has decriminalised parking enforcement powers and if an order has been made approving it. The Minister has explained that an authority needs to have decriminalised parking enforcement powers before it is approved. Does he envisage that all authorities that have decriminalised parking enforcement powers will he approved, or are there other hurdles to be cleared before approval is given?
  Lord Whitty: I doubt whether there are circumstances where an authority with an up-andrunning scheme for decriminalised parking would not be approved. However, representations may be made to the Secretary of State at the time of approval which he would have to take into account. Therefore, I cannot give an absolute guarantee on that point.
  Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 157B not moved.]
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 158:
  Page 86, line 13, at end insert ("where the existence of the lane is clearly signed and marked on the road surface").
  The noble Lord said: Clause 143(3) defines a bus lane contravention as,
  "a contravention of any such provision of—

  (a) a traffic regulation order,

  (b) an experimental traffic order, or

  (c) a temporary traffic restriction order,

  as relates to the use of an area of road which is or forms part of a bus lane".
  Clause 143(4) states,
  "And an area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may be used—

  (a) only by buses, or

  (b) only by buses and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic specified in the order".

  Nothing in that measure states that a bus lane must be clearly identified on the surface of the road and—this is equally important—clearly signed. There may be a provision to that effect elsewhere, but I have not been able to discover it in the time that was available to me to study this complex Bill.
  It seems to me that an experimental traffic order would be introduced temporarily and therefore might not be deemed to warrant appropriate signing and marking. A temporary traffic restriction order could also cause difficulties in that regard. Therefore, I believe that it should be stated on the face of the Bill that a bus lane is a bus lane only where the existence of the lane is clearly signed and marked on the road surface.
  The Minister will probably tell me that a bus lane could not possibly be a bus lane without that. If he gives me that assurance, I shall be delighted with his reply and withdraw the amendment. However, as I was in a state of blissful ignorance, I felt that it was necessary to table the amendment to assure myself and the wider world of the situation. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I reassure the noble Lord that a bus lane is not a bus lane unless it is marked as a bus lane and the markings comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994. That signing requirement applies equally to orders enforced by the police and to orders enforced by local authorities under decriminalised procedures, and to temporary arrangements. The matter is therefore already covered in regulations and the amendment is not necessary.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am delighted with that reply. It gives me great pleasure to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 159 and 159A not moved.]
  Clause 143 agreed to.
  Clause 144 [Mandatory concessions outside Greater London]:
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 160:
  Page 87. line 32, after second ("person") insert ("or young person under the age of 19 years and undergoing full-time education and training").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 160, which stands in the name of my noble friends, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 164 in the group.
  We on these Benches welcome the creation of a national concessionary fares scheme to replace the rather piecemeal provision that exists at the moment. We further welcome its extension to those with disabilities. Amendment No. 160 seeks to extend the scope of the scheme to young people up to the age of 19 who are in full-time education. It seems to us that we should be doing everything we can to encourage people in this age group to stay on in further education. It is fairly obvious that most of them will not live within walking or even cycling distance of their chosen place of education. Outside London they will fall back on either buses or private motor cars, and there will be a significant financial burden which we know is acting as a deterrent to many of them staying on at school or going to college.
  Young people of this age should also have a reasonable expectation of being able to access leisure facilities and other activities which give them a meaningful social life. This is particularly important in rural areas. Many of them are feeling pretty irritated at being lectured about yob culture when they are given little opportunity to access the kinds of facilities they ought to have. Some are probably looking forward to being marched to a cashpoint as a kind of distraction from their normal life.
  We feel that the absence of some kind of concessionary fare scheme for young people of this age is depriving them of access to these facilities and forcing them into a position of having to run a car. Apart from the fairly obvious fact that this adds to congestion, we should consider that this age group is significantly at risk from accident. We should not encourage them to use cars more than they have to. It is an age where the travelling habits of a lifetime are likely to be settled and we should do everything we can to encourage them to use buses, at least as part of their normal travelling arrangements. It is a habit which will stay with them for life.
  I am sure the Minister will comment on the cost of such a scheme, but our original discussions with the bus companies suggest that this will be fairly modest. All the evidence suggests that increased use will offset most of the cost. It is possible for local authorities to run concessionary fare schemes for young people—some do—but, of course, if we rely on that we shall have exactly the same kind of piecemeal provision for young people that we are trying to get away from with pensioners.
  Amendment No. 164 seeks to equalise at 60 years the age at which the concessionary fare scheme for older people operates. I know the arguments have been
  96
  well rehearsed in other areas but the current scheme perpetuates a glaring inequality which has no place in modern legislation. Parliament has already agreed that the pension age should be equalised—although it is a very slow process and will not be complete until 2020—and, having accepted that this kind of inequality is wrong in principle, it is quite nonsensical to enshrine it in new legislation. I beg to move.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Grouped with the two amendments to which the noble Baroness has spoken are Amendments Nos. 165, 170 and 173. Amendments Nos. 165 and 170 put bones into the situation about which the noble Baroness has spoken—that is, the disparity of rights between men and women when it comes to receiving benefits because of old age and being encouraged to use local transport in old age. This is an important matter. As the noble Baroness said, the principle has already been conceded. We have here an opportunity to accept an important provision. I regard it as one of the most interesting issues raised in today's discussions. I certainly hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment.
  Lord Swinfen: I shall not speak to my Amendment No. 173 with this group. I shall speak to it with Amendment No. 171 later on. I find the groupings rather peculiar. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 161, 163, 167 and 169 in one group; I shall speak to Amendment No. 169A on its own; and I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 171, 172 and 173 as a group. I have advised the Front Benches and the Lord Chairman of my intention.
  Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may say a few words in support of my noble friend and, in particular, in support of the amendment on concessionary fares for elderly people. I was struck by two comments in briefings on this matter. The first was from the Equal Opportunities Commission. I am sure that such an organisation would not make the comment without considering the point very seriously. It considers that there is no legal or moral justification for linking a scheme for concessions to the elderly with the state pension scheme. I accept that point. The second comment was from PARITY, of which I am a vice-president. PARITY says that it is not aware of any state, apart from the UK, that has or permits such discrimination. It also points out the irony that until now local authorities have had the power to set at 65 eligibility ages for concessions, subject only to the minimum ages of 60 and 65 respectively for women and men. It now seems that this is not to be allowed. PARITY makes the point that it seems wrong to oblige local authorities to discriminate on grounds of sex.
  Lord Whitty: One feels a degree of sympathy for both the points raised in this group of amendments. Nevertheless, I shall have to reject them. Concessionary fare legislation has always linked retirement age to the provision of concessionary fares. It would be odd and cut across other principles if we were to change that in this context. As Members of the Committee have said, the Pensions Act 1995 envisages

  97
  eventual equalisation at which point the knock-on benefits would also apply. In that context there is some justification for maintaining that. I do not accept that there is no argument for so doing.
  There is an even more difficult case in relation to young persons. I accept many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Market Needham. Do I have it the right way around this time?
  Baroness Hamwee: Needham Market!
  Lord Whitty: My apologies again. I certainly would not wish to rule out such a provision. However, we have to consider the costs. Were we to subsidise this directly, we would have to take on some of the costs of services that were already provided locally and therefore the net benefit would not necessarily be evident.
  Clause 146 contains a power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to extend the eligibility by statutory instrument. In that sense, we have deliberately kept the door open for developments such as this at an appropriate time. Extension of such concessions to young people would be one of the areas that in the future we would address. I hope, with that partial reassurance, that these amendments will not be pressed.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps I may extend an invitation to the noble Lord and other noble Lords to cone to Needham Market. I am sure that, following a good lunch at one of our many wonderful pubs, noble Lords will remember the name. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 161:
  Page 87, line 34, leave out from ("area") to end of line 35.
  The noble Lord said: As I mentioned earlier, in moving Amendment No. 161, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 163,167 and 169. They all deal with the same subject; namely, mandatory travel concessions outside Greater London.
  The purpose of the amendment is to extend the minimum half price concessionary fare to groups of disabled people not covered by the recent government amendment and to allow them to use door to door transport where mainstream public transport is accessible. Amendment No. 161 would remove the time restrictions on the scheme.
  The Bill will introduce a national concessionary fare scheme for elderly people between places in a given area and beginning at a relevant time. I welcome the Government's recent amendment to extend that concession to certain disabled people, but I should like to add to that the groups of disabled people that I have already mentioned.
  I am also concerned that the scheme is limited by the expression, "relevant time", meaning between 9.30 a.m. and 11 p.m. That implies treating adults like 14 or 15 year-olds who have to be home and ready for bed by 11 p.m. I believe that this scheme should apply to all journeys in the local area regardless of the time. The restrictions could, for example, mean that someone returning from a night out in the town no longer received the concession, making the evening out impossible.
  Of greater importance, it also means that if the scheme is extended to people of working age, they will be unable to benefit from the concessions while working. In my view there are unlikely to be problems of congestion during peak periods because people who do not need to travel at those times will choose not to do so, thus ensuring that they are more likely to travel in comfort. However, removing the restriction will allow people to undertake their journeys as necessary.
  I am concerned that the national concessionary scheme fails to recognise that travel patterns are often independent of local administrative boundaries. The voluntary national concession scheme for free travel for blind people in Scotland provides concessions throughout the country and across different modes of travel. The proposed scheme would benefit from similar provisions relating to the area of operation and integration across modes.
  Any elderly person—any person of pensionable age—residing in a travel concession authority's area who travels on an eligible service on a journey between places in that area, and beginning at a relevant time, is entitled to be provided with a half-price travel concession by the operator of the service. That is fine for those who can jump on and off buses. Regrettably, it inequitably leaves out those whose impairments prevent them from using buses and whose age may have made them ineligible for the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance. I think that these disabled people should, like their more mobile colleagues, enjoy a statutory minimum rare concession scheme on transport services set up specifically to meet their needs. I beg to move.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): Because Amendment No. 167 is also being spoken to with this amendment, I should point out that if Amendment No. 167 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 168.
  Lord Addington: These amendments would mean that the disabled would receive a concession allowing them to travel in a more civilised manner; that is, more often at the times that they probably want to travel. We are attempting to ensure that the disabled have the right to travel at times which are more in line with working.
  In this Chamber we have often heard how the disabled have higher costs generally. If they work, they would probably benefit from these fare concessions to a far greater extent than would normal working people because their income will need to cover higher costs, thus the marginal benefit is higher. If someone does

  99
  not have very much money, any amount of saving will go that little bit further. Also, moving the times for concessionary travel will bring disabled people much more into the mainstream. That aim is laudable. I hope that the Government will at least give the principle behind the amendments a good hearing.
  Lord Whitty: I think I follow the grouping of the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. There now seem to be three different items covered in the grouping: the question of the timing of concessionary fares; the question of carers and other groups of disabled; and the form of transport. Perhaps I may take the issue of the times first, and make two points.
  Before doing so, I should mention to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the original change from 9 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. was made in Committee in another place as a result of a Liberal Democrat amendment. Admittedly, at that point it applied to pensioners and not so much to the disabled; and the bulk of those who will take advantage of the concession will continue to be pensioners.
  My first substantive point is that these are minimum criteria. There is nothing to stop local authorities going beyond that minimum, by continuing or introducing an earlier start time for concessionary fares, either for the whole group or for some of the group if they believe that that accords with local priorities. The shift to the later time of 9.30 a.m. was not made lightly. There was a significant number of representations from local government, initially from the PTE group which deals with transport in our larger cities. It urged the later time because it was worried about the pressure of undue demand on public transport facilities at that point, given the number of school journeys still being made at that time of day, the need to reposition vehicles following delays and congestion in the morning peak, and so on, and the fact that buses need to be back at the right time. The group said that 9.30 a.m. was a common start time in metropolitan areas. Since then, similar worries have been expressed by local government. So there is a balance to be drawn, and there is room for debate as to what is the best solution. But bearing in mind that these are minimum criteria and that local authorities can vary them, I believe that we have struck the balance reasonably. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press that amendment.
  Amendment No. 163 seeks to extend the provisions to other areas. I was particularly struck by the issue of companions travelling with a disabled person. There are clear administrative difficulties. In the case of companions, there would need to be a proper identification procedure and an assurance that the companion would use the concessions only when travelling with the disabled person. A variety of different cards might be necessary in those circumstances.
  In relation to people who have used in-patient mental health services, also included in the amendment, such people are not at present among those for whom local authorities can provide
  100
  concessionary fares on a discretionary basis. The principle underlying our national proposal is that we are merely building on existing statutory eligibility to make this a national system and not adding new categories of people. A particular difficulty may arise in the case of people who have previously had in-house treatment for mental health problems in terms of the time that has elapsed since treatment, the kind of treatment received and so on. It is not clear to me that continuing support is necessary in this area.
  Having said that, I do not dismiss out of hand the possibility of looking at these extensions and I undertake to consider them further. There is a case to be considered particularly in relation to carers. We shall need to look at cost and administrative complications. If I conclude that it is right to make a change, there is already an order-making power in Clause 146 which is available to implement that decision.
  The noble Lord seeks by this amendment—there are later amendments which relate to the same matter—effectively to extend the concession to community transport. These amendments provide that the statutory minimum concessionary fare should apply also to services operated under Sections 19 and 22 of the Transport Act 1985 for disabled people who cannot use mainstream public transport. Section 19 deals with specific services for such people, and Section 22 is about services that are run for a similar purpose but are available to the general public. There is a question as to how the concession will apply. There is also a question as to how it relates to the separate issue of providing fuel duty rebate for such services.
  I shall need to give further consideration to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord to see whether it can be fitted into the system. However, we are talking here about a very different matter from the provision of a concessionary fare on a scheduled, or near-scheduled, route; it is an on-demand service that may already be provided free, or nearly so. A number of matters must be taken into account before we can take this further. However, we shall look at this further. I hope that, with those remarks, the noble Lord will not press the amendment tonight.
  Lord Swinfen: I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to consider these matters further. If in a particular area a good number of disabled or elderly people need to travel outside the relevant time, they will probably use their own vehicles and add to congestion. Therefore, the removal of the relevant time provisions will ease rather than worsen congestion. I hope that in the case of door-to-door transport provisions the Minister will bear in mind that often severely disabled people have the smallest incomes and, therefore, can be described as the poorest of the poor in this country. I am sure that they would very much appreciate any help that the Government could provide. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 162:
  Page 88, line 8. at end insert—
  ("(6) Where a flat fare scheme is provided which overall offers better value than a half-price travel concession the flat fare scheme may be substituted by the authority.
  (7) An appeal against such substitution may be made to the traffic commissioner for the area.").

  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 162 is a very important amendment related to flat fare schemes. The Bill proposes that a half-fare scheme should be introduced for people of pensionable age. In many towns and cities the local authority provides a flat fare which for most people is a distinctly better option than a half-fare. Where one has a flat rate, which is often 30p, the ordinary single fare may be 40p or 50p. However, the vast majority of fares are 60p, £1 or £1.50. A flat fare in a city is extremely valuable to an operator in terms of its simplicity.
  Elderly people make up a large proportion of bus passengers. They become used to tendering 30p. They have the money ready, drop it down, and the bus moves off. A change to a half fare scheme involves calculation. The lowest fare may be 50p. Therefore the half fare cost is 25p for a short journey and a 30p flat fare scheme is a more generous offer and would be allowable. But one still has two different fares within that company's area. In many cases the situation would be far more complex.
  The amendment seeks to provide that where there is a flat fare scheme at present, provided that it gives better value to the vast majority of users than the half fare scheme, it should be possible to leave the flat fare scheme in place. It suits better the vast majority of users. It suits the bus companies. It is less complex to administer. One of the most important factors is that the boarding of buses should take place as quickly as possible so that the bus does not hold up the traffic flow.
  We recognise that someone has to exercise a judgment as to whether a flat fare scheme is better than a half fare scheme. The amendment provides that that person could be the traffic commissioner. In other suggestions it is the regional office of government. The traffic commissioner might provide a faster route to obtaining an answer to a local problem.
  Perhaps the Minister can reassure us about the resources to meet the costs of these schemes. The sums mentioned in Committee in another place fall short of the likely cost; a large sum might fall on local authorities. In another place, the Minister said that he expected local authorities which had different schemes in operation to allow existing schemes such as token schemes to operate and for users to have a choice of both schemes. A local authority might have to fund the half fare scheme and continue to fund a parallel token scheme which some individuals might choose instead of the half fare bus pass.
  It is a complex but serious issue for bus operators who seek to simplify travel by bus. In many cities bus companies and local authorities are united in their view that flat fares should be left in place provided they pass the test of being best value for the user. I beg to move.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: I appreciate that there is concern on this issue. However, there are three reasons why we should stick with our present position.
  First, the White Paper promised travel at half fare on buses. There was no reference to "most buses", "except where there is a flat fare" or, to use phraseology in the noble Lord's amendment, "overall". We should need to be more convinced than at present to abandon that commitment.
  Secondly, it will be difficult for someone to make a judgment on whether one scheme "overall" offers better value than others. "Overall" is a difficult word when we refer to individual fares for individual journeys and have to weigh one journey against another. There is plenty of scope for serious grievance and, possibly, legal action. That is a difficult task to put on the hard-pressed traffic commissioner, particularly since he otherwise has no involvement in the concessionary fare scheme.
  Thirdly, cheap fares for short journeys may be particularly valued by the elderly and disabled—those facing mobility difficulties. They may value their short journey to the shop and it might be hard to explain to them why, when the flat fare is more than half, we were not giving them what we had promised. I hope that those in local authorities and among the operators who are concerned about the matter will think around those difficulties.
  I would not rule out alternative answers. One answer might be to have a lower fare for short journeys and a higher fare for longer trips. However, that begins to move away from the simplicity of the initial approach. I hope that a solution can be found and that we can deliver a provision which meets most concerns. For the moment, I am not convinced that we should move away from the principle.
  As regards funding, in Grand Committee my noble friend indicated that the cost of moving to a concessionary fare scheme on a half-fare basis would be fully funded. It may be that some local authorities will continue to run existing schemes, but that will be a matter for them. The additional cost would be met by central government and that is clearly provided for.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply. There is a danger that people who at present enjoy a flat fare may find that in its place they will be paying a half fare which costs more. That will not be seen to be fulfilling the hope in the White Paper, which is cheaper bus fares.
  I hope that before Report stage the Minister will consider the issue carefully and perhaps talk to people in the bus industry and local authorities to see whether he can put forward a satisfactory test. It might be, for instance, that 90 per cent of journeys must be cheaper. I realise that there is a judgment to be made in such issues—there often is—but there is genuine concern among many people. It is not just a matter of me talking late at night in order to pass the time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 144 agreed to.
  Clause 145 [Mandatory concessions: supplementary]:
  [Amendments Nos. 163 to 167 not moved.]
  Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn moved Amendment No. 168:
  Page 89, line I. leave out ("9.30") and insert ("9.00").
  The noble Lord said: It has been a long vigil to move Amendment No. 168, which is short but important. An issue of principle is involved.
  The issue in question is referred to on page 89 at lines 1 and 2. The same subject is also referred to on page 92 at lines 30 and 31. It relates to the time of implementation of concessionary fares for elderly and disabled people, who are particularly concerned about hospital appointments.
  It was said earlier that as regards public transport, the disabled were miserably looked after. Perhaps the same can be said of pensioners.
  In London the time of 9 a.m. has worked perfectly well for approximately 20 years. The county of Essex also operates a 9 a.m. start for the concessions, and it is applicable in other parts of the country, too. Therefore, why does it not apply throughout the whole country? I should have thought that this would be the time to bring some rationality to the whole issue. As it is set out in the Bill, this is a somewhat restrictive measure.
  Perhaps I may ask the Minister to tell the Committee what consultation has taken place with pensioner organisations and the disabled. I am sure that they would have voiced the strongest objections to this provision. As a friend of this Government, I also say to the Minister that it is time for them to take more notice of pensioners. I should like to know who was the skinflint who brought about the alteration in the Bill. I understand that originally it was proposed that the scheme should commence at 9 a.m. Perhaps the Minister can give the Committee answers to those questions. I beg to move.
  Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment, having spoken to a similar one earlier.
  Lord Whitty: I am in danger of repeating myself. In answer to my noble friend's last question regarding a skinflint, I do not believe that the proposal reflects a skinflint move. As a result of substantial representations to both Opposition parties and to ourselves, it was agreed in Committee in another place that the present provision of 9 a.m. led to an excessive demand on the public transport system and that it would be easier, both for pensioners and for the operators, if the concession were to start at 9.30 a.m. That view was fairly widespread across the country. It relates partly to the fact that school journeys are still taking place at 9 a.m. and partly to the fact that in some parts of the country people are still travelling to work at that time.
  My noble friend is of course right that in the past in London and in many other parts of the country a 9 a.m. start has operated relatively well. There is
  104
  nothing to stop local authorities which believe that they can operate it well expanding the time in any direction, including a start time of 9 a.m. Therefore, where there are particular local circumstances and particular problems about journeys to hospitals, for example, local authorities can extend the time. However, I believe that we should have been foolish to ignore completely the widespread view of local authorities and operators that a shift from 9 a.m. should take place.
  I understand the problems in relation to hospital appointments, although even at 9 a.m. some problems would arise in that regard. I also understand the point regarding disabled people who travel to work at that time, but I do not believe that that issue was raised when the Committee in another place changed the time. At that point, the concession related only to pensioners. Therefore, to some extent, our generosity has now raised an anomaly.
  In answer to another point raised by my noble friend, I have received representations from various pensioner organisations about this matter. We must balance those against the representations made by local authorities and operators. For the moment I am not convinced that we should change the provision, but I have no doubt that we shall return to this issue at a later stage.
  Lord Islwyn: Does not the Minister appreciate that the provision will divide the country? People in Wales could say, "Well, they've got it at 9 o'clock in London. Why can't we have it at 9 o'clock?" I am disappointed with the Government's attitude. I shall take every opportunity to raise the issue again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
  Clause 145 agreed to.
  Clause 146 [Variation of mandatory concessions]:
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 169A:
  Page 89. line 25, at end insert—

  ("() applies to disabled people whose disabilities prevent their making use of ordinary public passenger transport services,

  () applies to services operated under sections 19 or 22 of the Transport Act 1985 that are fully accessible to people who travel in their wheelchairs.").

  The noble Lord said: Any elderly person of pensionable age residing in a travel concession authority's area who travels on an eligible service on a journey between places in that area and beginning at a relevant time is entitled to be provided with a half-price travel concession by the operator of the service. I welcome that. I also welcome the amendment made in the Grand Committee to extend the statutory minimum concessionary travel scheme to disabled people.
  That is fine for fit people of pensionable age who can jump on and off buses, but it will not help disabled people of pensionable age whose disabilities prevent

  105
  them from using public transport. To travel anywhere beyond the confines of their home, many of them have to resort to door-to-door services such as taxis and Dial-a-Ride. Regrettably, the current provisions inequitably leave out those whose disabilities prevent them from using buses and whose age may have made them ineligible for the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance.
  Like their more athletic colleagues, those disabled people should enjoy a statutory minimum fare concession scheme on transport services set up specifically to meet their needs. The amendment is a question of fairness. The Government pride themselves on being fair, so I hope that they will agree to it. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: The amendment refers to transport facilities covered by Sections 19 and 22 of the Transport Act 1985. However, the Bill treats those two categories of service differently. The statutory minimum concession applies to all services that qualify for the fuel duty rebate. That includes the bulk of services under Section 22, because they are counted as local services and details of their routes are registered with the traffic commissioner. There are a few that are not eligible for fuel duty rebate, but the majority of Section 22 services are eligible for the concessionary fare.
  Section 19 services are not eligible for the fuel duty rebate, so they will not initially be eligible for the concessionary fare scheme. However, the order-making power in Clause 146 will enable the Secretary of State to extend that concession to other categories of public passenger transport, including Section 19 services. We shall consider that further, but we do not need an amendment to the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to extend the concession.
  Lord Swinfen: I thank the Minister for that answer. I shall read carefully what he has said. I may come back to the issue at a later stage, but in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 146 agreed to.
  Clauses 147 to 149 agreed to.
  Clause 150 [Concessions in Greater London]:
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 171:
  Page 92, line 7, at end insert—

  ("() who arc specified companions of eligible persons who, in the opinion of the authority responsible for the administration of the scheme, require the assistance of a companion to be able to travel on public transport, or

  () who are persons who have used in-patient mental health services and require continuing support."").

  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 172 and 173. The purpose of these three amendment is to require London councils to draw up criteria as to what is a disability or injury which seriously impairs a person's ability to walk, in consultation with organisations of
  106
  disabled people and having regard to any guidance issued by a joint authority drawn up to run the London concessionary fares scheme.
  The amendment also extends the powers given to local authorities outside London under the Transport Act 1985 to issue concessionary fare permits for London. Finally, the amendment provides for disabled people to use accessible door-to-door transport where they are unable to access mainstream door-to-door transport.
  During the passage of the Greater London Act 1999, the Greater London Action on Disability identified the problem of a wide variation in the eligibility criteria for the Freedom Pass; in other words, concessionary fares in London. Some boroughs were also adopting the poor, if not illegal, practice of making disabled people choose between the Freedom Pass and the Orange Badge.
  Greater London Action on Disability therefore promoted amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill which required each London borough, in conjunction with organisations of disabled people, to draw up criteria of what constitutes a disability or impairment which seriously impairs a person's ability to walk. In drawing up such criteria, the boroughs would have to have regard to any guidance issued by the TfL or any other joint authority responsible for the scheme. Both the TfL and the London borough criteria would have to be publicly available.
  Earlier this year, the London Borough of Merton proposed that current legislation did not allow it to offer the Freedom Pass to people with learning difficulties. Fortunately, that problem has now been overcome but it has highlighted the need to update the legislation. Outside London, the Government widened the groups that local authorities had the discretion to offer concessionary fares to by introducing regulations. The criteria, which I describe in my own, not the legal, language, were: persons who have mental or severe mental handicap; persons who have been denied driving licences on medical grounds; persons who are deaf and dumb; persons who are without the use of both arms; specified companions of those who are so severely disabled that they need the assistance of the companion in order to travel on public transport; and finally, persons who, in the opinion of the authority, would be likely to be refused a driving licence on medical grounds if they applied for one.
  The Transport Bill before us could be used to resolve the difficulties. The Bill has a very wide Long Title which specifically covers concessionary fares in London. Therefore, there are unlikely to be difficulties because of the scope of the Bill.
  I suggest that the groups eligible for concessionary fares under the discretionary criteria be widened to make sure that there are no disputes over the powers of local authorities. The legislation currently applying outside London, preferably with appropriate improvements in language, would form a basis For that. Also, I should like to have the requirement introduced to produce publicly available local eligibility criteria in consultation with organisations of disabled people.
  Those disabled people who are unable to use mainstream public transport because of their impairment need to be able to use door-to-door transport. I beg to move.
  Lord Addington: I support these amendments and look forward to hearing the Minister's answer.
  Lord Whitty: The whole purpose of this part of the Bill relating to London is to ensure that the provisions in London are equivalent to those that we seek to introduce in the rest of the country. Many of the points raised by the noble Lord are met in the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 reflect the position in London to which we have already referred in a previous group of amendments. Amendment No. 171 relates to the definition of who is covered. I dealt with that when I said I would look at the matter further. In relation to Amendment No. 172, we have just dealt with the equivalent situation in the rest of the country as regards Sections 19 and 22 of the Transport Act 1985.
  The new material is contained in Amendment No. 173, which seeks to put on the face of the Bill the definition of those who would be entitled to the concession. That includes a definition of "disabled person" as someone whose ability to walk is seriously impaired by disability or injury. The amendment would require local authorities to establish, and to review with organisations of disabled people, criteria as to what constitutes such an impairment.
  It is certainly open to local authorities to review the position. In many circumstances, I would expect that they would do so. I am not clear that it is right to place them under a duty to do so. Nor does it seem right, on the face of the Bill, to concentrate on the definition of one category of disability rather than another.
  I believe I understand the intentions of the noble Lord but it is not advisable to specify it in this form, related to one of the criteria. The definitions used in Clause 150(4) are essentially only those that already exist in legislation—both primary and secondary legislation—relating to concessionary fares. If the noble Lord feels that there is a particular problem that I have failed to pick up, perhaps he will write to me or I can meet him and we can discuss the matter between now and Report stage. At the moment I am not prepared to accept his amendment.
  Lord Swinfen: I did not believe that the Minister would be prepared to accept the amendment at Committee stage. However, I am grateful for the offer to correspond with him or to meet with him to discuss the matter. In the light of that, and saving my position for a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 172 to 174 not moved.]
  Clause 150 agreed to.
  Clause 151 [Agreements providing for service subsidies]:
  [Amendment No. 175 not moved.]
  Clause 151 agreed to.
  Clause 152 [Competition test for exercise of bus functions]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 176:
  Page 93, line 38. after ("schemes") insert (", quality contracts schemes").
  The noble Lord said: This particular group of amendments has been tabled due to an inconsistency in this Bill compared with other legislation passing through the House. In this Bill we are blithely creating monopoly situations, while a Bill dealing with competition legislation is going through the House that ensures that monopoly situations cannot arise.
  At this hour of the night I shall not spend long on this matter. I do not believe that it is an abuse of the time of the Committee to point out the inconsistency between provisions in this Bill and provisions in another Bill. I beg to move.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may intervene, because this may be the only opportunity I have to refer to Schedule 10. When we debated this matter in Grand Committee I raised the issue of the competition test and the fact that quite large fees may be demanded of local authorities or operators. We still have considerable unease as to the high level of bureaucracy which may be involved in establishing whether or not a scheme falls foul of the competition rules.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in reply in Grand Committee and again today, said that further discussions are going on with the director-general. I hope that we may hear, either now or on Report, that those discussions have moved forward to give us some reassurance that we are not going to have an extremely bureaucratic ping-pong match between operators and local authorities and the Director-General of Fair Trading as to whether or not a specific scheme meets the competition test.
  Lord Whitty: I feel gratified to see that there is a conflict of position between the two Opposition parties. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, wants to keep the competition authorities out and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, wants to bring them in.
  We spelt out at earlier stages, both in Grand Committee and earlier today, the position on the competition regime which we introduced for local authority functions as regards quality partnership schemes. They were designed to ensure not only a role for the Office of Fair Trading, but also a public interest defence. We are now in a different area—that of quality contracts. It is clear that the amendment seeks to apply the Competition Act to quality contract schemes, so we would have two competition regimes for quality contracts running in parallel.

  109
  There is a potential difficulty with competition policy. But it is clear that, once a quality contract scheme has been introduced, that overrides the competitive situation. Services will be operated under those contracts and be subject to the terms and conditions specified by the local authority in those contracts. The only exception will be in connection with any special services excluded under Clause 126(4). In other words, there will by definition no longer be any scope for the competition authorities to look at the provision of bus services in the period of the quality contract scheme.
  Indeed, even if a quality contract were otherwise caught by Section 2 of the Competition Act, it is the Government's view that it would be excluded by virtue of the provisions in Schedule 3(5) to the Act. That states that conduct engaged in to comply with a legal requirement would be exempted from the Competition Act. We believe therefore that it would be inappropriate to bring quality contracts within the general competition rules, or indeed within the alternative competition regime set out in Clause 152 and Schedule 10.
  Therefore I cannot accept the approach of the noble Lord to these matters. However, I can give some degree of assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and we may need to communicate with him further on the question of discussions with the Director-General of Fair Trading.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I feel rather like Mr Rafter must have felt late last night. But I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, in which he went into considerable detail. It was very helpful and I shall study it with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 152 agreed to.
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 177:
  After Clause 152. insert the following new clause—

  EXISTING SERVICES
  (" . Existing non-statutory quality partnerships, ticketing schemes, joint marketing and publicity schemes and tendering arrangements for local bus services may remain in operation until three years after the enactment of this Act.").
  The noble Lord said: I can be brief with this amendment. I believe we disposed of it in Grand Committee. However, we want to be sure that, where an existing non-statutory quality partnership is in place, that, together with ticketing schemes, the joint marketing and the publicity schemes, remains in operation for the time being at least and the new arrangements do not cause existing arrangements to be terminated early. If all existing schemes were terminated, that would create a great deal of work for others. One may assume that existing schemes, which were entered into voluntarily, fulfil at least some of the Government's purposes in putting them on a statutory basis. We seek an assurance that existing arrangements will remain in place. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I can reassure the noble Lord that the amendment is unnecessary. Little or nothing in the Bill
  110
  would stop specified arrangements continuing, even without the amendment, if all concerned wanted that to happen. The amendment uses the word "may" rather than "must", which implies that it is for the parties involved to determine whether or not a scheme continues.
  Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 10 [Competition test for exercise of bus functions]:
  [Amendments Nos. 178 to 182 not moved.]
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 183:
  Page 211, line 37, at end insert (", or
  (c) any person resident in the area of the authority or authorities in question who is, or is likely to be, affected by the exercise of the function").
  The noble Lord said: Schedule 10 provides that either a local transport authority or bus operator can refer a matter to the competition authorities if they feel there is a problem. That is inviting the two parties most interested to complain about themselves—or rather, one would probably complain about the other. The people most affected—those who use the buses—ought to have the right to complain, and the amendment is specifically designed to make that possible. Any individual who thought that he or she was disadvantaged by a non-competitive move between an LTA and a bus company could take his problems to the competition authorities, which would be a good and proper provision. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 183 seeks to ensure that an interested member of the public as well as an operator or local authority can apply to the Office of Fair Trading for a decision. We felt it right to limit formal applications—which involve submitting a form and paying a fee—but it is always open to a member of the public, whatever their role, to contact the OFT about a particular case.
  Under this regime, and as set out in paragraph 5 of Schedule 10, the OFT has the power to investigate without a formal fee-paid application. Hence it is possible for all members of the public and others who may consider themselves detrimentally affected by a decision, or potentially so, to approach the OFT. It is the formal application that is limited to these two groups.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I found very reassuring. It is good to know that ordinary members of the public have a route down which they can go and thereby do something about it, if they feel that they are being disadvantaged as a result of this legislation. I shall study the Minister's reply but, in the mean time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 184 to 191 not moved.]
  Schedule 10 agreed to.
  Clause 153 [Grants to bus service operators]:
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 192:
  Page 93. line 42. after ("operating") insert ("and improving accessibility to").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 193, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. The purpose of my amendment is to extend the provisions for which grants may be made to bus operators for improvements to accessibility. The Bill allows for grants to bus operators or authorities to improve the services provided to the public.
  The costs of introducing a bus accessible across the UK fleet are only £444 million, yet at the same time there would be additional revenue of between £26 million and £52 million a year. Disability organisations believe that the Government could—and, indeed, should—find a funding mechanism that ensures an accessible bus fleet well before the end date of 2017 in the proposed Disability Discrimination Act regulations. That is entirely consistent with the Government's objectives for delivering high quality bus networks. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Our Amendment No. 193 has been grouped with that of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. It is directed to the point that, at present, there is an essential user rebate on fuel duty on buses that is withdrawn by Clause 153(6). As I understand it, there is what I would call a "roundabout" being put in place by which that money may come back through the local authorities and be used once again for the benefit of local services from which it has been withdrawn. In fact, there has been mention of one way in which part of this might happen in an article in The Times today, of which I was told to take no notice earlier. It refers to local authorities being able to give a fuel duty rebate of 75 per cent for "community transport services".
  We have tabled this amendment to enable us to explore exactly what the Government have in mind. We tabled it long before The Times gave any hint as to what might happen. The fuel duty rebate is both important and significant to those who receive it. The concern is that the "roundabout", so to speak, will be a diminishing one and that what goes in at one end will, by the time it has been processed, be something less by the time it comes out again. That will, of course, not be to the advantage of those who would otherwise be benefiting. We tabled the amendment to explore that situation.
  11 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may be helpful if I begin by outlining the provisions of Clause 153, to which both Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 relate. The clause will permit us to introduce new arrangements for grants to the operators of bus services towards the operating costs of those services. When introduced the powers provided would enable the replacement of the current fuel duty rebate scheme with more flexible arrangements on grants to operators.
  112
  I do not know what conclusion the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, drew from today's report in The Times. I shall certainly not pre-empt any separate announcements that may be made. However, I think that it will be obvious that we need to look at both the shorter and the longer term. As regards the shorter term, there are changes to the existing fuel duty rebate scheme that might be made. With the Commission for Integrated Transport we are looking at possible changes, bearing in mind the role of community buses and the help that they can provide to elderly and disabled people in rural areas and elsewhere.
  In the longer term, wider options might be considered, including possibly some successor grant to the fuel duty rebate. However, we would want to know the results of the further consideration of the Commission for Integrated Transport and we would want to consult carefully before making any wider and longer-term changes. We do not have any plans for any such wider change at the moment.
  As I say, we asked the Commission for Integrated Transport to consider the value for money of all aspects of public funding of bus services. Clause 153 provides flexibility for future changes to the grant arrangements if that should appear to be necessary in the light of changing requirements and of the commission's report which we expect later this year.
  I want to emphasise that we recognise the value of fuel duty rebate as a grant in support of all local bus services, offsetting currently over 70 per cent of the fuel duty incurred in providing those services. Without it, operating costs would be higher and fare levels and volume of services would be affected. But we also need to consider whether changes or even a new form of grant would represent better value for money and would better serve our wider objectives.
  Having said that, I stress that we have no intention of removing or changing the arrangements for fuel duty rebate before we are fully satisfied that such a change will be of benefit in terms of achieving our policy objectives, or before alternative arrangements are in place. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the diminishing roundabout. That is not a familiar concept to me. It seems to me that you either have a proper roundabout or a mini roundabout; you do not readily move from one to the other. Therefore. I cannot fully follow the noble Lord's analogy, but if I have answered the point that he made, I hope that he will accept it as such.
  I turn specifically to Amendment No. 192. This would add to the broad terms of the clause the specific point that any new grant paid under the clause may be towards the cost of improving accessibility to services. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to impaired mobility in this regard, although it would be possible to define the meaning of "accessibility" more widely in terms of the improved availability of bus services to the public in general. The amendment is not necessary. Clause 153 is deliberately broadly drawn to provide a flexible grant- making power. Any new grant could—this is the case with the fuel duty rebate at present—be a general payment to operators

  113
  in support of operating costs without any specific conditions attached. Such general payments could contribute to meeting operators' improved accessibility without being earmarked for that purpose. The method of calculation could be based on the characteristics of the service or its performance rather than specifically on costs incurred.
  However, it would be possible, if we thought it necessary in the light of experience, to use regulations on the method of calculation of the grant to specify particular costs which would be taken into account in that calculation; or, for example, to pay a higher rate of grant to services which met certain criteria or had certain characteristics.
  The advantage of Clause 153 is the flexibility it gives in using the grant-making power to meet changing requirements. It would be a mistake—it would be counter-productive—to specify in the primary legislation, as the amendment seeks to do, the particular characteristics of the grant or the specific purposes for which it might be used.
  Of course I sympathise with the wish to improve the accessibility of bus services, but it is not always necessary to include these matters on the face of the Bill, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has heard many times in his career in this House. Accessibility is improving as a result of increasing investment by the industry in new vehicles and we are moving ahead with the introduction of mandatory accessibility standards for buses under the Disability Discrimination Act. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, would like matters to move faster than is proposed, but it is not the job of this Bill to start making changes in recent legislation. We hope to lay regulations soon which set out these standards and timescales. Implementation will be phased for different kinds of vehicles, but the first relevant date for new accessibility requirements will be the end of this year.
  Amendment No. 193 seeks to remove subsection (6), which provides that the provisions of the Finance Act 1965 which currently cover the payment of fuel duty rebate will cease to have effect once the provisions of the clause are introduced. In doing this it would negate the intention that any new grant arrangements under the clause would replace the fuel duty rebate scheme rather than run alongside it. Without the subsection—if we took it out—we would be in the very odd position of having to retain fuel duty rebate when the purpose of introducing the powers in the clause would be to replace it with more effective and flexible arrangements. I have made it clear that we do not intend to introduce the powers in Clause 153 until better arrangements for the payment of grants to bus operators are in place. I hope that that will persuade noble Lords not to press these amendments.
  Lord Bradshaw: I had no part in any work carried out by the Commission for Integrated Transport on the fuel duty rebate, but I have studied it very closely in academic circles. It appears to be quite an efficient way of subsidising bus use. Does the Minister agree that recent research has shown that bus fare elasticities are much higher than we believed before, and that
  114
  within three years a real rise in bus fares will result in an equal proportion of loss of bus passengers? Bus fares are a very sensitive issue. It is important that any move which leads to a general increase in bus fares in real terms should be studied very carefully before coming into effect.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may say two things about that. First, so far as concerns price elasticity of bus fares, it would be foolish of me to express a general view in response to the academic knowledge on the subject of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Secondly, my experience in the Greater London Council in the 1970s was that bus fares were very price elastic. The 25 per cent reduction in bus fares under the "Fares Fair" policy in 1981 achieved a 70 per cent increase in ridership quite rapidly. I agree with the noble Lord on that point. That is from my experience in London, not more generally.
  Lord Swinfen: I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I have been moving amendments on disability for the past 20 years—and I have been getting the same answers for the past 20 years. It would make life so much more interesting if I could receive a different answer. Even the same answer couched in different words would make a nice change. I get the feeling that the script was written 20 years ago and gets dusted down every two weeks. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
  Clause 153 agreed to.
  Clauses 154 to 160 agreed to.
  Lord Smith of Leigh Lord Smith of Leigh moved Amendment No. 194:
  After Clause 160, insert the following new clause—
  ("PUBLIC AIRPORT COMPANIES

  CONTROL OVER ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC AIRPORT COMPANIES
  .—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to authorise public airport companies or any of them—

  (a) to engage in a type of activity, specified in the regulations, in which the controlling authority have no power to engage, or

  (b) to permit any subsidiary of the company to engage in any such type of activity,

  and section 17(4) of the Airports Act 1986 shall not apply to any activity authorised by regulations under this section.

  (2) In considering whether to make regulations under this section, the Secretary of State may take into consideration transport policy, the business of the airport as a commercial undertaking and the potential benefit to the economy of the implementation of the powers to be authorised by the regulations.

  (3) In this section, the expressions "controlling authority" and "public airport company" have the meanings given by section 16 of the Airports Act 1986.").

  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I declare an interest as a local authority-appointed unpaid director of Manchester Airport plc. At this time of night I shall try to ensure that brevity is my watchword and that I do not test much further the stamina of Members of the Committee. I hope to use

  115
  the amendment to outline the potential problems for public airport companies such as Manchester with the continued expansion of aviation. Airports like to maximise their involvement in commercial opportunities. They do so because of the obvious benefits for those airports but also in the interests of the regional economies which they serve. They do so in order to expand both jobs and inward investment, to help develop the ground transportation links—my noble friend Lord Whitty will have seen that at Manchester—to make sure that airports grow as sustainably as possible and to relieve the pressure in the south east part of the country where airports are most congested.
  The future of transport, which is at the heart of the Bill, lies in mutually beneficial partnerships. The airports feel they are not able to partake of such partnerships. Manchester Airport and other airports have been in correspondence with Ministers and have had meetings with them. They feel that the current constraints of vires which affect airport companies like Manchester are too inflexible for us to create the partnerships which are necessary to enable us to expand as we would like to do. The amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State discretion to allow for greater freedom to pursue those commercial activities which will be beneficial to airports, transportation policy and local economies. I await my noble friend's response. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: As my noble friend has explained, Amendment No. 194 seeks to widen the range of activities which local authority-owned airport companies have powers to carry out. In other words, it seeks to extend the vires of local authority airport companies. At present, under Section 17(4) of the Airports Act 1986, the local authority shareholders must control the company in such a way as to ensure that the company does not engage in activities in which the shareholders themselves have no power to engage. Under my noble friend's new clause, the Secretary of State would have power by regulations to authorise all or any of the public airport companies to engage in a specified type of activity in which their shareholders have no power to engage. That would disapply the duty on the shareholders to the extent covered by the regulations.
  My noble friend described the effect of the present limitations on the powers of local authority airport companies. He particularly mentioned the effect on Manchester Airport, which is the largest of the local authority airport companies. We have told Manchester Airport in correspondence that we are sympathetic to the principle of much of what the airport company is seeking to achieve through this clause. However, we have difficulty with the new clause. In the first place, we must have regard to the pressure on parliamentary time, both in this House and in another place, when considering whether to add to the Bill a provision which is not related to the main issues with which the Bill deals.
  116
  In addition, we are concerned about the possible extent of the clause. More specifically, we have made it clear to Manchester Airport that we have reservations about public sector airports carrying out investment overseas. We consider that it is too remote from their core businesses and that it would be difficult for the companies themselves and for their shareholders to exercise the same degree of supervision and control as they can exercise over activities within the United Kingdom. This same concern lay behind one of the conditions which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State placed on his relaxation last year of the borrowing controls on Manchester and three other local authority airport companies. He made it clear that the relaxation of borrowing controls was to be used for airport-related investment in the United Kingdom.
  I understand that the Manchester Airport company board stated earlier this year its view that the company should concentrate on the exploitation of its business within the United Kingdom. In addition, I recognise that it would be for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not to authorise local authority airport companies to engage in any particular activity. However, if we were to give the Secretary of State a new power, it would be necessary to ensure that its territorial extent was limited to the United Kingdom.
  Our final concern with this new clause is that airport companies might inadvertently put their local authority shareholders into a situation where they could be accused of subsidising non-airport commercial activities, thereby breaching EU rules on state aids.
  We have listened carefully to the debate on this new clause. We shall consider whether we can deal with the subject of local authority and the airport company powers in a future DETR Bill, but I regret that, in view of the constraints on the time available in the remainder of the Session, we are not able to take it into the present Bill. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his new clause.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: Perhaps I may thank my noble friend for his full and sympathetic response to this proposed new clause. The airport representatives will read his response in Hansard with care, but I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  11.15 p.m.
  Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments about local transport]:
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 195:
  Page 216. line 24, at end insert—
  (" . In section 63 (power of authorities to provide stands and racks for bicycles) for the words "and racks for bicycles" there is substituted "or racks for, or devices for securing, bicycles or motor cycles".
  . In section 136(4) (meaning of "motor cycle") for "section 57" there is substituted "sections 57 and 63".").
  The noble Baroness said: I am much incapacitated by the absence from our Front Bench of that notable exponent of the art of motorcycling, my noble friend Lord Falkland. However, the amendment is so straightforward as barely to need explanation. Schedule 11 deals with amendments to legislation. The legislation which Amendment No. 195 seeks to amend is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The proposed amendment would enable local authorities to provide stands and racks not only for bicycles, but also for motorcycles. I beg to move.
  Viscount Craigavon: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for moving the amendment and lament with her the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I hope that with this amendment we are pushing on an open door. For that reason, I shall be very brief.
  The recovery rate of stolen motorcycles is only around 16 per cent. This affects not only the most powerful and expensive machines, but also, since we have seen such a big uptake of desirable and attractive little mopeds, those machines have acquired an extremely high value on the villains' market, so to speak. This is a serious problem and I hope that the amendment will provide a degree of solution to it.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, implied, this is an enabling amendment to allow local authorities to act as they wish. We should also give credit to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, who in April 1999 introduced a Bill which failed through lack of parliamentary time. I shall end my contribution by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, speaking on the proposed measure. He stated that, if the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, should fall,
  "the Government's commitment to ensure that legislation along similar lines will be pursued".—[Official Report, 28/4/99; col. 401.]
  I hope that the Government will now be able to redeem that commitment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It states in the briefing that I am very sympathetic to the aim of this amendment. The truth of the matter is that I am scared stiff of bikers and I would not wish to do anything to offend them. I recall when I was chairman of the central area board of the GLC knowing that if we did anything to offend the drivers of black taxis, they would drive round and round County Hall or Parliament Square until London came to a halt.
  We are indeed sympathetic to an amendment which would give local authorities powers to provide secure parking provisions for motorcycles. We shall need to take away and consider the wording of the amendment, not least because it does not cover the situation after devolution. The Transport (Scotland) Bill contains a provision which applies this amendment to Scotland. We shall certainly take the proposal away and think about it. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am sure that all three people who put forward the amendment are equally delighted with the noble Lord's response. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 196:
  Page 216. line 26, at end insert—
  (" . After section 6 (registration of local services), insert—
  "Variation in registration or alteration in timing of local services.

  6A.—(1) The traffic commissioner may require the variation of the timing of the registration of a proposed bus service or alteration to the timing of an existing bus service where it appears to the commissioner that the primary aim of the proposed change is to disrupt the business of a competitor.

  (2) In exercising his powers under subsection (1) the commissioner shall have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

  (3) A person affected by a decision of the commissioner under subsection (1) may appeal against it to the Transport Tribunal."").

  The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar to that proposed by my noble friends in Standing Committee in the House of Commons. We remain concerned that the opportunity still exists for people to make registrations of new bus services which are not in the public interest—indeed, which are almost against the public interest. They are made deliberately by registering the departure of a bus service a minute or two in front of that of a competitor with the aim of disrupting that competitor's business.
  It is true that the new Competition Act provides better protection against abuse of dominant position and predatory practice. However, we are not convinced about the ability of the Office of Fair Trading to react to such registrations within the time-scales allowed in the Transport Act. It has never moved with speed previously, and often takes so long to act that a bus operator may have been forced off a route or driven out of business before anything is done.
  Under the Competition Act, the penalties for abuse of dominant position are severe, and that might temper the actions of some parties. But it seems that it would be easy for the director-general to draw up some guidance—in the same way as he has attempted to do for ticketing schemes— which could be used by th e traffic commissioner as a guidance to him in the sort of registrations he should accept and which he might decide to defer for consideration.
  Although there has been a lull in bus competition, I am advised that there is more to break out in one of our large cities. That is not in the interests of users who can end up with a very much worse service, often comprising old buses running at irregular intervals. To offer another piece of economic theory—which is always extremely dangerous late at night—the law of competition is that you must try to get your product as close as possible to that of a competitor; in this case, you do not spread the bus journeys out evenly, but try to get as close as possible to a competitor in a competitive situation. That is not in the interests of the customer.
  The purpose of the amendment is to attempt to bring some form of discipline into service registration. I do not say that our proposal is ideal. However, I believe that it should be possible under the new Competition Act for rules to be drawn up to which the traffic commissioner may refer. If he has doubts about whether a proposal is in accordance with the spirit of the Competition Act, he should be allowed to defer decisions on that registration until the situation has been clarified. Administratively, that would be much easier than taking cases by the Director-General of Fair Trading through the various processes laid down in the Competition Act. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to cross swords with an academic transport economist at this hour of night, but I wonder, when the noble Lord talks about the law of competition, whether he has ever heard of niche marketing. I should like to discuss the latter with him, but I shall not take up the time of the Committee at the moment.
  It is true that operators are responsible for registering with traffic commissioners details of bus services 42 days before those services begin. That includes information about routes and timetables. Therefore, operators can be held properly accountable for running the services that they have said they will run and can be penalised if they fail to do so. After all, that is the role of the traffic commissioner. However, the commissioner does not have power to refuse a registration application if it is supported by the necessary information.
  Amendment No. 196 would allow the traffic commissioner to vary the times of a service which was the subject of a registration application, or change the timings of an existing bus service, if he believed that the registration was intended to disrupt the business of another operator. That would require the commissioner to exercise a judgment about the motivation behind a registration and would be a significant extension of his task. It would be quite difficult for the commissioner, given his expertise, staffing and existing powers, to take on such an obligation. The commissioner has power to attach conditions to an operator's licence prohibiting him from providing a specific type of local service if there has been intentional interference—with the operation of a local service provided by another operator, or serious misconduct in relation to the operation of another operator's service. That is a matter of actual bad behaviour rather than a judgment of economic interest and intent of the kind implied by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
  As the noble Lord rightly said, if there is a problem of unfair, anti-competitive behaviour, including one that involves timings that disrupt a competitor's service, that is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading, which has power to act. The Competition Act gives the OFT new powers to act quickly in cases of "abuse of a dominant position" (to use the technical phrase). It may be that the noble Lord remains to be convinced about its ability to act quickly, but it certainly has
  120
  power to do so, which I believe is helpful. In any case, as we said in our consultation document on bus policy we shall amend the registration regulations to remove the current flexibility given to operators to vary timings by up to five minutes—the five-minute rule, as opposed to a gap of one or two minutes spoken to by the noble Lord—without giving any notice to the traffic commissioner or anybody else. It has been argued that the five-minute rule provides scope for anti-competitive activity by an operator. We shall remove that possibility by amending secondary legislation.
  I turn next to Amendment No. 197 which concerns the registration of "on demand" bus services which have no fixed route timetables or stopping places. I am aware that there is increasing demand for more flexibly routed bus services, particularly in rural areas, where the travel needs of passengers and levels of patronage may sometimes be usefully met by relatively unconventional kinds of services. The current registration regulations give the traffic commissioner discretion to waive some of the service particulars that must normally be submitted as part of the registration, provided other details can be submitted which give a complete description of the service. I accept that the regulations would benefit from re-examination and greater provision for flexibility, or at least greater clarity about the flexibility that is already provided.
  I do not believe that this amendment is quite what we need. It provides for "flexible" services to be registered only if they form part of a local authority bus strategy. One is not quite sure what it means—for example, whether a service must be specifically mentioned in a bus strategy—but in any case one can imagine bus services which are not part of a strategy but might benefit from greater flexibility in the regulations. I can assure the noble Lord that we are looking at the scope for amending the secondary legislation. We do not want to open up a loophole that weakens proper registration or the enforcement powers of the commissioner to be compromised. We must still have clear and enforceable commitments from operators on the services that they provide. None the less, it may well be that changes are appropriate and that the way to do it is by means of secondary legislation.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his reply to Amendment No. 197. I am sure he is right that the words "bus strategy" are wrong. Some of the new services introduced with the help of the rural bus grant are subject to such variation of route that they stretch the traffic commissioner's existing powers to their limits. They would benefit considerably from some easement.
  Even at this stage, I ask the Government to consider some discussions between the traffic commissioner and the Office of Fair Trading to ensure that, when bus services are registered which are part of what appears to be a "bus war" between two companies, there is the

  121
  closest and earliest possible liaison between the two so that we do not reach the situation where the public suffer before the Office of Fair Trading acts.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That makes good sense to me.
  Lord Bradshaw: With an assurance along those lines, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 197 and 198 not moved.]
  Schedule 11 agreed to.
  Clause 161 agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before midnight.

  Zambia: Teachers
  Zambia: Teachers
  Armenia: Demining Equipment
  Armenia: Demining Equipment
  EU Enlargement
  EU Enlargement
  US National Missile Defence System
  US National Missile Defence System
  Missile and Terrorist Attack: Threat Reduction
  Missile and Terrorist Attack: Threat Reduction
  Arms Control: NATO Policy
  Arms Control: NATO Policy
  River Danube: Clearance
  River Danube: Clearance
  Theatres: Further Arts Council Review
  Theatres: Further Arts Council Review
  Theatre: National Policy
  Theatre: National Policy
  Theatres: Funding by Local Authorities
  Theatres: Funding by Local Authorities
  Below Average Income Statistics
  Below Average Income Statistics
  Community Sentence Breach: Loss of State Benefits, Scotland
  Community Sentence Breach: Loss of State Benefits, Scotland
  Means Testing
  Means Testing
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  NHS Boards: Appointments
  NHS Boards: Appointments
  Kent and Canterbury Hospital
  Kent and Canterbury Hospital
  HIV/AIDS Treatment
  HIV/AIDS Treatment
  Medical Student Places
  Medical Student Places
  House of Lords: New Office Accommodation
  House of Lords: New Office Accommodation
  Corporal Punishment of Children
  Corporal Punishment of Children
  Children and Young Persons Act 1993, s. 53(2)
  Children and Young Persons Act 1993, s. 53(2)
  Young Offenders Institutions: Sexual Assaults
  Young Offenders Institutions: Sexual Assaults